On the second day of opposition to the Treaty of Lisbon through Commons debate in the UK Parliament, the European Foundation provides a through Article-by-Article analysis of the key issues underlying today’s battle over EU energy policy, which must be put forward by the Opposition in order to oppose the provisions of this Treaty. The major powers that will be surrendered have been listed below – click on an Article to read the analysis.
It is Britain and not the European Union that must retain the right to legislate for and govern the British people through the authority of a Westminster Parliament. The provisions within the Lisbon Treaty must be opposed to prevent the massively detrimental impact on the people of this country. The European project is not working – its new power-grab achieved through the Treaty of Lisbon must be stopped.
The European Foundation: An analysis of the Treaty of Lisbon, Part II, Briefings for opposing amendments to be made to the Treaty of Lisbon on: energy (as debated in House of Commons, Wednesday 30 January 2008)
ENERGY: UK PARLIAMENT MUST LEGALLY SUBMIT TO UNION IF AND WHEN UNION ACTS FIRST [ARTICLE 2C]
ENERGY: WITH AMBIGUOUS “SPIRIT OF SOLIDARITY”, EU SEEKS NEW BASIS FOR COMMON ENERGY POLICY [ARTICLE 100]
ENERGY: UK SURRENDERS DECISIONS OVER ITS GLOBAL ENERGY POLICY TO EU COMMON ENERGY POLICY BASED ON “SPIRIT OF SOLIDARITY” [ARTICLE 176A]
Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Tuesday, 29 January 2008
The Lisbon Treaty: the European Foundation Analysis, Part 1
On the first significant day that the Treaty of Lisbon will be opposed through Commons debate in the UK Parliament, the European Foundation provides a through Article-by-Article analysis of the key issues underlying today’s battles – including fighting cross-border crime, justice, policing, human trafficking, asylum and immigration – which must be put forward by the Opposition in order to oppose the provisions of this Treaty. The major powers that will be surrendered have been listed below - click on an Article to read the analysis.
It is Britain and not the European Union that must retain the right to legislate for and govern the British people through the authority of a Westminster Parliament. The provisions within the Lisbon Treaty must be opposed to prevent the massively detrimental impact on the people of this country. The European project is not working – its new power-grab achieved through the Treaty of Lisbon must be stopped.
The European Foundation: An analysis of the Treaty of Lisbon, Part I: Briefings for opposing amendments to be made to the Treaty of Lisbon on: fighting cross-border crime, justice, policing, human trafficking, asylum and immigration (as debated in House of Commons, Tuesday 29 January 2008)
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: EU CO-DECISION, QMV, AND ECJ JURISDICTION TO BE EXTENDED INTO AREA OF POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION [ARTICLE 61]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: NEW EU SECURITY COMMITTEE WILL BE SET UP TO COORDINATE NATIONAL POLICE, CUSTOMS AND CIVIL PROTECTION AUTHORITIES [ARTICLE 61D]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: MEMBER STATES EXPECTED TO DEVELOP SUPER-UNION COOPERATION IN FIELD OF NATIONAL SECURITY [ARTICLE 61F]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: UNION COMPETENCES EXTENDED TO FREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNTS, AND FINANCIAL ASSETS IN FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM [ARTICLE 61 H]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: EU GAINS NEW COMPETENCIES IN UK ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [ARTICLE 65]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN ABOLITION OF PILLAR STRUCTURE WILL LEAD TO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN UK CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM [ARTICLE 69A]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: UNION TO DEFINE CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENCES & MINIMUM RULES TO OVERRIDE UK CRIMINAL LAWS AND SENTENCING PROCEDURES [ARTICLE 69b]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: EU WILL BEGIN TO INTERFERE IN CRIME PREVENTION BEYOND EXISTING CROSS-BORDER MEASURES [ARTICLE 69C]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: BRITISH JUDICIARY MUST SUBMIT TO EUROJUST INTERFERENCE, EU CRMINAL INVESTIGATIONS & MASSIVE INTERVENTIONS IN PROSECUTING SERIOUS CRIME [ARTICLE 69D]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: TREATY CREATES ROLE OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO COMBAT CRIMES AGAINST THE UNION [ARTICLE 69E]
JUSTICE: TREATY GIVES EUROPEAN COUNCIL POWER TO DEFINE OBJECTIVES FOR UK LEGISLATION ON FREEDOM , SECURITY AND JUSTICE [ARTICLE 61 A]
JUSTICE: NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE EU POLICE AND JUSTICE COMPLY WITH NATIONAL AUTHORITY [ARTICLE 61B]
JUSTICE: COUNCIL WILL ADOPT NEW MEASURES TO EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY IN AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE [ARTICLE 61C]
JUSTICE: EU COUNCIL WILL ENSURE ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ON POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION MEASURES [ARTICLE 61G]
JUSTICE: PROTOCOL ISSUES PRESSURE FOR THE UK TO OPT IN OR FACE FINANCIAL PENALTY [ Protocol on Transitional Provisions ]
JUSTICE: PROTOCOL SEVERS THE UK RIGHT TO OPT OUT THROUGH THREAT OF POLITICAL COMPULSION OR FACE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL PENALTY [Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security andJustice]
POLICING: UNION POLICING MEASURES WILL EVENTUALLY BE REACHED THROUGH ENHANCED COOPERATION AND CRIMINAL DATA WILL NOT HAVE PROTECTION [ARTICLE 69F]
POLICING: TREATY CREATES NEW POWERS FOR EUROPEAN POLICE FORCE TO COORDINATE, ORGANISE AND UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS BEYOND CROSS-BORDER CRIMES [ARTICLE 69G]
POLICING: COUNCIL SHALL CONTINUE TO SET CONDITIONS OF POLICE COOPERATION [ARTICLE 69H]
POLICING: EU TO INTERFERE IN MEMBER STATE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTAINING LAW AND ORDER [ARTICLE 61 E]
HUMAN TRAFFICKING: EU EXTENDS FURTHER CONTROL OVER COMMON IMMIGRATION POLICY TO WHICH THE UK WILL BECOME SUBJECT [ARTICLE 63a]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: MEMBER STATES WILL SURRENDER LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE ON BORDER CHECKS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS [ARTICLE 61 I]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: UK SURRENDERS INCREMENTAL POWERS ON BORDER CHECKS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION [ARTICLE 62]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: UK SURRENDERS MASSIVE CONTROLS TO COMMON ASYLUM SYSTEM, THE LOSS OF VETO IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES WILL BE IMPOSED [ARTICLE 63]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: TREATY ENSURES SOLIDARITY PRINCIPLE WILL GOVERN OVER IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND BORDER CONTROL POLICY [ARTICLE 63b]
It is Britain and not the European Union that must retain the right to legislate for and govern the British people through the authority of a Westminster Parliament. The provisions within the Lisbon Treaty must be opposed to prevent the massively detrimental impact on the people of this country. The European project is not working – its new power-grab achieved through the Treaty of Lisbon must be stopped.
