Friday, 2 November 2007
French Socialists fall into line
The French political class, like that of most other EU states, has been “squared” for the parliamentary ratification of the Lisbon treaty. In other words, there will be referendums. The First Secretary of the Socialist Party, François Hollande, has confirmed to President Sarkozy that Socialist deputies will vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty. Hollande said, “We will pass this text, we will not oppose this simplified treaty.” (In fact, the Lisbon treaty is far more complicated than the European constitution was.) Hollande said that he thinks a referendum should be held but that he “takes note” of the fact that one will not be. The French Communists have said they are against the treaty; the Greens are in favour. The compliant attitude of the Socialists, who are overwhelmingly pro-EU, contrasts with the significant internal divisions in 2005. The No camp was then led, at least for the Left, by Laurent Fabius, the Socialist former Prime Minister.
Giscard says new treaty same as old constitution
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French President who chaired the European Convention which drew up the European constitution, has written a long article explaining why the new treaty, known as ‘the Lisbon treaty’, is essentially the same as the old constitution, which was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Entitled “European treaty: the tools are exactly the same, only their order in the toolbox has been changed” – a sentence which appears in the text itself - the article opens by saying that many French people are wondering what difference there is between the Lisbon treaty and the constitutional treaty. “The difference concerns the method more than the content,” writes Giscard. Whereas the constitution had been drawn up in public, by the European Convention, and with the aim of simplifying the existing EU treaties, the Lisbon treaty has been drawn up by jurists. “They followed the classic method of the Brussels institutions, which consists in modifying the previous treaties by a series of amendments.” In this respect, says Giscard, the Lisbon treaty is just like the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, “ignored by the public”. “The jurists have not proposed any innovations,” Giscard writes. “They started with the text of the constitution, took its elements apart one by one, and made them correspond by means of amendments to the two existing treaties, Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992).” The result is that the Lisbon treaty itself is “illegible for citizens” since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. “So much for the form. As far as the content is concerned,” Giscard goes on, “the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties.”
For example, the appointment of a President of the European Union for a two and a half year term, which was the centrepiece of the old constitution (Article 22) has simply been transferred to the Lisbon treaty as Amendment 16 to Title III of the Maastricht treaty, where a new article 9b is inserted providing for the presidency using exactly the same words, over eleven lines, used in the constitution.
Giscard says the content of the toolbox is the same but that the box has been re-decorated according to the old style. Now one has to rummage around in three different pigeonholes to find what one needs – but it is all still there.
Giscard says that the main differences lie in the fact that the word ‘constitution’ has been withdrawn, as have the symbols including the flag “which flies everywhere”. He says that this is “a strong sign that the European ambition has ebbed”. Giscard says, though, that the changes made by France, which demanded the removal of a phrase about “free competition” from Article 2, are insignificant because that same phrase has been re-inserted into an annex. “The same goes for the principle of the superiority of EU law over national law, for which the definitive text remains unchanged in the treaty.” Giscard does say that the concessions made to the United Kingdom on the charter of fundamental rights are more important.
“What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre?” Giscard asks. “First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.” The former President also said that the purpose was to allow the Brussels institutions to regain the initiative which had been taken from them by the parliamentarians and politicians who composed the European Convention. The new text, Giscard says, is worse than the old because the language is impenetrable and Europe will thus be distanced even further from the citizens. Giscard concludes by saying that although the text is now so complicated that it is unlikely to be rejected, except in Britain, it contains all the tools necessary for the day when “men and women, animated by great European ambitions, decided to use them”. Then they will be able “to rekindle, beneath the ash which is covering it today, the ardent dream of a united Europe.” [Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Le Monde, 26 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Entitled “European treaty: the tools are exactly the same, only their order in the toolbox has been changed” – a sentence which appears in the text itself - the article opens by saying that many French people are wondering what difference there is between the Lisbon treaty and the constitutional treaty. “The difference concerns the method more than the content,” writes Giscard. Whereas the constitution had been drawn up in public, by the European Convention, and with the aim of simplifying the existing EU treaties, the Lisbon treaty has been drawn up by jurists. “They followed the classic method of the Brussels institutions, which consists in modifying the previous treaties by a series of amendments.” In this respect, says Giscard, the Lisbon treaty is just like the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, “ignored by the public”. “The jurists have not proposed any innovations,” Giscard writes. “They started with the text of the constitution, took its elements apart one by one, and made them correspond by means of amendments to the two existing treaties, Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992).” The result is that the Lisbon treaty itself is “illegible for citizens” since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. “So much for the form. As far as the content is concerned,” Giscard goes on, “the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties.”
