James McConalogue of the European Foundation says:
“David Cameron has achieved a magnificent poll lead, giving the Tories a 41%-38% advantage, but if he wants to keep it, he will have to cement his victory with some real substance on the European issue. What does that boil down to? We need that referendum pledge to also be a post-ratification one, as it was in Wilson’s 1975 EEC referendum. We need the Conservative Party to focus on the fact that this Treaty and the accumulation of the existing Treaties have been pushed through at the expense of democracy and the vital British national interest. The Conservative Party must be a Party for the Referendum and it must be a Party to promise the ‘No’ Vote, given the long-term deceit which has fundamentally altered the relationship which the British people have with the UK Parliament. The country will then be in a position to renegotiate its unfavourable terms with Europe.”
Chairman of the European Foundation and Conservative MP, Bill Cash said to Gordon Brown in Parliament on Monday (22 October):
“Does the Prime Minister accept that by refusing to hold a referendum he is putting not only himself on trial but Parliament itself? Does he not appreciate that 27 million people have been denied the opportunity of a referendum since 1975? Given the circumstances of deceit and the manner in which this treaty has been negotiated, as the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated, it is absolutely essential that we have a referendum. No wonder only 59 per cent of people bother to vote at all. Does he not understand the responsibility upon him?”
Monday, 29 October 2007
Madeleine McCann and EU Diplomacy – Why Gordon Brown Won’t Take the Case Forward
After months of little progress in the attempts by the Portuguese police to solve the Madeleine McCann case, the British Prime Minister has achieved next to nothing in the way of UK support for the investigation into the case. As with similar cases investigating other nationals – including the extradition of the Litvinenko killer from Russia – the UK government has resigned itself to pursuing EU laws and associated diplomatic channels which in short have achieved nothing of any substance.
On Thursday 18 October, prior to agreeing to the Reform Treaty in Lisbon, Brown said he would raise the case of missing Madeleine McCann with the Portuguese PM, José Sócrates. Gordon Brown said: "I have discussed this with him before, to assure myself the police authorities are taking the actions that are necessary and there's proper co-operation between the British and Portuguese police." Brown later returned to the UK, troublingly satisfied that everything necessary was being done.
The lackadaisical approach taken by the UK Government is topped only by its devotion to the EU principle of “mutual recognition”, through which the UK Government must simply wait and abide by the sluggish police and judicial processes of the Portuguese criminal justice system when investigating the cases of UK citizens. The European Council has long asserted the principle: “Implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters presupposes that Member States have trust in each others' criminal justice systems. That trust is grounded, in particular, on their shared commitment to the principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.”
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office openly claims that “In order to facilitate judicial co-operation we aim for mutual recognition of judicial decisions …. This means that we accept legitimate judicial decisions issued by other EU member states.”
Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation says:
“In the case of Madeleine McCann, there seems little hope that the UK Government will attempt to put forward a just solution – whatever that may be – since the provisions provided for in the 1968 Brussels Convention, The Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and since the EU Summit in Tampere in 1999 have resulted in the UK subjecting itself to a European system of law which carries with it judicial hazards and procedures which are far from satisfactory.”
On Thursday 18 October, prior to agreeing to the Reform Treaty in Lisbon, Brown said he would raise the case of missing Madeleine McCann with the Portuguese PM, José Sócrates. Gordon Brown said: "I have discussed this with him before, to assure myself the police authorities are taking the actions that are necessary and there's proper co-operation between the British and Portuguese police." Brown later returned to the UK, troublingly satisfied that everything necessary was being done.
The lackadaisical approach taken by the UK Government is topped only by its devotion to the EU principle of “mutual recognition”, through which the UK Government must simply wait and abide by the sluggish police and judicial processes of the Portuguese criminal justice system when investigating the cases of UK citizens. The European Council has long asserted the principle: “Implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters presupposes that Member States have trust in each others' criminal justice systems. That trust is grounded, in particular, on their shared commitment to the principles of freedom, democracy and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law.”
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office openly claims that “In order to facilitate judicial co-operation we aim for mutual recognition of judicial decisions …. This means that we accept legitimate judicial decisions issued by other EU member states.”
Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation says:
“In the case of Madeleine McCann, there seems little hope that the UK Government will attempt to put forward a just solution – whatever that may be – since the provisions provided for in the 1968 Brussels Convention, The Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997 and since the EU Summit in Tampere in 1999 have resulted in the UK subjecting itself to a European system of law which carries with it judicial hazards and procedures which are far from satisfactory.”
Thursday, 25 October 2007
The Conservative Party Must Debate Europe in Pushing for a Referendum
Whilst David Cameron is right to continue pledging a referendum, he must debate the real issues reflected in the UK electorate and the Conservative Party in order to move forward on Europe. The best start that can be made on ‘acknowledging Europe’ after the publication of the European Scrutiny Committee’s highly-critical report is for the leadership to fully endorse the Early Day Motion signed by nearly 50 MPs.
In particular, the Conservative leadership must realise in this Motion:
That this referendum must be on all the existing Treaties, since “the Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum”. Given that the Treaty is not an isolated text, this referendum concerns all the existing Treaties and a successful ‘No’ vote on a referendum covering all the existing Treaties would enable Britain to renegotiate its position with Europe. The current economic and political model of unquestioned European unification around a centralised government does not work – it does not work for trade, it does not work for free business and enterprise, it does not work for governance, and it does not work for the various peoples of Europe.
There must be an opportunity for the Conservative leadership to offer a post-ratification referendum, as stated in the Motion. As it was said last night by one MP who has signed the Motion, there was “a perfectly good precedent” for the post-ratification referendum in the one held by Harold Wilson on EEC membership in 1975, and he added that “I don't have a problem with it.”
The European Court of Justice will acquire powers to decide on matters of vital national interest (including the unsustainable red lines) if this Treaty is not stopped. It is written in the Motion “that the Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October) that these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not this House.” For example, the European Court of Justice has turned its back on our claimed exemption from the Working Time Directive and our own national judiciary overturned the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 as being inconsistent with European law. Let’s be frank – if people want to be governed by Europe, as they have been and will continue to be in an increasingly aggressive manner, then let them decide through a national referendum.
In particular, the Conservative leadership must realise in this Motion:
That this referendum must be on all the existing Treaties, since “the Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum”. Given that the Treaty is not an isolated text, this referendum concerns all the existing Treaties and a successful ‘No’ vote on a referendum covering all the existing Treaties would enable Britain to renegotiate its position with Europe. The current economic and political model of unquestioned European unification around a centralised government does not work – it does not work for trade, it does not work for free business and enterprise, it does not work for governance, and it does not work for the various peoples of Europe.
There must be an opportunity for the Conservative leadership to offer a post-ratification referendum, as stated in the Motion. As it was said last night by one MP who has signed the Motion, there was “a perfectly good precedent” for the post-ratification referendum in the one held by Harold Wilson on EEC membership in 1975, and he added that “I don't have a problem with it.”