The European Foundation: An analysis of the Treaty of Lisbon, Part I: Briefings for opposing amendments to be made to the Treaty of Lisbon on: fighting cross-border crime, justice, policing, human trafficking, asylum and immigration (as debated in House of Commons, Tuesday 29 January 2008)
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: EU CO-DECISION, QMV, AND ECJ JURISDICTION TO BE EXTENDED INTO AREA OF POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION [ARTICLE 61]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: NEW EU SECURITY COMMITTEE WILL BE SET UP TO COORDINATE NATIONAL POLICE, CUSTOMS AND CIVIL PROTECTION AUTHORITIES [ARTICLE 61D]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: MEMBER STATES EXPECTED TO DEVELOP SUPER-UNION COOPERATION IN FIELD OF NATIONAL SECURITY [ARTICLE 61F]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: UNION COMPETENCES EXTENDED TO FREEZING OF BANK ACCOUNTS, AND FINANCIAL ASSETS IN FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM [ARTICLE 61 H]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: EU GAINS NEW COMPETENCIES IN UK ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE [ARTICLE 65]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN ABOLITION OF PILLAR STRUCTURE WILL LEAD TO FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN UK CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM [ARTICLE 69A]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: UNION TO DEFINE CERTAIN CRIMINAL OFFENCES & MINIMUM RULES TO OVERRIDE UK CRIMINAL LAWS AND SENTENCING PROCEDURES [ARTICLE 69b]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: EU WILL BEGIN TO INTERFERE IN CRIME PREVENTION BEYOND EXISTING CROSS-BORDER MEASURES [ARTICLE 69C]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: BRITISH JUDICIARY MUST SUBMIT TO EUROJUST INTERFERENCE, EU CRMINAL INVESTIGATIONS & MASSIVE INTERVENTIONS IN PROSECUTING SERIOUS CRIME [ARTICLE 69D]
FIGHTING CROSS-BORDER CRIME: TREATY CREATES ROLE OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR TO COMBAT CRIMES AGAINST THE UNION [ARTICLE 69E]
JUSTICE: TREATY GIVES EUROPEAN COUNCIL POWER TO DEFINE OBJECTIVES FOR UK LEGISLATION ON FREEDOM , SECURITY AND JUSTICE [ARTICLE 61 A]
JUSTICE: NATIONAL PARLIAMENTS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE EU POLICE AND JUSTICE COMPLY WITH NATIONAL AUTHORITY [ARTICLE 61B]
JUSTICE: COUNCIL WILL ADOPT NEW MEASURES TO EVALUATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY IN AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE [ARTICLE 61C]
JUSTICE: EU COUNCIL WILL ENSURE ADMINISTRATIVE COOPERATION BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ON POLICE AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION MEASURES [ARTICLE 61G]
JUSTICE: PROTOCOL ISSUES PRESSURE FOR THE UK TO OPT IN OR FACE FINANCIAL PENALTY [ Protocol on Transitional Provisions ]
JUSTICE: PROTOCOL SEVERS THE UK RIGHT TO OPT OUT THROUGH THREAT OF POLITICAL COMPULSION OR FACE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL PENALTY [Protocol on the Position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security andJustice]
POLICING: UNION POLICING MEASURES WILL EVENTUALLY BE REACHED THROUGH ENHANCED COOPERATION AND CRIMINAL DATA WILL NOT HAVE PROTECTION [ARTICLE 69F]
POLICING: TREATY CREATES NEW POWERS FOR EUROPEAN POLICE FORCE TO COORDINATE, ORGANISE AND UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATIONS BEYOND CROSS-BORDER CRIMES [ARTICLE 69G]
POLICING: COUNCIL SHALL CONTINUE TO SET CONDITIONS OF POLICE COOPERATION [ARTICLE 69H]
POLICING: EU TO INTERFERE IN MEMBER STATE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTAINING LAW AND ORDER [ARTICLE 61 E]
HUMAN TRAFFICKING: EU EXTENDS FURTHER CONTROL OVER COMMON IMMIGRATION POLICY TO WHICH THE UK WILL BECOME SUBJECT [ARTICLE 63a]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: MEMBER STATES WILL SURRENDER LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE ON BORDER CHECKS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION AND JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS [ARTICLE 61 I]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: UK SURRENDERS INCREMENTAL POWERS ON BORDER CHECKS, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION [ARTICLE 62]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: UK SURRENDERS MASSIVE CONTROLS TO COMMON ASYLUM SYSTEM, THE LOSS OF VETO IN CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND FINANCIAL PENALTIES WILL BE IMPOSED [ARTICLE 63]
ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY: TREATY ENSURES SOLIDARITY PRINCIPLE WILL GOVERN OVER IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND BORDER CONTROL POLICY [ARTICLE 63b]
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Lisbon Treaty: “Fundamental Change” in Britain’s Relationship with EU
Whilst the Labour Government’s winning of a second reading on the EU (Amendment) Bill with a comfortable 138 majority in the Commons on Monday night was only to be expected – given the massive Government majority – the pursuit of the Lisbon Treaty typifies Gordon Brown and David Miliband’s stupefying approach to managing UK affairs. The denial of the referendum will be Labour’s great mistake. It is of some consolation that the grilling from the Tories over the Lisbon Treaty is yet to come.