For example, the appointment of a President of the European Union for a two and a half year term, which was the centrepiece of the old constitution (Article 22) has simply been transferred to the Lisbon treaty as Amendment 16 to Title III of the Maastricht treaty, where a new article 9b is inserted providing for the presidency using exactly the same words, over eleven lines, used in the constitution.
Giscard says the content of the toolbox is the same but that the box has been re-decorated according to the old style. Now one has to rummage around in three different pigeonholes to find what one needs – but it is all still there.
Giscard says that the main differences lie in the fact that the word ‘constitution’ has been withdrawn, as have the symbols including the flag “which flies everywhere”. He says that this is “a strong sign that the European ambition has ebbed”. Giscard says, though, that the changes made by France, which demanded the removal of a phrase about “free competition” from Article 2, are insignificant because that same phrase has been re-inserted into an annex. “The same goes for the principle of the superiority of EU law over national law, for which the definitive text remains unchanged in the treaty.” Giscard does say that the concessions made to the United Kingdom on the charter of fundamental rights are more important.
“What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre?” Giscard asks. “First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.” The former President also said that the purpose was to allow the Brussels institutions to regain the initiative which had been taken from them by the parliamentarians and politicians who composed the European Convention. The new text, Giscard says, is worse than the old because the language is impenetrable and Europe will thus be distanced even further from the citizens. Giscard concludes by saying that although the text is now so complicated that it is unlikely to be rejected, except in Britain, it contains all the tools necessary for the day when “men and women, animated by great European ambitions, decided to use them”. Then they will be able “to rekindle, beneath the ash which is covering it today, the ardent dream of a united Europe.” [Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Le Monde, 26 October 2007]
---- An excerpt from Dr. John Laughland's Intelligence Digest. For a free e-mail subscription to the Intelligence Digest, please click here ----
Thursday, 1 November 2007
The New Labour EU Immigration Scandal – The Migration Policy that Drove Britons Out of Britain
It is always important to understand in a fair manner the national concern over immigration policy, but this is precisely what the Labour Government ministers have denied to the British electorate and those who work across public services and local councils. The Labour Government has played down the seriousness of the national EU-enforced immigration crisis – even creating misrepresentations of data to divert from major intra-European immigration activity – in order to persevere with a European policy that has trashed economic opportunity, left many young aspiring British workers without the possibility of home ownership or job prospects, overburdened the national health and education sectors and most serious of all, driven Britons from their own country. Since the most recent influx hit a supposed 574,000, Britain now has an approximate 385,000 individuals (including 196,000 British citizens) leaving the UK between 2005 and 2006, the highest figure since the current indicator was first introduced in 1991.
Labour Ministers must concede that a substantial number of jobs created since Labour came to power have gone to EU migrant workers and not British workers. It is simply not an option for it to now walk away from a debate after reporting that the number of foreign workers who had taken up jobs in Britain since 1997 was 1.1 million rather than 800,000. Neither does it make any sense for the Conservative Party to avoid the issue, by debating solely the impact of non-EU immigration on the country, since that is not a long-term solution to the actual national crisis endured by the British people and its public services.
The report today that local authorities have called for a renewed approach by the UK Government in calculating the number of migrant workers in Britain, is further proof that the official statistics are not only underestimations but completely untrustworthy data. As a result, the local authorities have simply not budgeted for the provision of public services for extra workers, particularly from Eastern Europe. The hypocrisy and misrepresentation by the New Labour Government is scandalous and its current EU immigration policy must be debated and reassessed, along with its overarching position of complacency on the EU.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation says:
“This is Gordon Brown’s Britain – it is failing miserably and it is very much out of touch with the needs and lives of the British people and their responsible authorities. Brown had sought to restore faith in a British Parliament but has achieved the opposite – the British are walking out in their droves, in face of being governed and managed by a new European government and being pushed into a European society that has no borders. Such a policy has taken us several centuries back in time and the future of Britain remains no more British than Joseph Stalin.”