The European Court of Justice will acquire powers to decide on matters of vital national interest (including the unsustainable red lines) if this Treaty is not stopped. It is written in the Motion “that the Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October) that these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not this House.” For example, the European Court of Justice has turned its back on our claimed exemption from the Working Time Directive and our own national judiciary overturned the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 as being inconsistent with European law. Let’s be frank – if people want to be governed by Europe, as they have been and will continue to be in an increasingly aggressive manner, then let them decide through a national referendum.
Conservative Referendum Pledge Needs Conviction and Permanence
After Conservative leader, David Cameron, revised his claim yesterday that the Conservative Party will hold a referendum “if we can”, whilst refusing to back the opportunity for a post-ratification referendum, the European Foundation argues that Cameron is right to continue pledging a referendum but needs to honour it with utter conviction and furthermore, promise a post-ratification referendum.
Ever since Bill Cash MP, “the leading Tory euro-sceptic in the Commons”, put down his Early Day Motion on 17 October, which has now gained strong support, the Conservative Party must pledge (as it states in the Motion), that Parliament “holds a Referendum before or after ratification.” In total, 44 MPs have now signed the Motion. [See The Independent today].
Now is also the time for Parliament, at the very least, to override the European Communities Act 1972 in order to guarantee the red lines, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, during the passage of the Bill which will implement the Reform Treaty. This can be achieved by excluding their effect through the use of a statutory provision preceded by the words ‘Not withstanding the European Communities Act 1972’, as suggested in Bill Cash’s draft report (para.3), published alongside the European Scrutiny Committee's highly critical report on the EU Intergovernmental Conference.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation said:
“The Conservative Party must pledge a referendum on this Treaty even after ratification. It would not be unusual for the UK Parliament to do so. This is already precedented because Harold Wilson’s Labour Government did just this in 1975 under their Referendum Act.”
Ever since Bill Cash MP, “the leading Tory euro-sceptic in the Commons”, put down his Early Day Motion on 17 October, which has now gained strong support, the Conservative Party must pledge (as it states in the Motion), that Parliament “holds a Referendum before or after ratification.” In total, 44 MPs have now signed the Motion. [See The Independent today].
Now is also the time for Parliament, at the very least, to override the European Communities Act 1972 in order to guarantee the red lines, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, during the passage of the Bill which will implement the Reform Treaty. This can be achieved by excluding their effect through the use of a statutory provision preceded by the words ‘Not withstanding the European Communities Act 1972’, as suggested in Bill Cash’s draft report (para.3), published alongside the European Scrutiny Committee's highly critical report on the EU Intergovernmental Conference.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation said:
“The Conservative Party must pledge a referendum on this Treaty even after ratification. It would not be unusual for the UK Parliament to do so. This is already precedented because Harold Wilson’s Labour Government did just this in 1975 under their Referendum Act.”
Call a Referendum: Gordon Brown Must Listen to Bertie Ahern
The Irish premier’s statement on the Reform Treaty that “I think it’s a bit upsetting to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity” provides a suitable lesson, in the interests of democracy, for where Gordon Brown must turn next, following the strong criticism of his Lisbon deal as he returned to the UK Parliament yesterday.
Since The Independent reported today that “Bill Cash, the leading Tory euro-sceptic in the Commons, angrily accused Mr Brown of ‘deceit’ over the negotiation of the Treaty”, the Prime Minister may well learn from this episode of treachery – which the Taoiseach has referred to as “upsetting” – and call for a referendum immediately.
The Prime Minister must realise that it is the UK Parliament itself which is now on trial. Chairman of the European Foundation, Bill Cash MP, said to Gordon Brown in Parliament yesterday: “Does the Prime Minister accept that by refusing to hold a referendum he is putting not only himself on trial but Parliament itself? Does he not appreciate that 27 million people have been denied the opportunity of a referendum since 1975? Given the circumstances of deceit and the manner in which this treaty has been negotiated, as the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated, it is absolutely essential that we have a referendum. No wonder only 59 per cent of people bother to vote at all. Does he not understand the responsibility upon him?”
Since The Independent reported today that “Bill Cash, the leading Tory euro-sceptic in the Commons, angrily accused Mr Brown of ‘deceit’ over the negotiation of the Treaty”, the Prime Minister may well learn from this episode of treachery – which the Taoiseach has referred to as “upsetting” – and call for a referendum immediately.
The Prime Minister must realise that it is the UK Parliament itself which is now on trial. Chairman of the European Foundation, Bill Cash MP, said to Gordon Brown in Parliament yesterday: “Does the Prime Minister accept that by refusing to hold a referendum he is putting not only himself on trial but Parliament itself? Does he not appreciate that 27 million people have been denied the opportunity of a referendum since 1975? Given the circumstances of deceit and the manner in which this treaty has been negotiated, as the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated, it is absolutely essential that we have a referendum. No wonder only 59 per cent of people bother to vote at all. Does he not understand the responsibility upon him?”
No Referendum? No Wonder Brits Have Stopped Voting
As Gordon Brown returned to the UK Parliament at 3.30pm this afternoon in order to defend his agreement to the Reform Treaty in Lisbon, the Conservative MP and Chairman of the European Foundation, Bill Cash, told Brown that since he had failed to take responsibility in holding a referendum on the Reform Treaty, it was “no wonder only 59 per cent have bothered to vote at all” in a national election (referring to the low post-war turnout for the UK’s 2001 general election). Cash made clear that 27 million voters have been denied a Referendum on the European issue since 1975. As it was pointed out to Brown in the House of Commons, his pledge to restore "trust" in the UK Parliament no longer had any credibility.
David Heathcoat Amory, MP, who also questioned Brown’s continued opposition to the referendum, earlier pointed out to the European Foundation in their publication, The European Journal, that “[i]t is in fact the content and reality of parliamentary democracy that is at stake here. A referendum would in essence be about where people are to be governed from, and how, and whether they wish to be ruled by people they elect and can remove, or do not elect and cannot remove.” Click here.
Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation, said:
“There we have it. No matter how well Brown sings from the Brussels hymn sheet, we can see his own Party Members, his Members in the European Scrutiny Committee and most in the Parliamentary opposition did not have a good word to say about the shady Lisbon deal. It is not about this or that line on Europe – it is about the British people’s trust in democracy and the authority of the Westminster parliament, with its assembly of elected representatives, all of which have been compromised.”
David Heathcoat Amory, MP, who also questioned Brown’s continued opposition to the referendum, earlier pointed out to the European Foundation in their publication, The European Journal, that “[i]t is in fact the content and reality of parliamentary democracy that is at stake here. A referendum would in essence be about where people are to be governed from, and how, and whether they wish to be ruled by people they elect and can remove, or do not elect and cannot remove.” Click here.
Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation, said:
“There we have it. No matter how well Brown sings from the Brussels hymn sheet, we can see his own Party Members, his Members in the European Scrutiny Committee and most in the Parliamentary opposition did not have a good word to say about the shady Lisbon deal. It is not about this or that line on Europe – it is about the British people’s trust in democracy and the authority of the Westminster parliament, with its assembly of elected representatives, all of which have been compromised.”
Conservative Party Must Pledge ‘Post-Ratification Referendum’
Since Bill Cash, MP, put down a formal motion in Parliament for the UK to promise a referendum on the Reform Treaty even if Parliament ratifies it in the next few months (as reported in The Guardian, The Financial Times, The Times, The Daily Express), the European Foundation demands that now is the time for Gordon Brown and the Conservative Party to acknowledge that the Reform Treaty is a consolidation of all the existing treaties, which creates a revised European Union structure involving fundamental and constitutional change (by the Government’s own criteria for a Referendum). The Conservative Party must pledge – as it states in the Early Day Motion – that Parliament “holds a Referendum before or after ratification.”
The Motion makes clear the necessary arguments for what both Gordon Brown and the Conservative Party must do now:
The impartial European Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Reform Treaty is substantially equivalent to the original Constitutional Treaty;
The Government Manifesto promised a Referendum on the original treaty;
The Conservative Party voted against the Treaty in principle on the Second Reading of the Bill implementing it;
The Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October), these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not the UK Parliament;
27 million voters have been denied a Referendum on any European Question since 1975;
Over 70 per cent of the voters want a Referendum but the reasons have to be fully explained;
The Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum;
The Prime Minister must reject the Reform Treaty and hold a Referendum before or after ratification.
In total, 40 MPs have signed this Early Day Motion in Parliament, including: William Cash, John Redwood, Michael Ancram, Christopher Chope, John Whittingdale, Edward Leigh, Bernard Jenkin, David Amess, James Clappison, Ann Widdecombe, Michael Fallon, Peter Bottomley, Iain Duncan Smith, Richard Shepherd, Peter Tapsell, Ann Winterton, Nicholas Winterton, Graham Brady, Greg Knight, Derek Conway, Bob Spink, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mark Field, Richard Bacon, Nadine Dorries, Graham Stuart, Charles Walker, Adam Holloway, Greg Hands, Douglas Carswell, Lee Scott, Philip Dunne, David T. C. Davies, Christopher Fraser, Brian Binley, James Duddridge, Philip Davies, Daniel Kawczynski, Mark Pritchard, Peter Bone.
Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation, said:
“Given that an astonishing 27 million people have been denied a Referendum on the European issue since 1975 - including myself - it is vital that the Conservative Party pledge this Referendum post-ratification. If this pledge is to be long-term and meaningful, the Conservative Party must simply learn that a post-ratification referendum is essential.”
The Motion makes clear the necessary arguments for what both Gordon Brown and the Conservative Party must do now:
The impartial European Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Reform Treaty is substantially equivalent to the original Constitutional Treaty;
The Government Manifesto promised a Referendum on the original treaty;
The Conservative Party voted against the Treaty in principle on the Second Reading of the Bill implementing it;
The Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October), these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not the UK Parliament;
27 million voters have been denied a Referendum on any European Question since 1975;
Over 70 per cent of the voters want a Referendum but the reasons have to be fully explained;
The Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum;
The Prime Minister must reject the Reform Treaty and hold a Referendum before or after ratification.
In total, 40 MPs have signed this Early Day Motion in Parliament, including: William Cash, John Redwood, Michael Ancram, Christopher Chope, John Whittingdale, Edward Leigh, Bernard Jenkin, David Amess, James Clappison, Ann Widdecombe, Michael Fallon, Peter Bottomley, Iain Duncan Smith, Richard Shepherd, Peter Tapsell, Ann Winterton, Nicholas Winterton, Graham Brady, Greg Knight, Derek Conway, Bob Spink, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Mark Field, Richard Bacon, Nadine Dorries, Graham Stuart, Charles Walker, Adam Holloway, Greg Hands, Douglas Carswell, Lee Scott, Philip Dunne, David T. C. Davies, Christopher Fraser, Brian Binley, James Duddridge, Philip Davies, Daniel Kawczynski, Mark Pritchard, Peter Bone.
Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation, said:
“Given that an astonishing 27 million people have been denied a Referendum on the European issue since 1975 - including myself - it is vital that the Conservative Party pledge this Referendum post-ratification. If this pledge is to be long-term and meaningful, the Conservative Party must simply learn that a post-ratification referendum is essential.”
Chairman of the European Foundation, Bill Cash MP, puts down Formal Motion in UK Parliament on Reform Treaty
Early Day Motion
"That this House notes that the impartial European Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Reform Treaty is substantially equivalent to the original Constitutional Treaty; that the Government Manifesto promised a Referendum on the original treaty; that the Conservative Party voted against it in principle on the Second Reading of the Bill implementing that Treaty; that the Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October) that these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not this House; that, contrary to the statements of the Foreign Secretary, parliamentary democracy is enhanced when this House, as the Labour Government in 1975, hands back a Referendum by Act of Parliament to the voters who elect Members of this House; that 27 million voters have been denied a Referendum on any European Question since 1975; that over 70 per cent. of the voters want a Referendum but that the reasons have to be fully explained; that the Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum; and insists that the Prime Minister rejects the Reform Treaty on 18th October and holds a Referendum before or after ratification."
Signatories
Mr William Cash
Mr John Redwood
Mr Michael Ancram
Mr Christopher Chope
Mr John Whittingdale
Mr Edward Leigh
* 40
Mr Bernard Jenkin
Mr David Amess
Mr James Clappison
Miss Ann Widdecombe
Mr Michael Fallon
Peter Bottomley
Mr Iain Duncan Smith
Mr Richard Shepherd
Sir Peter Tapsell
Ann Winterton
Sir Nicholas Winterton
Mr Graham Brady
Mr Greg Knight
Derek Conway
Bob Spink
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
Mr Mark Field
Mr Richard Bacon
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Graham Stuart
Mr Charles Walker
Mr Adam Holloway
Mr Greg Hands
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mr Lee Scott
Mr Philip Dunne
David T. C. Davies
Mr Christopher Fraser
Mr Brian Binley
James Duddridge
Philip Davies
Daniel Kawczynski
Mark Pritchard
Mr Peter Bone
"That this House notes that the impartial European Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Reform Treaty is substantially equivalent to the original Constitutional Treaty; that the Government Manifesto promised a Referendum on the original treaty; that the Conservative Party voted against it in principle on the Second Reading of the Bill implementing that Treaty; that the Prime Minister said that he will reject the Reform Treaty if the Government's Red Lines are not guaranteed on 18th October, but (following the European Scrutiny Committee examination of the Foreign Secretary on 16th October) that these Red Lines do not satisfy UK vital national interests and that the European Court of Justice will determine these matters, not this House; that, contrary to the statements of the Foreign Secretary, parliamentary democracy is enhanced when this House, as the Labour Government in 1975, hands back a Referendum by Act of Parliament to the voters who elect Members of this House; that 27 million voters have been denied a Referendum on any European Question since 1975; that over 70 per cent. of the voters want a Referendum but that the reasons have to be fully explained; that the Reform Treaty is a consolidation of the existing treaties into a merger of the European Community into a European Union involving substantial, fundamental, constitutional and structural change by the Government's own criteria for a Referendum; and insists that the Prime Minister rejects the Reform Treaty on 18th October and holds a Referendum before or after ratification."