The Labour Government have massively failed the British people and as the people realise that the ability to manage their everyday affairs, their economy, their legislation and indeed their own Parliament in Westminster as a decision-making body has been given over to a swarm of faceless cowards in Brussels, they will first be boiling with anger and second, abandoning their trust in salvaging a workable politics through Westminster. Brown’s Government has abandoned the very trust in Parliament it said it would restore.
In Britain’s last general election, of the 44 million people who were eligible to vote, only 27 million people actually did so, and of the sector of society that has grown up with Europe as an unchallengeable facet of modern government – those between 18 to 25 – only one third bothered to vote at all. The people have witnessed the surrender of their country and responded appropriately.
The Lisbon Treaty states Articles with immense constitutional significance amounting to a “fundamental change” to the way in which the United Kingdom is governed. As Conservative MP, Bill Cash (Chairman of the European Foundation) said to the Foreign Secretary in the Commons yesterday: “The Foreign Secretary says that there is no fundamental change. How can he claim that there is no fundamental change in the structure of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union by virtue of the Bill and this treaty? It is absolutely clear from the Government’s own statement that there is a merger of the existing treaties, the abolition of the European Community in favour of a European Union and a legal personality, and that the structure of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is absolutely and totally changed by virtue of these proposals.”
The Labour Government have massively failed the British people and as the people realise that the ability to manage their everyday affairs, their economy, their legislation and indeed their own Parliament in Westminster as a decision-making body has been given over to a swarm of faceless cowards in Brussels, they will first be boiling with anger and second, abandoning their trust in salvaging a workable politics through Westminster. Brown’s Government has abandoned the very trust in Parliament it said it would restore.
In Britain’s last general election, of the 44 million people who were eligible to vote, only 27 million people actually did so, and of the sector of society that has grown up with Europe as an unchallengeable facet of modern government – those between 18 to 25 – only one third bothered to vote at all. The people have witnessed the surrender of their country and responded appropriately.
The Lisbon Treaty states Articles with immense constitutional significance amounting to a “fundamental change” to the way in which the United Kingdom is governed. As Conservative MP, Bill Cash (Chairman of the European Foundation) said to the Foreign Secretary in the Commons yesterday: “The Foreign Secretary says that there is no fundamental change. How can he claim that there is no fundamental change in the structure of the United Kingdom in relation to the European Union by virtue of the Bill and this treaty? It is absolutely clear from the Government’s own statement that there is a merger of the existing treaties, the abolition of the European Community in favour of a European Union and a legal personality, and that the structure of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is absolutely and totally changed by virtue of these proposals.”
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty
Greg Hands MP. Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty. @ CentreRight. 22/01/2008.
James McConalogue. Re: Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty @ CentreRight. 22/01/2008.
Greg Hands MP. Re: Re: Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty @ CentreRight. 22/01/2008.
James McConalogue. Re: Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty @ CentreRight. 22/01/2008.
Greg Hands MP. Re: Re: Bizarre new LibDem position on the EU Treaty @ CentreRight. 22/01/2008.
Monday, 21 January 2008
“Not to honour the referendum … is to treat the people of this country like fools”
James McConalogue. “Not to honour the referendum … is to treat the people of this country like fools” @ CentreRight. 21/01/2008.
Friday, 18 January 2008
“A highly significant shift in Tory Party history”
James McConalogue. “A highly significant shift in Tory Party history” @ CentreRight. 15/01/2008.
Tuesday, 15 January 2008
EU do you think you are kidding Mr. Brown?
James McConalogue. EU do you think you are kidding Mr. Brown? @ CentreRight. 15/01/2008.
Monday, 14 January 2008
Commission threatens (again) to take the UK before the ECJ
-- Margarida Vasconcelos. Full text from The European Journal --
On 28 November 2007, the European Commission took the decision to send reasoned opinions to several Member States, including the UK, for failure to fully transpose into national law a Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements. The Directive applies within EU Member States’ territorial waters, in their Exclusive Economic Zones and on the high seas. It is also provided that the Directive applies irrespective of a vessel’s flag. The Directive calls for adequate penalties to be imposed on whomever is responsible to ship source discharges of polluting substances at sea when committed with intent or serious negligence. The Member States in question have not introduced into their national legislation penalties against those responsible for polluting discharges at sea. The deadline to transpose the Directive into national law was 1 April 2007.
The reasoned opinion is the last procedure before the Commission can bring a Member State to the European Court of Justice. It should be mentioned that the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) is seeking a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners and Others (coalition of shipping industry interests) to review the validity of the EU directive. The action was brought against the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for Transport in connection with the intended implementation of the directive. The issues raised are whether Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2005/35 which lay down criminal liability for discharge violations, are compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, acceded by the Community in 1998, and the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (‘Marpol 73/78’). The claimants are particular concerned with the uncertainty which was raised as the directive appears to provide for a stricter liability standard than does Marpol 73/78. While the Marpol 73/78 case provides for “at least recklessness and knowledge that damage will probably result” under the directive, “serious negligence” is sufficient. Moreover, it was asked whether the standard of liability of serious negligence is compatible with the principle of legal certainty. The Advocate General Kokott delivered her Opinion on 20 November [Case C-308/06]. The Advocate General concluded that the “examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to bring into question the validity of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements.” The ECJ is very likely to follow the Advocate General’s Opinion.
On 29 November, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to 10 Member States, including the UK, for not having notified the Commission of the measures taken to transpose into national law the Directive 2005/45/EC on the mutual recognition of seafarers’ certificates issued by the Member States. The Directive provides for a recognition procedure for the recognition by Member States of seafarers’ certificates issued in the EU in observance of present Community provisions. It also set ups a regular audit of the national marine training and certification systems in order to make sure that the Member States respect existing standards of training and certification. The Directive should have been transposed by Member States into their national law by 20 October 2007.
On 28 November 2007, the European Commission took the decision to send reasoned opinions to several Member States, including the UK, for failure to fully transpose into national law a Directive 2005/35/EC on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements. The Directive applies within EU Member States’ territorial waters, in their Exclusive Economic Zones and on the high seas. It is also provided that the Directive applies irrespective of a vessel’s flag. The Directive calls for adequate penalties to be imposed on whomever is responsible to ship source discharges of polluting substances at sea when committed with intent or serious negligence. The Member States in question have not introduced into their national legislation penalties against those responsible for polluting discharges at sea. The deadline to transpose the Directive into national law was 1 April 2007.