Signatories
Mr William Cash
Mr John Redwood
Mr Michael Ancram
Mr Christopher Chope
Mr John Whittingdale
Mr Edward Leigh
* 40
Mr Bernard Jenkin
Mr David Amess
Mr James Clappison
Miss Ann Widdecombe
Mr Michael Fallon
Peter Bottomley
Mr Iain Duncan Smith
Mr Richard Shepherd
Sir Peter Tapsell
Ann Winterton
Sir Nicholas Winterton
Mr Graham Brady
Mr Greg Knight
Derek Conway
Bob Spink
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger
Mr Mark Field
Mr Richard Bacon
Mrs Nadine Dorries
Mr Graham Stuart
Mr Charles Walker
Mr Adam Holloway
Mr Greg Hands
Mr Douglas Carswell
Mr Lee Scott
Mr Philip Dunne
David T. C. Davies
Mr Christopher Fraser
Mr Brian Binley
James Duddridge
Philip Davies
Daniel Kawczynski
Mark Pritchard
Mr Peter Bone
Reform Treaty: Why Gordon Brown’s Britain Is Now a ‘British Dog in the Federal Manger’
Jim McConalogue of the European Foundation said:
“Gordon Brown’s proposal today that ‘The red lines have been secured’ and that ‘The British national interest has been protected,’ is deceitful and treats the British public with absolute contempt. As Lord Tebbit said at our press conference yesterday afternoon, Britain has become the ‘British dog in the federal manager’.”
The Red Lines have NOT been secured, since the UK’s All-Party House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has not only concluded in its report that this “new Treaty produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” but that “Even with the ‘opt-in’ provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the Protocol on the Charter, we are not convinced that th[is] same conclusion does not apply to the position of the UK under the Reform Treaty. We look to the Government to make it clear where the changes they have sought and gained at the IGC alter this conclusion in relation to the UK.” The Government’s case for defending any of the red lines is as clear as mud and as far as the European Foundation can determine, the Government’s claim to have completely protected the UK’s existing labour and social legislation, our common law system, and our police and judicial processes, our independent foreign and defence policy and our social security system, is false. The only remedy for this state of affairs is to hold a referendum – let the 27 million people who have never once had the opportunity to vote on Europe since 1975 have the final say on this Treaty and all its amending Treaties.
The British national interest has NOT been protected given that:
The British nation has been barred from having a say on this European Treaty and all the European Treaties – including Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice – which directly affect their everyday lives. This Treaty among the tide of existing European Treaties, enforces a European government and its legislation upon the British people, without their consent or wish, and is tantamount to rule by a renewed European empire. A referendum is required on the constitutional basis that the Reform Treaty with the merger of the existing Treaties, into a Union with an embracing single legal personality and a self-amending text amounts to “substantial constitutional change” on basic terms that demand a referendum according to the government’s own criteria.
“Gordon Brown’s proposal today that ‘The red lines have been secured’ and that ‘The British national interest has been protected,’ is deceitful and treats the British public with absolute contempt. As Lord Tebbit said at our press conference yesterday afternoon, Britain has become the ‘British dog in the federal manager’.”
The Red Lines have NOT been secured, since the UK’s All-Party House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee has not only concluded in its report that this “new Treaty produces an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” but that “Even with the ‘opt-in’ provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the Protocol on the Charter, we are not convinced that th[is] same conclusion does not apply to the position of the UK under the Reform Treaty. We look to the Government to make it clear where the changes they have sought and gained at the IGC alter this conclusion in relation to the UK.” The Government’s case for defending any of the red lines is as clear as mud and as far as the European Foundation can determine, the Government’s claim to have completely protected the UK’s existing labour and social legislation, our common law system, and our police and judicial processes, our independent foreign and defence policy and our social security system, is false. The only remedy for this state of affairs is to hold a referendum – let the 27 million people who have never once had the opportunity to vote on Europe since 1975 have the final say on this Treaty and all its amending Treaties.
The British national interest has NOT been protected given that:
The British nation has been barred from having a say on this European Treaty and all the European Treaties – including Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice – which directly affect their everyday lives. This Treaty among the tide of existing European Treaties, enforces a European government and its legislation upon the British people, without their consent or wish, and is tantamount to rule by a renewed European empire. A referendum is required on the constitutional basis that the Reform Treaty with the merger of the existing Treaties, into a Union with an embracing single legal personality and a self-amending text amounts to “substantial constitutional change” on basic terms that demand a referendum according to the government’s own criteria.
Friday, 14 September 2007
When the European Commission Approved UK’s Imperial Measurements
On 11 September, the European Commission allowed the UK to retain its use of imperial measurements of distance and weight indefinitely. A Directive [80/181/EEC] on the approximation of the laws of the Member States on the units of measurement (which has been applicable since 1980) harmonised the EU’s legal units of measurement in line with the international standards. According to this Directive, the UK is allowed to use exemptions but it required it to fix a date in order to phase out all its imperial measurements. Obviously, this policy was very unpopular among British people. The Commission had granted more time for the UK to complete the full transition to the metric system through derogations, but the latest derogation expires in 31 December 2009. Thus, according to the Commission’s new proposal for a Directive to amend the Directive [80/181/EEC], the UK does not have to phase out the imperial measurements by 1 January 2010. Therefore, the UK will be allowed to display pounds, ounces, pints and miles along with metric weights and measurements.
According to the Commission, its proposal was based on the results of a public consultation during a 10-week period lasting until 1 March 2007. The Commission has realised that the usage of imperial measures has no impact on the single market and does not represent an impediment to cross-border trade. Moreover, the Commission also took into account the US market. EU Vice-President Günter Verheugen said “extending supplementary indications indefinitely is supported by EU industry and sends a clear signal to our US counterparts that the EU favours a trading environment free of barriers.” According to Günter Verheugen “our proposal is designed to honour the culture and traditions of Great Britain which are important to the European Commission. People in the UK and indeed throughout the EU love the traditions that make Britain unique. There is no good reason why these imperial measures should not continue to be used and we've decided to enshrine this fact in EU law.” The UK has been fighting for a long time to keep its imperial measurements – recall Steve Thorburn who inspired the "metric martyr" movement. Steve Thoburn earned a criminal conviction in 2001 for breaching the Weights and Measures Act by selling a pound of bananas instead of its measurement in kilograms. Formerly, the EU had given the UK until 2010 to complete the full transition to the metric system and now the Commission comes up with this new proposal. It will be up to the government whether to change the measurement system. Günter Verheugen said “it is entirely up to the British Government whether to keep pints and feet and inches, and the whole miles system, but as far as the Commission is concerned there is not now and never will be any requirement to drop imperial measurements.” Some have asked: since when have Great Britain’s traditions been important to the Commission? In fact, the timing of this proposal is very suspicious since Gordon Brown is under pressure to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty. Therefore the Commission’s move has been seen as tactical – it seems that the Commission is attempting popular engagement and to achieve a positive opinion on EU among British people. Nevertheless, the British people should not be thankful to the European Commission for allow them to use their own traditional units which have been used since the Middle Ages.
It should be noted that trading only in imperial measurements is still a criminal offence in Britain, According to AFP, Neil Herron, campaign director of the Metric Martyrs Group said “really there can't be any more prosecutions. There must be a moratorium until the absolute shambles that has been created, because we are being governed by two masters, is cleared up.”
The Commission’s proposal now goes to the European Parliament and to the Council but objections seem unlikely.
According to the Commission, its proposal was based on the results of a public consultation during a 10-week period lasting until 1 March 2007. The Commission has realised that the usage of imperial measures has no impact on the single market and does not represent an impediment to cross-border trade. Moreover, the Commission also took into account the US market. EU Vice-President Günter Verheugen said “extending supplementary indications indefinitely is supported by EU industry and sends a clear signal to our US counterparts that the EU favours a trading environment free of barriers.” According to Günter Verheugen “our proposal is designed to honour the culture and traditions of Great Britain which are important to the European Commission. People in the UK and indeed throughout the EU love the traditions that make Britain unique. There is no good reason why these imperial measures should not continue to be used and we've decided to enshrine this fact in EU law.” The UK has been fighting for a long time to keep its imperial measurements – recall Steve Thorburn who inspired the "metric martyr" movement. Steve Thoburn earned a criminal conviction in 2001 for breaching the Weights and Measures Act by selling a pound of bananas instead of its measurement in kilograms. Formerly, the EU had given the UK until 2010 to complete the full transition to the metric system and now the Commission comes up with this new proposal. It will be up to the government whether to change the measurement system. Günter Verheugen said “it is entirely up to the British Government whether to keep pints and feet and inches, and the whole miles system, but as far as the Commission is concerned there is not now and never will be any requirement to drop imperial measurements.” Some have asked: since when have Great Britain’s traditions been important to the Commission? In fact, the timing of this proposal is very suspicious since Gordon Brown is under pressure to hold a referendum on the Reform Treaty. Therefore the Commission’s move has been seen as tactical – it seems that the Commission is attempting popular engagement and to achieve a positive opinion on EU among British people. Nevertheless, the British people should not be thankful to the European Commission for allow them to use their own traditional units which have been used since the Middle Ages.
It should be noted that trading only in imperial measurements is still a criminal offence in Britain, According to AFP, Neil Herron, campaign director of the Metric Martyrs Group said “really there can't be any more prosecutions. There must be a moratorium until the absolute shambles that has been created, because we are being governed by two masters, is cleared up.”
The Commission’s proposal now goes to the European Parliament and to the Council but objections seem unlikely.
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Annual Policy Strategy
On 21 February 2007, the European Commission presented the 2008 Annual Policy Strategy (APS). The annual policy strategy outlines policy objectives and key initiatives for the following year. It also allocates the corresponding financial and human resources for the strategic initiatives. The Commission’s Legislative and Work Programme for 2008, to be adopted in October, should be based on the Annual Policy Strategy and on the dialogue with the Council and the European Parliament. Hence, until the publication of the Legislative and Work Programme, the EU institutions and national parliaments are seeking to mark some influence upon it. However, as the European Scrutiny Committee has proposed: “the extent to which the views of national parliaments will be taken on board remains to be seen.”
The 2008 APS outlines policy objectives, mainly in the four key strategic areas of the Barroso Commission: prosperity, solidarity, security and freedom and a stronger role of the EU in the world. Moreover, the document identifies a series of cross-cutting issues such as energy and climate change, migration management and the Lisbon agenda for growth and jobs. The Commission has proposed for the first time to make communication a priority in 2008. Furthermore, the document contains a general framework for human and financial resources for 2008.
The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee conducted an inquiry into the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy 2008, aiming to “examine the role of the Annual Policy Strategy 2008 as a planning tool and consultation document in the preparation of the Legislative and Work Programme.” The European Scrutiny Committee is not convinced yet that the APS is a “useful exercise” as the results of the dialogue between the EU institutions are not clear as well as the influence of other EU institutions in the creation of the Legislative and Work Programme. Also important is that one of the objectives of the APS is to enlighten discussions on the Preliminary Draft Budget in the European Parliament. The European Scrutiny Committee has noticed “the lack of consistency between the headings used in the APS and those used in the Budget” and recalls the European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2007 on the Commission’s annual policy strategy for the 2008 budget. The European Parliament “regrets that the APS classifications of prosperity, solidarity, security and external projection represent a third classification system that is rather arbitrary as regards the classification of policy areas under the different chapters, does not have any major value from a budgetary perspective and cannot easily be reconciled with the Activity based budgeting (ABB) and multiannual financial framework (MFF) categorisations”. It has demanded that the “Commission respect more closely the ABB and multiannual financial framework structures.”
Furthermore, the Committee observed that some proposals contained in the APS were too vague, restricting the “scope for useful debate” such as “an initiative on the implementation of a centralized database of fingerprints.” The Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy, told the ESC that there were three areas of potential concern on the compliance of the proposals in the APS with regards to the principle of subsidiarity: on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, consular assistance, and a centralised database of fingerprints. Also important has been the implementation of the EU Maritime Policy – mainly, the international maritime governance and maritime border control mentioned in the APS are very likely to raise important issues of competence. Other proposals are also likely to raise concerns over EU competence, such as urban transport, rights of the child, policies to tackle violent radicalisation, emissions controls on shipping, strengthening EUROJUST, initiatives to prevent discrimination outside the labour market, and measures aimed at reconciling family and working life. The ESC considered that the APS has value although limited in providing the House and the government with early warning of areas in which the Commission is likely to put forward proposals. Moreover the ESC made some suggestions such as the APS having more background information to the proposals and a closer connection between the policies proposed and budgetary resources.
The 2008 APS outlines policy objectives, mainly in the four key strategic areas of the Barroso Commission: prosperity, solidarity, security and freedom and a stronger role of the EU in the world. Moreover, the document identifies a series of cross-cutting issues such as energy and climate change, migration management and the Lisbon agenda for growth and jobs. The Commission has proposed for the first time to make communication a priority in 2008. Furthermore, the document contains a general framework for human and financial resources for 2008.