The reasoned opinion is the last procedure before the Commission can bring a Member State to the European Court of Justice. It should be mentioned that the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) is seeking a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners and Others (coalition of shipping industry interests) to review the validity of the EU directive. The action was brought against the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State for Transport in connection with the intended implementation of the directive. The issues raised are whether Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2005/35 which lay down criminal liability for discharge violations, are compatible with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, acceded by the Community in 1998, and the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (‘Marpol 73/78’). The claimants are particular concerned with the uncertainty which was raised as the directive appears to provide for a stricter liability standard than does Marpol 73/78. While the Marpol 73/78 case provides for “at least recklessness and knowledge that damage will probably result” under the directive, “serious negligence” is sufficient. Moreover, it was asked whether the standard of liability of serious negligence is compatible with the principle of legal certainty. The Advocate General Kokott delivered her Opinion on 20 November [Case C-308/06]. The Advocate General concluded that the “examination of the questions referred has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to bring into question the validity of Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements.” The ECJ is very likely to follow the Advocate General’s Opinion.
On 29 November, the Commission decided to send a letter of formal notice to 10 Member States, including the UK, for not having notified the Commission of the measures taken to transpose into national law the Directive 2005/45/EC on the mutual recognition of seafarers’ certificates issued by the Member States. The Directive provides for a recognition procedure for the recognition by Member States of seafarers’ certificates issued in the EU in observance of present Community provisions. It also set ups a regular audit of the national marine training and certification systems in order to make sure that the Member States respect existing standards of training and certification. The Directive should have been transposed by Member States into their national law by 20 October 2007.
Is Hain a europhile worth taking to the gallows?
James McConalogue. Is Hain a europhile worth taking to the gallows? @ CentreRight. 14/01/2008.
Friday, 11 January 2008
Mr. Osborne’s Challenge – How Low Do You Go?
James McConalogue. Mr. Osborne’s Challenge – How Low Do You Go? @ CentreRight. 11/01/2008.
A lesson on British Sovereignty
James McConalogue A lesson on British Sovereignty. @ CentreRight. 10/01/2008
Thursday, 10 January 2008
CAP Health Check
-- Margarida Vasconcelos. Full text from The European Journal --
On 20 November, the European Commission adopted a Communication “Preparing for the ‘Health Check’ of the CAP reform.” The Health Check is proposed through several adjustments to the CAP, with the aim of strengthening the 2003 reforms and paving the way for the 2013 reform. The Commission proposes to simplify the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and to make it more effective and efficient. The Commission has suggested increasing “the rate of decoupling in those countries which opted in a number of farm sectors to maintain the link between subsidy and production, although coupled support may still play a role in regions where production is small-scale but of particular economic or environmental importance.”
The Commission has proposed a case-by case analysis in order to identify the possible risks from a move into full decoupling and the probable alternatives. According to the Commission, the SPS has made the distribution of payments more evident than before its introduction and has raised calls for limiting the level of support received by large farmers. The Commission is considering the gradual reduction of the support level as overall payments to big farmers which might involve “a 10 per cent reduction in payments for all farms receiving more than €100,000.” This policy would have to distinguish between multiple-owner farms with many employees and single-owner farms. For smaller payments, the Commission suggests the introduction of a minimum level of annual payments or to increase the amount of land a farmer has to own before he qualifies for EU support from the present level of 0.3 hectares. According to the Commissioner for agriculture “Small claims from genuine farmers should still be paid. What we want to take out of the system are pseudo-farmers, for example, the claim made by a dentist who keeps a horse on a patch of grass behind his house.” According to the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales (NFU) "the suggestion of scaling back larger single farm payments, however seductive, is … misguided … it would introduce more complexity instead of simplicity, especially as farmers would be bound to try to adjust their businesses in order to avoid its impact." According to the Commissioner for Agriculture “the health check should make market support instruments still more relevant in a globalised world by phasing out export refunds, limiting intervention buying of cereals to wheat, abolishing the "obsolete" set-aside system and preparing a "soft landing" for when dairy quotas expire in 2015.”
The Commission also put forward a variety of possible ways to deal with climate change, bio-energy and water management in the Health Check. Moreover, the Commission pointed out that the CAP budget is set until 2013 therefore the only way to strengthen Rural Development funds is through increased co-financed compulsory modulation. Hence, the Commission is proposing to increase the rate of “modulation” meaning the decrease of direct payments to all farms which are receiving more than €5,000 per year and the transfer of the money into the Rural Development budget. The Commission will develop during 2007 and 2008 its approach to the budgetary review 2008/2009, Mid-Term Review of the European Union’s Financial Perspectives and the Health Check represents a preparatory action within this framework. Obviously, farm subsidies and UK rebate will be central to that review.
In the spring of 2008, the Commission will put forward legislative proposals although this blueprint encloses a number of concrete suggestions. The Commission presented its Communication to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26-27 November 2007. Some Member States have shown their support for measures to achieve the total decoupling of aid in order to increase competitiveness, while others favour retaining partial coupling, mainly for stock farming (suckler cows and sheep). In what concerns capping of payments, some Member States perceive it as a way of better distributing aid, by limiting the amount of aid for large holdings (but some Member States have shown their concern about such measure). According to the EU Observer, Peter Baco, a Slovak MEP, said "It is a totally unacceptable idea. In our region, it would be an attack against farmers who are the most effective and successful and it would lead to a move by most of them to split up into smaller farms so that they can apply for subsidies." The biggest EU farmers are concentrated in the UK and Germany therefore those countries are most likely to be affected by the Commission’s plans. Hence, the UK which has been in favour of CAP reform is against such plans. According to EU Business, a British diplomat said “Reducing subsidies to big farms, which often include aristocratic landowners in Britain, would only compel them to split up their businesses to get under the threshold …. Having encouraged farmers to be more market-oriented and efficient, it’s perverse to put in place a policy that would encourage them to do the opposite and split up." Some Member States are not sure about the need for the Commission suggestion of strengthening the second pillar (Rural Development) by gradually increasing compulsory modulation to reach 13 per cent in 2013 whereas others believed that the funds transferred in this way should continue to be earmarked for agriculture. According to the NFU, the “European Commission CAP Health Check doesn’t go far enough in streamlining and simplifying the policy.” CAP has consumed around 40 per cent of the EU’s budget, its system of farm subsidies have came at the expense of farmers in the developing world, and obviously much more must be done.
On 20 November, the European Commission adopted a Communication “Preparing for the ‘Health Check’ of the CAP reform.” The Health Check is proposed through several adjustments to the CAP, with the aim of strengthening the 2003 reforms and paving the way for the 2013 reform. The Commission proposes to simplify the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) and to make it more effective and efficient. The Commission has suggested increasing “the rate of decoupling in those countries which opted in a number of farm sectors to maintain the link between subsidy and production, although coupled support may still play a role in regions where production is small-scale but of particular economic or environmental importance.”
The Commission has proposed a case-by case analysis in order to identify the possible risks from a move into full decoupling and the probable alternatives. According to the Commission, the SPS has made the distribution of payments more evident than before its introduction and has raised calls for limiting the level of support received by large farmers. The Commission is considering the gradual reduction of the support level as overall payments to big farmers which might involve “a 10 per cent reduction in payments for all farms receiving more than €100,000.” This policy would have to distinguish between multiple-owner farms with many employees and single-owner farms. For smaller payments, the Commission suggests the introduction of a minimum level of annual payments or to increase the amount of land a farmer has to own before he qualifies for EU support from the present level of 0.3 hectares. According to the Commissioner for agriculture “Small claims from genuine farmers should still be paid. What we want to take out of the system are pseudo-farmers, for example, the claim made by a dentist who keeps a horse on a patch of grass behind his house.” According to the National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales (NFU) "the suggestion of scaling back larger single farm payments, however seductive, is … misguided … it would introduce more complexity instead of simplicity, especially as farmers would be bound to try to adjust their businesses in order to avoid its impact." According to the Commissioner for Agriculture “the health check should make market support instruments still more relevant in a globalised world by phasing out export refunds, limiting intervention buying of cereals to wheat, abolishing the "obsolete" set-aside system and preparing a "soft landing" for when dairy quotas expire in 2015.”
The Commission also put forward a variety of possible ways to deal with climate change, bio-energy and water management in the Health Check. Moreover, the Commission pointed out that the CAP budget is set until 2013 therefore the only way to strengthen Rural Development funds is through increased co-financed compulsory modulation. Hence, the Commission is proposing to increase the rate of “modulation” meaning the decrease of direct payments to all farms which are receiving more than €5,000 per year and the transfer of the money into the Rural Development budget. The Commission will develop during 2007 and 2008 its approach to the budgetary review 2008/2009, Mid-Term Review of the European Union’s Financial Perspectives and the Health Check represents a preparatory action within this framework. Obviously, farm subsidies and UK rebate will be central to that review.
In the spring of 2008, the Commission will put forward legislative proposals although this blueprint encloses a number of concrete suggestions. The Commission presented its Communication to the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 26-27 November 2007. Some Member States have shown their support for measures to achieve the total decoupling of aid in order to increase competitiveness, while others favour retaining partial coupling, mainly for stock farming (suckler cows and sheep). In what concerns capping of payments, some Member States perceive it as a way of better distributing aid, by limiting the amount of aid for large holdings (but some Member States have shown their concern about such measure). According to the EU Observer, Peter Baco, a Slovak MEP, said "It is a totally unacceptable idea. In our region, it would be an attack against farmers who are the most effective and successful and it would lead to a move by most of them to split up into smaller farms so that they can apply for subsidies." The biggest EU farmers are concentrated in the UK and Germany therefore those countries are most likely to be affected by the Commission’s plans. Hence, the UK which has been in favour of CAP reform is against such plans. According to EU Business, a British diplomat said “Reducing subsidies to big farms, which often include aristocratic landowners in Britain, would only compel them to split up their businesses to get under the threshold …. Having encouraged farmers to be more market-oriented and efficient, it’s perverse to put in place a policy that would encourage them to do the opposite and split up." Some Member States are not sure about the need for the Commission suggestion of strengthening the second pillar (Rural Development) by gradually increasing compulsory modulation to reach 13 per cent in 2013 whereas others believed that the funds transferred in this way should continue to be earmarked for agriculture. According to the NFU, the “European Commission CAP Health Check doesn’t go far enough in streamlining and simplifying the policy.” CAP has consumed around 40 per cent of the EU’s budget, its system of farm subsidies have came at the expense of farmers in the developing world, and obviously much more must be done.
Lisbon Treaty – Opt-Outs, Opt-Ins and a Useless Protocol
-- Margarida Vasconcelos. Full text from The European Journal --
The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) produced its second report at the end of last year, European Union Intergovernmental Conference: Follow-up. The Committee concentrated the bulk of its work on the Government’s red lines as they were deemed by the Government as prerequisites for agreement to the Reform Treaty. The Committee has stressed the lack of transparency on the IGC convening. According to the Committee, “the process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate, until it has become too late for such debate to have any effect on the agreements which have been reached.” The ESC remains concerned that a “legal obligation can be inferred” from provisions on the role of national parliaments and “given its constitutional significance, this is not an issue where any ambiguity is acceptable.”
In concerns over the Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the United Kingdom, the Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy, has made clear that the Protocol is not an opt-out from the Charter and the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, confirmed that the Charter would be legally binding. According to the ESC the Protocol will not prevent the courts of being bound by the ECJ’s interpretations based on the Charter. Hence, “if the ECJ gives a ruling in a case arising outside the UK on a measure which also applies in the UK, the duty to interpret the measure in accordance with that ruling arises, not under the Charter, but under the UK’s other Treaty obligations.” According to the ESC “the only way of ensuring that the Charter does not affect UK law in any way is to make clear, (…), that the Protocol takes effect “notwithstanding the Treaties or Union law generally.” In what concerns, Justice and Home Affairs the new transitional measures introduced in the draft Reform Treaty in October, the Committee believes they “weaken the UK’s position by making decisions not to opt into a measure the subject of unpredictable consequences and risk.”