The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee conducted an inquiry into the Commission’s Annual Policy Strategy 2008, aiming to “examine the role of the Annual Policy Strategy 2008 as a planning tool and consultation document in the preparation of the Legislative and Work Programme.” The European Scrutiny Committee is not convinced yet that the APS is a “useful exercise” as the results of the dialogue between the EU institutions are not clear as well as the influence of other EU institutions in the creation of the Legislative and Work Programme. Also important is that one of the objectives of the APS is to enlighten discussions on the Preliminary Draft Budget in the European Parliament. The European Scrutiny Committee has noticed “the lack of consistency between the headings used in the APS and those used in the Budget” and recalls the European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2007 on the Commission’s annual policy strategy for the 2008 budget. The European Parliament “regrets that the APS classifications of prosperity, solidarity, security and external projection represent a third classification system that is rather arbitrary as regards the classification of policy areas under the different chapters, does not have any major value from a budgetary perspective and cannot easily be reconciled with the Activity based budgeting (ABB) and multiannual financial framework (MFF) categorisations”. It has demanded that the “Commission respect more closely the ABB and multiannual financial framework structures.”
Furthermore, the Committee observed that some proposals contained in the APS were too vague, restricting the “scope for useful debate” such as “an initiative on the implementation of a centralized database of fingerprints.” The Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy, told the ESC that there were three areas of potential concern on the compliance of the proposals in the APS with regards to the principle of subsidiarity: on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, consular assistance, and a centralised database of fingerprints. Also important has been the implementation of the EU Maritime Policy – mainly, the international maritime governance and maritime border control mentioned in the APS are very likely to raise important issues of competence. Other proposals are also likely to raise concerns over EU competence, such as urban transport, rights of the child, policies to tackle violent radicalisation, emissions controls on shipping, strengthening EUROJUST, initiatives to prevent discrimination outside the labour market, and measures aimed at reconciling family and working life. The ESC considered that the APS has value although limited in providing the House and the government with early warning of areas in which the Commission is likely to put forward proposals. Moreover the ESC made some suggestions such as the APS having more background information to the proposals and a closer connection between the policies proposed and budgetary resources.
Better Lawmaking in Europe?
Last June, the European Commission presented a report, ‘Better lawmaking 2006.’ According to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, the Commission must undertake an annual report on the legislative activities of the Community. The main focus of the report is the European Commission efforts on better regulation during 2006. According to this report, the total number of Commission proposals for Regulations, Directives, Decisions and Recommendation was 474 in 2006. The Minister for the Cabinet Office, Mr. McFadden has recently said to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee that the government is particularly pleased with the Commission’s action plan to evaluate administrative costs as well as with the Commission’s target of reducing administrative burdens coming from EU legislation by 25 per cent by 2012. However, the European Scrutiny Committee does not believe that the Commission’s better law making policy has been improving Community regulation as the Commission continues to make proposals which entail “unnecessary burdens.”
EU Lifts Quarantine on British Exports
On 23 August, the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health backed the draft decision of the European Commission to limit the restriction on the export of live animals meat and dairy products only to the 10km surveillance zone in Surrey, which had otherwise been in force across the UK until now. Hence, the ban on British exports to EU countries has been lifted. Therefore, the export of live animals, meat and dairy products will start again within the territory of Great Britain, excluding the 10 km zone in the county of Surrey, on 25 August – when the decision entered into force. However, the trade in meat, milk and live animal exports will be subjected to stringent controls and veterinary supervision. This decision and the remaining restrictions will be reviewed at a meeting of the EU Standing Committee, scheduled for 11 September 2007. The export ban has been costing farmers £10m per week.
On 3 August, the UK authorities confirmed an outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) on a farm in Surrey. The European Commission was informed by the British veterinary authorities that an outbreak of FMD has been officially declared. The Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 lays down Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth aimed at regaining the disease- and infection-free status of the affected territory.
Member States must have emergency plans in operation and national reference laboratories must collaborate with the Community Reference Laboratory. All measures foreseen in the above mentioned EU legislation were immediately applied in the UK following the suspicion and subsequent confirmation of the disease including the culling of all animals in the infected premises, the establishment of a 3 km (1.8 mile) protection zone and a surveillance zone around the premises of 10km (6.2 miles), where strict movement restrictions are applied as well as increased biosecurity measures.
According to the Directive, Member States shall ensure that the measures applied in the protection zone are kept at least 15 days since the killing and safe disposal of all the animals of susceptible species from the holding and the completion of the preliminary cleansing and disinfection on that holding is carried out. On 6 August, the Commission adopted a new decision (Decision 2007/552/EC) which laid down interim protection measures reinforcing the measures taken by the UK authorities in reaction to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The European Commission identified the whole of Great Britain as a high risk area and adopted an emergency measure that all live animals susceptible to FMD (cattle, sheep, goats and pigs), or products from these animals could not be exported from Great Britain.
Then, on 8 August, at an emergency session, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health – consisting of representatives from the Member States and chaired by a European Commission representative – voted unanimously in favour of a decision to confirm the measures taken by the Commission in line with EU legislation. Hence, the Standing Committee agreed that the whole of Great Britain should remain a high risk zone. On 9 August, the European Commission adopted a decision concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom and repealing decision 2007/552/EC which applied until 25 August. This decision provided for measures which are in accordance with the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal health’s opinion. No live animals shall be dispatched from or moved through Great Britain. Moreover, the United Kingdom shall not dispatch meats coming from or obtained from animals originating in Great Britain. In the same way, the UK shall not export meat products of animals coming from Great Britain as well as milk and dairy products. It should be noted that the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic outbreak cost the UK economy approximately eight billion pounds. According to Breakingnews, Guy Attenborough, Meat and Livestock Commission’s head of communications said “the export ban will mean a loss of £10m per week to UK red meat businesses.”
On 3 August, the UK authorities confirmed an outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) on a farm in Surrey. The European Commission was informed by the British veterinary authorities that an outbreak of FMD has been officially declared. The Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 lays down Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth aimed at regaining the disease- and infection-free status of the affected territory.
Member States must have emergency plans in operation and national reference laboratories must collaborate with the Community Reference Laboratory. All measures foreseen in the above mentioned EU legislation were immediately applied in the UK following the suspicion and subsequent confirmation of the disease including the culling of all animals in the infected premises, the establishment of a 3 km (1.8 mile) protection zone and a surveillance zone around the premises of 10km (6.2 miles), where strict movement restrictions are applied as well as increased biosecurity measures.