The Minister for Europe as well as the Foreign Secretary has explained to the ESC that “the new transitional provisions on the UK’s opt-in arrangements concerning amendments and Schengen building measures as well as the right of the United Kingdom to “opt out” of measures under Article 10 of Protocol 10 were included at the UK’s “express insistence.” Under Article 4a of the Protocol, on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the area of freedom, security and justice, if the Council decides, by QMV and without the participation of the UK, that an existing measure becomes “inoperable” and if the UK does not participate in its amendment, the existing measure will not be binding or applicable to it. As the ESC has asserted “the UK retains the final right to choose, but it seems us that the risk of losing the benefit of an existing measure, because of a choice not to participate in its amendment, by virtue of a decision in which the UK cannot take part, must put at least some pressure on the UK to opt in.” Moreover, the Council acting by QMV may determine that the UK shall bear the direct financial consequences incurred as a result of the cessation of its participation in a measure. The ESC has also pointed out “This must import some measure of financial risk, not present before, into a decision not to opt in and we question whether it is in the UK’s interests to be exposed to such risk.”
The UK ‘opt-in’ only ensures protection when the UK chooses not to opt in. If the UK decides to opt-in there is no right to opt-out and in some cases, prevent the use of the ‘emergency brake.’ The ESC has noticed that the UK will lose protection “every time jurisdiction is transferred from UK courts to jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice and the Commission.” The ESC considered that all these matters “should be debated on the Floor of the House before the Treaty is signed.” Bill Cash, MP, has stressed in his minority report, published alongside the Committee report, that “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.”
The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee (ESC) produced its second report at the end of last year, European Union Intergovernmental Conference: Follow-up. The Committee concentrated the bulk of its work on the Government’s red lines as they were deemed by the Government as prerequisites for agreement to the Reform Treaty. The Committee has stressed the lack of transparency on the IGC convening. According to the Committee, “the process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate, until it has become too late for such debate to have any effect on the agreements which have been reached.” The ESC remains concerned that a “legal obligation can be inferred” from provisions on the role of national parliaments and “given its constitutional significance, this is not an issue where any ambiguity is acceptable.”
In concerns over the Protocol on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to the United Kingdom, the Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy, has made clear that the Protocol is not an opt-out from the Charter and the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, confirmed that the Charter would be legally binding. According to the ESC the Protocol will not prevent the courts of being bound by the ECJ’s interpretations based on the Charter. Hence, “if the ECJ gives a ruling in a case arising outside the UK on a measure which also applies in the UK, the duty to interpret the measure in accordance with that ruling arises, not under the Charter, but under the UK’s other Treaty obligations.” According to the ESC “the only way of ensuring that the Charter does not affect UK law in any way is to make clear, (…), that the Protocol takes effect “notwithstanding the Treaties or Union law generally.” In what concerns, Justice and Home Affairs the new transitional measures introduced in the draft Reform Treaty in October, the Committee believes they “weaken the UK’s position by making decisions not to opt into a measure the subject of unpredictable consequences and risk.”
The Minister for Europe as well as the Foreign Secretary has explained to the ESC that “the new transitional provisions on the UK’s opt-in arrangements concerning amendments and Schengen building measures as well as the right of the United Kingdom to “opt out” of measures under Article 10 of Protocol 10 were included at the UK’s “express insistence.” Under Article 4a of the Protocol, on the position of the UK and Ireland with respect to the area of freedom, security and justice, if the Council decides, by QMV and without the participation of the UK, that an existing measure becomes “inoperable” and if the UK does not participate in its amendment, the existing measure will not be binding or applicable to it. As the ESC has asserted “the UK retains the final right to choose, but it seems us that the risk of losing the benefit of an existing measure, because of a choice not to participate in its amendment, by virtue of a decision in which the UK cannot take part, must put at least some pressure on the UK to opt in.” Moreover, the Council acting by QMV may determine that the UK shall bear the direct financial consequences incurred as a result of the cessation of its participation in a measure. The ESC has also pointed out “This must import some measure of financial risk, not present before, into a decision not to opt in and we question whether it is in the UK’s interests to be exposed to such risk.”
The UK ‘opt-in’ only ensures protection when the UK chooses not to opt in. If the UK decides to opt-in there is no right to opt-out and in some cases, prevent the use of the ‘emergency brake.’ The ESC has noticed that the UK will lose protection “every time jurisdiction is transferred from UK courts to jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice and the Commission.” The ESC considered that all these matters “should be debated on the Floor of the House before the Treaty is signed.” Bill Cash, MP, has stressed in his minority report, published alongside the Committee report, that “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.”
Tuesday, 8 January 2008
Brown's Squandered Billions
James McConalogue reviews a new book by Matthew Elliott and Lee Rotherham ‘The Bumper Book of Government Waste 2008’, published by Harriman House, 2007, 332pp, ISBN 1-905-64148-6 [The European Journal offer: £6.49]
--Full text from The European Journal --
Matthew Elliott and Lee Rotherham – both of whom have a healthy relationship with the European Foundation – have written a superb update on government waste for 2008. They set themselves an ambitious task by attempting to discover how much of the government’s current £587 billion budget is being wasted. Through their research, they have uncovered £101 billion of government misspending. To put that in perspective, and to assure you that this is not merely a groundless cynical attack on the Labour Government, the book estimates that with that money the Government could cut the tax burden of every household by over £4,000 a year. Thus, it is substantial and it translates the uncovered burdens into the everyday cost for each individual. This is important since not even in “expert” Government analyses is such waste or cost in expenditure ever converted back into what such multi-billion state expenditures mean for the taxpayers.
It entwines the styles of each writer – Lee Rotherham, with jovial wit emphasising the ludicrous and disastrous nature of public expenditure whilst Matthew Elliott, presses his focus on what this unbelievable waste means to the British taxpayers’ – delivering a truly compelling guide which is not only able to bridge the personal and political facts of misspending schemes, but directly indicates what government misspending has amounted to in Britain and how this hits your pockets. The examples of where the money has been misspent are breathtaking and leave you first, stunned, second, hacked-off and third, wanting to do something about it. Of course, there is nothing you can do about it – until, possibly the next election – so it tends to leave you with a cynical and morose feeling well after you have put the book down. The jacket of the book even advertises this painful feeling: ‘If you’re a British taxpayer, you need to read this book – even though it will hurt!’
Tragic examples of misspending, included within the book, include:
• £280,000 on a conference addressed by Blair and Brown on value for money in the public services
• £400 million on 'cost control' for the Olympic Games
• £3 million by tax inspectors at HM Revenue and Customs on flights, including £2.1 million on flights to Scotland
• Over £16 million on the creation and upkeep of VIP lounges in Heathrow and Gatwick despite the fact they are not government-owned
• £100,000 on assessing whether £400,000 reportedly spent on modern art for seven hospitals was money well spent
This makes very interesting reading by itself, before we even make it onto the taxpayer contributions towards the failing European Union. As this fifth section clearly states, the EU Industry Commissioner had already admitted that that the overall burden of regulation was costing the EU approximately €600 billion a year. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that red tape has cost British business £55.66 billion; and that 72. 5 per cent (£40 billion) of this is derived from EU red tape. They discover how the Commission miscalculated the asset value of its buildings by €188 million, total lease liabilities by €254 million and an accumulated depreciation value by €23 million. Nothing escapes the precision, analytical accuracy, methodological exactitude or the authors’ devotion to uncovering the financial failures of the European institutions throughout their research. They also report the €26 billion pension burden in the EU which, so far, has not been accounted for. (And all this comes, rather embarrassingly, at a time when the EU Court of Auditors’ failed the accounts for the thirteenth year running). Within this context, Rotherham and Elliott provide plenty of damning examples on the degree (cost) of waste and the outrageous use of resources within the European institutions. What it does achieve on the way to convincing the reader that Brussels is very much a wasteful socalist machine that Britain would be better off without, at least in its current state, is provide an effective bridge between the personal and political through the use of anecodotes and experiences to show exactly how the governmental machinery of the European Union bureaucracy is “skewed to suppress.” Rotherham and Elliott are rather adept at pushing those issues to the forefront, with details of Brussels form-filling, staff credit card fraud, through to the dumping of 800,000 tonnes of dead fish under the demands of the Common Fisheries Policy, which all becomes part and parcel of the Orwellian lunacy, that is the ideology of the European Union.
--Full text from The European Journal --
Matthew Elliott and Lee Rotherham – both of whom have a healthy relationship with the European Foundation – have written a superb update on government waste for 2008. They set themselves an ambitious task by attempting to discover how much of the government’s current £587 billion budget is being wasted. Through their research, they have uncovered £101 billion of government misspending. To put that in perspective, and to assure you that this is not merely a groundless cynical attack on the Labour Government, the book estimates that with that money the Government could cut the tax burden of every household by over £4,000 a year. Thus, it is substantial and it translates the uncovered burdens into the everyday cost for each individual. This is important since not even in “expert” Government analyses is such waste or cost in expenditure ever converted back into what such multi-billion state expenditures mean for the taxpayers.
It entwines the styles of each writer – Lee Rotherham, with jovial wit emphasising the ludicrous and disastrous nature of public expenditure whilst Matthew Elliott, presses his focus on what this unbelievable waste means to the British taxpayers’ – delivering a truly compelling guide which is not only able to bridge the personal and political facts of misspending schemes, but directly indicates what government misspending has amounted to in Britain and how this hits your pockets. The examples of where the money has been misspent are breathtaking and leave you first, stunned, second, hacked-off and third, wanting to do something about it. Of course, there is nothing you can do about it – until, possibly the next election – so it tends to leave you with a cynical and morose feeling well after you have put the book down. The jacket of the book even advertises this painful feeling: ‘If you’re a British taxpayer, you need to read this book – even though it will hurt!’
Tragic examples of misspending, included within the book, include:
• £280,000 on a conference addressed by Blair and Brown on value for money in the public services
• £400 million on 'cost control' for the Olympic Games
• £3 million by tax inspectors at HM Revenue and Customs on flights, including £2.1 million on flights to Scotland
• Over £16 million on the creation and upkeep of VIP lounges in Heathrow and Gatwick despite the fact they are not government-owned
• £100,000 on assessing whether £400,000 reportedly spent on modern art for seven hospitals was money well spent
This makes very interesting reading by itself, before we even make it onto the taxpayer contributions towards the failing European Union. As this fifth section clearly states, the EU Industry Commissioner had already admitted that that the overall burden of regulation was costing the EU approximately €600 billion a year. The British Chambers of Commerce estimates that red tape has cost British business £55.66 billion; and that 72. 5 per cent (£40 billion) of this is derived from EU red tape. They discover how the Commission miscalculated the asset value of its buildings by €188 million, total lease liabilities by €254 million and an accumulated depreciation value by €23 million. Nothing escapes the precision, analytical accuracy, methodological exactitude or the authors’ devotion to uncovering the financial failures of the European institutions throughout their research. They also report the €26 billion pension burden in the EU which, so far, has not been accounted for. (And all this comes, rather embarrassingly, at a time when the EU Court of Auditors’ failed the accounts for the thirteenth year running). Within this context, Rotherham and Elliott provide plenty of damning examples on the degree (cost) of waste and the outrageous use of resources within the European institutions. What it does achieve on the way to convincing the reader that Brussels is very much a wasteful socalist machine that Britain would be better off without, at least in its current state, is provide an effective bridge between the personal and political through the use of anecodotes and experiences to show exactly how the governmental machinery of the European Union bureaucracy is “skewed to suppress.” Rotherham and Elliott are rather adept at pushing those issues to the forefront, with details of Brussels form-filling, staff credit card fraud, through to the dumping of 800,000 tonnes of dead fish under the demands of the Common Fisheries Policy, which all becomes part and parcel of the Orwellian lunacy, that is the ideology of the European Union.
Singapore’s EU-styled ASEAN?
It is wrong of Singapore’s former prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, to say of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) trading bloc that “To expect us to make this leap into a European Union will be 50, maybe more, years…” Using the EU as a positive multilateral model, he explained that “I think we make progress slowly. As we rise and we converge towards a more common level there will still be differences but not so stark. Then we can make the moves to free up the borders.” Of course, it could possibly be 50 wasted years for Singapore if it does decide to push for an EU-styled ASEAN.
The ASEAN has a new charter which turns the bloc into a legal entity; it enables the region’s unique nations to promote democracy; it clarifies a given set of principles and rules for each of the 10 members and plans are being made for the integration of their economies with the overarching objective of creating a single market by 2015.