According to the Directive, Member States shall ensure that the measures applied in the protection zone are kept at least 15 days since the killing and safe disposal of all the animals of susceptible species from the holding and the completion of the preliminary cleansing and disinfection on that holding is carried out. On 6 August, the Commission adopted a new decision (Decision 2007/552/EC) which laid down interim protection measures reinforcing the measures taken by the UK authorities in reaction to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The European Commission identified the whole of Great Britain as a high risk area and adopted an emergency measure that all live animals susceptible to FMD (cattle, sheep, goats and pigs), or products from these animals could not be exported from Great Britain.
Then, on 8 August, at an emergency session, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health – consisting of representatives from the Member States and chaired by a European Commission representative – voted unanimously in favour of a decision to confirm the measures taken by the Commission in line with EU legislation. Hence, the Standing Committee agreed that the whole of Great Britain should remain a high risk zone. On 9 August, the European Commission adopted a decision concerning certain protection measures against foot-and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom and repealing decision 2007/552/EC which applied until 25 August. This decision provided for measures which are in accordance with the Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal health’s opinion. No live animals shall be dispatched from or moved through Great Britain. Moreover, the United Kingdom shall not dispatch meats coming from or obtained from animals originating in Great Britain. In the same way, the UK shall not export meat products of animals coming from Great Britain as well as milk and dairy products. It should be noted that the 2001 foot and mouth epidemic outbreak cost the UK economy approximately eight billion pounds. According to Breakingnews, Guy Attenborough, Meat and Livestock Commission’s head of communications said “the export ban will mean a loss of £10m per week to UK red meat businesses.”
Thursday, 23 August 2007
UK Floods – Why Couldn’t we Have Our Money Back, Mr. Brown?
The UK was more than entitled to apply to the EU to help pay towards the costs of damage inflicted by recent floods. But rather than ask for our money back (after all, the UK contributes £10½ billion pounds gross to the EU budget every year to prop up hopeless causes), the Labour government delayed the application. In all the heated attention, we forgot to ask: why?
The EU Civil Protection Mechanism was established in 2001 with the aim of facilitating mobilisation of support and assistance from Member States in case of major emergencies. It purports to pool the civil protection capabilities of the participating states to ensure better protection in the affected country. During July, the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) received several requests for assistance to combat the forest fires raging across Southern Europe. Various Member States provided assistance through the Community Civil Protection Mechanism. And while Southern Countries were struggling with fires the UK was flooding. The MIC was also monitoring the situation in the UK and was ready to offer assistance however the UK has not requested any civil protection assistance to tackle floods consequences. The UK is contributing to the Civil Protection Mechanism therefore why did it not require assistance from it? Moreover, why has the Government taken so long in applying to the EU Solidarity Fund?
The EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was established in November 2002 to provide financial assistance to Member States and pre-accession countries in the face of major natural disasters. The EUSF assists in the event of major natural disaster which is considered as “major” if the estimated cost of the direct damage is over EUR 3 billion (2002 prices) or 0.6 per cent of the gross domestic product of the State concerned. The EUSF supplements public expenditure by the Member State in question, it is aiming at providing fast, effective and flexible emergency financial aid, limited in principle to non-insurable damage, for measures such as providing temporary accommodation or the provisional repair of vital infrastructures permitting the resumption of everyday life and funding rescue services to meet the immediate needs of the population concerned, immediate securing of prevention infrastructures and measures to protect the cultural heritage, cleaning up of disaster-stricken areas.
The State affected is required to submit an application to the Commission for assistance from the fund no later than ten weeks after the first damage caused by the disaster. Moreover, all information on the damage caused by the disaster and its impact on the population and the economy must be provided as well as the estimation cost of the foreseen assistance. John Healey announced on 1 August the government’s intention to apply for financial assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund (EUFS) to help recovery from the June-July floods in the UK. There was no excuse for the government not to apply for the fund. The government should have done so earlier since the floods in Britain had left thousands of people without homes or energy.
Since the beginning of July, the Conservative Party had asked the government to apply for the fund. According to the Financial Times, Peter Ainsworth, Shadow Environment Secretary, said “if the government had taken note the money might now be filtering through to people who need it most.” The UK’s taxpayers contribute extraordinary amounts to the EU Solidarity Fund – therefore it is about time to have same money back. In order for the UK to be entitled to the fund the total amount of damaged caused by the floods has to exceed £2.2billion. Finally, on 20 August, the government formally applied to the EU Solidarity Fund. According to BBC, the Communities Minister John Healey has said “the total cost of the flood damage was now estimated at £2.7bn.” Moreover, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government “if the UK’s total damage is £2.5bn, we might expect between £62.5 million and £125 million.” The Commission will not cover the costs of all damages.
The European Commission will decide the amount of grant and will propose its mobilisation to the European Parliament and Council (budgetary authority), according to the information provide by the UK. The grant is paid immediately and in a single installment after the Commission and the UK sign an agreement. The grant must be used within one year of the date on which it has been received.
The EU Civil Protection Mechanism was established in 2001 with the aim of facilitating mobilisation of support and assistance from Member States in case of major emergencies. It purports to pool the civil protection capabilities of the participating states to ensure better protection in the affected country. During July, the Commission's Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) received several requests for assistance to combat the forest fires raging across Southern Europe. Various Member States provided assistance through the Community Civil Protection Mechanism. And while Southern Countries were struggling with fires the UK was flooding. The MIC was also monitoring the situation in the UK and was ready to offer assistance however the UK has not requested any civil protection assistance to tackle floods consequences. The UK is contributing to the Civil Protection Mechanism therefore why did it not require assistance from it? Moreover, why has the Government taken so long in applying to the EU Solidarity Fund?
The EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) was established in November 2002 to provide financial assistance to Member States and pre-accession countries in the face of major natural disasters. The EUSF assists in the event of major natural disaster which is considered as “major” if the estimated cost of the direct damage is over EUR 3 billion (2002 prices) or 0.6 per cent of the gross domestic product of the State concerned. The EUSF supplements public expenditure by the Member State in question, it is aiming at providing fast, effective and flexible emergency financial aid, limited in principle to non-insurable damage, for measures such as providing temporary accommodation or the provisional repair of vital infrastructures permitting the resumption of everyday life and funding rescue services to meet the immediate needs of the population concerned, immediate securing of prevention infrastructures and measures to protect the cultural heritage, cleaning up of disaster-stricken areas.
The State affected is required to submit an application to the Commission for assistance from the fund no later than ten weeks after the first damage caused by the disaster. Moreover, all information on the damage caused by the disaster and its impact on the population and the economy must be provided as well as the estimation cost of the foreseen assistance. John Healey announced on 1 August the government’s intention to apply for financial assistance from the EU Solidarity Fund (EUFS) to help recovery from the June-July floods in the UK. There was no excuse for the government not to apply for the fund. The government should have done so earlier since the floods in Britain had left thousands of people without homes or energy.