The European Union (a bureaucratic regional body which has sunk the various people of Europe under a tide of unworkable legislation and a new European government) has not succeeded and has failed to operate competitively within an effective global trading system (e.g. take CAP and the mass-snubbing of developing economies trading in agricultural products). It cannot be taken as a good example for other regional trading blocs. Its perceived success is based on daylight robbery of the various taxpaying peoples of Europe and a dogmatic unproven European ideology, all of which will contribute toward its inevitable institutional collapse. This is not a good prototype for the ASEAN bloc.
Lee was, on the other hand, right to assert of the EU and ASEAN that “I don't think they are comparable,” and that ASEAN nations were “very disparate” with differing levels of economic and cultural development, since economic disparity and national uniqueness continues to be a major stumbling block in the EU and a good reason for why Britain has so long been a reluctant member of the EU. If the ASEAN were to develop into a an EU-styled government, so it did end up with a regional Southeast Asian government on its hands and which determined its laws, customs, habits, this would signify a change that seems 50 years back in time and not 50 years ahead. Singapore, I can only suggest, does not need an EU-styled ASEAN.
The ASEAN has a new charter which turns the bloc into a legal entity; it enables the region’s unique nations to promote democracy; it clarifies a given set of principles and rules for each of the 10 members and plans are being made for the integration of their economies with the overarching objective of creating a single market by 2015.
The European Union (a bureaucratic regional body which has sunk the various people of Europe under a tide of unworkable legislation and a new European government) has not succeeded and has failed to operate competitively within an effective global trading system (e.g. take CAP and the mass-snubbing of developing economies trading in agricultural products). It cannot be taken as a good example for other regional trading blocs. Its perceived success is based on daylight robbery of the various taxpaying peoples of Europe and a dogmatic unproven European ideology, all of which will contribute toward its inevitable institutional collapse. This is not a good prototype for the ASEAN bloc.
Lee was, on the other hand, right to assert of the EU and ASEAN that “I don't think they are comparable,” and that ASEAN nations were “very disparate” with differing levels of economic and cultural development, since economic disparity and national uniqueness continues to be a major stumbling block in the EU and a good reason for why Britain has so long been a reluctant member of the EU. If the ASEAN were to develop into a an EU-styled government, so it did end up with a regional Southeast Asian government on its hands and which determined its laws, customs, habits, this would signify a change that seems 50 years back in time and not 50 years ahead. Singapore, I can only suggest, does not need an EU-styled ASEAN.
Friday, 4 January 2008
Britain Pays £2 Million
Britain Will Pay Over £2 Million for Gordon Brown’s Bogus Red Line on EU Charter
Of the total forecasted £96.5 billion EU budget for 2008 – for which British households are due to fork out an annual contribution of £10.7 billion – voters have been kept in the dark over how much of their contribution will be channelled towards obligations associated with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a Charter which has already been signed along with the Lisbon Treaty. The European Foundation has discovered that since Britain has no exemption from the Charter – as the UK Parliament’s European Scrutiny Committee has ruled, contrary to David Miliband’s claims – there will be no opt-out from at least £2 million of its costs.
The European Foundation has uncovered a significant portion of the EU budget forecast for 2008, relating to the Charter, which will contribute massively towards the UK payment from 2008 onwards. Throughout late 2007, David Miliband promised that Britain would be exempt from the Charter rights as set out under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but this will leave the British people wondering why it is them who will be paying for the enhancement of existing fundamental rights projects which their own Government claimed they have not participated in.
The forecast for the UK contribution towards the enhancement of existing fundamental rights projects – noting that Gordon Brown and David Miliband promised Britain that an exemption from the rights Charter would create no new rights – will include:
· £1,019,294 on the promotion of “fundamental rights” of EU citizens;
· £706,680 to cover the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (which formerly went under another name) staff and administration, and;
· £420,068 to cover operational costs of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights projects, which will promote the disturbing “development of a European society based on respect for fundamental rights.” (see Appendix 1)
Of course, this does no justice to what will happen under the actual application of the Charter, which will bring the British judiciary further under the control of the European Court of Justice (with its own total forecasted expenditure of £217 million), administering European law for British courts. It is certain that Britain will pay over £2 million directly for Gordon Brown’s bogus red line on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Britain’s commitment to this EU money will bring with it substantial economic and social damage and the closures and failures of business as a result of the application of the Charter rights across the UK, under the mismanagement and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This is entirely unacceptable.
Of the total forecasted £96.5 billion EU budget for 2008 – for which British households are due to fork out an annual contribution of £10.7 billion – voters have been kept in the dark over how much of their contribution will be channelled towards obligations associated with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a Charter which has already been signed along with the Lisbon Treaty. The European Foundation has discovered that since Britain has no exemption from the Charter – as the UK Parliament’s European Scrutiny Committee has ruled, contrary to David Miliband’s claims – there will be no opt-out from at least £2 million of its costs.
The European Foundation has uncovered a significant portion of the EU budget forecast for 2008, relating to the Charter, which will contribute massively towards the UK payment from 2008 onwards. Throughout late 2007, David Miliband promised that Britain would be exempt from the Charter rights as set out under the Charter of Fundamental Rights, but this will leave the British people wondering why it is them who will be paying for the enhancement of existing fundamental rights projects which their own Government claimed they have not participated in.
The forecast for the UK contribution towards the enhancement of existing fundamental rights projects – noting that Gordon Brown and David Miliband promised Britain that an exemption from the rights Charter would create no new rights – will include:
· £1,019,294 on the promotion of “fundamental rights” of EU citizens;
· £706,680 to cover the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (which formerly went under another name) staff and administration, and;
· £420,068 to cover operational costs of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights projects, which will promote the disturbing “development of a European society based on respect for fundamental rights.” (see Appendix 1)
Of course, this does no justice to what will happen under the actual application of the Charter, which will bring the British judiciary further under the control of the European Court of Justice (with its own total forecasted expenditure of £217 million), administering European law for British courts. It is certain that Britain will pay over £2 million directly for Gordon Brown’s bogus red line on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Britain’s commitment to this EU money will bring with it substantial economic and social damage and the closures and failures of business as a result of the application of the Charter rights across the UK, under the mismanagement and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. This is entirely unacceptable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