Since the beginning of July, the Conservative Party had asked the government to apply for the fund. According to the Financial Times, Peter Ainsworth, Shadow Environment Secretary, said “if the government had taken note the money might now be filtering through to people who need it most.” The UK’s taxpayers contribute extraordinary amounts to the EU Solidarity Fund – therefore it is about time to have same money back. In order for the UK to be entitled to the fund the total amount of damaged caused by the floods has to exceed £2.2billion. Finally, on 20 August, the government formally applied to the EU Solidarity Fund. According to BBC, the Communities Minister John Healey has said “the total cost of the flood damage was now estimated at £2.7bn.” Moreover, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government “if the UK’s total damage is £2.5bn, we might expect between £62.5 million and £125 million.” The Commission will not cover the costs of all damages.
The European Commission will decide the amount of grant and will propose its mobilisation to the European Parliament and Council (budgetary authority), according to the information provide by the UK. The grant is paid immediately and in a single installment after the Commission and the UK sign an agreement. The grant must be used within one year of the date on which it has been received.
Friday, 3 August 2007
EU–Africa Strategy
On 27 June the Commission approved a Communication ‘From
Cairo to Lisbon: the EU-Africa strategic partnership’. Ahead of the
European Union–Africa summit to be held in Lisbon during December
2007, the European Commission adopted a Communication
proposing a strategic partnership between the European Union and
Africa for a joint European Union–Africa strategy. The EU and
Africa will aim to redefine their existing partnership. The
Commission has stressed that the EU is the most important Africa
partner.
The Commission believes that the approaching EU-Africa
Summit marks “an opportunity for the political leaders of the two
continents to make strong action-oriented political commitments on
current key international issues.” The African and EU Heads of State
and government will sign, at the Summit, “a Lisbon Declaration” –
an EU–African consensus on values, common interest and strategic
objectives” and they will adopt as well a Joint Strategy, which will be
“a political vision and guideline for the future of the EU–Africa
strategic partnership.”
Portugal has close and strong ties with several African countries,
mainly with its former colonies. In this area, Portugal has had more
political influence in the EU due to its historic relationship with
African countries, in particular in its former colonies, and may
push for the channelling of Community aid. The Commission has
said in its Communication that the Summit will promise to be a
success. Socrates has stressed that the EU–Africa summit in
December will be the Portuguese Presidency’s biggest initiative.
However, the Portuguese Presidency has not started off on the
right foot – in particular, the 2003 EU–Africa Summit was
postponed as several Member States were against the presence of
Robert Mugabe. This year, Portugal wishes to ‘invite’ Mugabe
although it hopes to ensure that Zimbabwe’s President does not
actually attend the event. Portugal is already under pressure from
some African leaders saying they will not attend the summit if
Mugabe is present. Some EU Member States – mainly the UK – is
against the idea of Mugabe’s presence at the summit.
It should be noted that since 2002, the EU has held a travel ban on
Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe and members of his ruling
party. As Neil Parish had said “the travel ban is pointless if we
continue to invite Mugabe to the more prestigious meetings on
European soil. The Portuguese Presidency is sending out a terrible
signal that we are prepared to do business with dictators. This
invitation is a disgrace and must be revoked.” Luís Amado, the
Portuguese Foreign Affairs Minister, also said to the European
Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee while presenting the Portuguese
programme, “I am not delighted at the idea of Mugabe
attending the summit, but of course the AU must stick to its own rules.”
However, he has not sought to clarify the Presidency’s intentions
with regards to President Robert Mugabe. It remains to be seen
which diplomatic ‘recipe’ will be found by the Portuguese
Presidency in order to resolve this issue.
More crucially, the EU has been accused of distributing aid
ineffectively and inefficiently. The group, Action for Global Health,
published on 4 July a report ‘Health Warning: Why Europe must act
now to rescue the health Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs).
Whilst recognising some progress has been made in achieving the
MDG, it is insufficient. They are particularly concerned about the
health goals which are considerably “off-track.” According to the
report, Europe is not doing enough to support developing countries
achieve the MDG by 2015.
---- Read ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ in regular editions of
The European Journal. To subscribe, please click here ----
Cairo to Lisbon: the EU-Africa strategic partnership’. Ahead of the
European Union–Africa summit to be held in Lisbon during December
2007, the European Commission adopted a Communication
proposing a strategic partnership between the European Union and
Africa for a joint European Union–Africa strategy. The EU and
Africa will aim to redefine their existing partnership. The
Commission has stressed that the EU is the most important Africa
partner.
The Commission believes that the approaching EU-Africa
Summit marks “an opportunity for the political leaders of the two
continents to make strong action-oriented political commitments on
current key international issues.” The African and EU Heads of State
and government will sign, at the Summit, “a Lisbon Declaration” –
an EU–African consensus on values, common interest and strategic
objectives” and they will adopt as well a Joint Strategy, which will be
“a political vision and guideline for the future of the EU–Africa
strategic partnership.”
Portugal has close and strong ties with several African countries,
mainly with its former colonies. In this area, Portugal has had more
political influence in the EU due to its historic relationship with
African countries, in particular in its former colonies, and may
push for the channelling of Community aid. The Commission has
said in its Communication that the Summit will promise to be a
success. Socrates has stressed that the EU–Africa summit in
December will be the Portuguese Presidency’s biggest initiative.
However, the Portuguese Presidency has not started off on the
right foot – in particular, the 2003 EU–Africa Summit was
postponed as several Member States were against the presence of
Robert Mugabe. This year, Portugal wishes to ‘invite’ Mugabe
although it hopes to ensure that Zimbabwe’s President does not
actually attend the event. Portugal is already under pressure from
some African leaders saying they will not attend the summit if
Mugabe is present. Some EU Member States – mainly the UK – is
against the idea of Mugabe’s presence at the summit.
It should be noted that since 2002, the EU has held a travel ban on
Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe and members of his ruling
party. As Neil Parish had said “the travel ban is pointless if we
continue to invite Mugabe to the more prestigious meetings on
European soil. The Portuguese Presidency is sending out a terrible
signal that we are prepared to do business with dictators. This
invitation is a disgrace and must be revoked.” Luís Amado, the
Portuguese Foreign Affairs Minister, also said to the European
Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee while presenting the Portuguese
programme, “I am not delighted at the idea of Mugabe
attending the summit, but of course the AU must stick to its own rules.”
However, he has not sought to clarify the Presidency’s intentions
with regards to President Robert Mugabe. It remains to be seen
which diplomatic ‘recipe’ will be found by the Portuguese
Presidency in order to resolve this issue.
More crucially, the EU has been accused of distributing aid
ineffectively and inefficiently. The group, Action for Global Health,
published on 4 July a report ‘Health Warning: Why Europe must act
now to rescue the health Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs).
Whilst recognising some progress has been made in achieving the
MDG, it is insufficient. They are particularly concerned about the
health goals which are considerably “off-track.” According to the
report, Europe is not doing enough to support developing countries
achieve the MDG by 2015.
---- Read ‘Through the EU Labyrinth’ in regular editions of
The European Journal. To subscribe, please click here ----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