The Crisis of Numbers on Europe – Why There is No Real Picture
In 1997: The beginning of the New Labour “immigration programme” marks a serious failure on immigration policy. The Labour Party came to power in 1997, when the net inflow of migrants into the UK had actually fallen from 77,000 in 1994 to 47,000 in 1997 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 1998: During the six years from 1998 to 2003, which defined Labour’s policy towards migration, the approximate net inflow varied between 139,000 and 172,000 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2000: Between 2000 and 2004, the net arrival of migrants has “played a much bigger role in population change than natural change … accounting for around 85 per cent of the total growth in the EU25 population” during this time, said the Government’s ‘independent’ Office for National Statistics (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2002: The UK is reported as one of the top four EU 25 nations, which jointly receive 71 per cent of the net inflow into the EU25 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2004: It was claimed that the net inflow of non-British EU citizens to the UK increased from just 14,000 in 2003 to 74,000 in 2004 and 80 per cent of this increase between 2003 and 2004 was accounted for by citizens of the ten EU accession countries. (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005). These figures have been widely debated and now, widely rejected.
In 2005: In 2005, 565,000 migrants arrived to live in the UK for at least one year (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). This data – as with most ONS data – is widely debated, with the Home Office Minister himself saying that it is actually greater than 600,000. Again, even the figure of 600,000 is widely believed to be incorrect. In this year, it is said that approximately 80,000 citizens from the eight central and eastern European countries acceded to the EU in mid-2004 (the A8) arrived into the UK for a year or more – a figure which was 54 per cent higher than the estimate provided for in 2004 (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). It is reported that 380,000 people then emigrated from the UK, over half of which were British citizens (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007).
In 2006: It is reported that 385,000 individuals (including 196,000 British citizens) left the UK between 2005 to mid-2006, the highest figure since the current indicator was first introduced in 1991. From 2001 to mid-2006, the UK population increased by an average 0.5 per cent every year – the population was 60,587,000 in mid-2006, which is an increase of 349,000 (0.6 per cent) on the mid-2005 population (Office for National Statistics, 22 August 2007). The increase in migration into the UK between 2005 and 2006 occurring among non-British EU citizens was 149,000, compared with 146,000 between 2004-2005 and 82,000 between 2003-2004.
Labour Ministers must concede that a substantial number of jobs created since Labour came to power have gone to EU migrant workers and not British workers. It is simply not an option for it to now walk away from a debate after reporting that the number of foreign workers who had taken up jobs in Britain since 1997 was 1.1 million rather than 800,000. Neither does it make any sense for the Conservative Party to avoid the issue, by debating solely the impact of non-EU immigration on the country, since that is not a long-term solution to the actual national crisis endured by the British people and its public services.
The report today that local authorities have called for a renewed approach by the UK Government in calculating the number of migrant workers in Britain, is further proof that the official statistics are not only underestimations but completely untrustworthy data. As a result, the local authorities have simply not budgeted for the provision of public services for extra workers, particularly from Eastern Europe. The hypocrisy and misrepresentation by the New Labour Government is scandalous and its current EU immigration policy must be debated and reassessed, along with its overarching position of complacency on the EU.
James McConalogue of the European Foundation says:
“This is Gordon Brown’s Britain – it is failing miserably and it is very much out of touch with the needs and lives of the British people and their responsible authorities. Brown had sought to restore faith in a British Parliament but has achieved the opposite – the British are walking out in their droves, in face of being governed and managed by a new European government and being pushed into a European society that has no borders. Such a policy has taken us several centuries back in time and the future of Britain remains no more British than Joseph Stalin.”
The Crisis of Numbers on Europe – Why There is No Real Picture
In 1997: The beginning of the New Labour “immigration programme” marks a serious failure on immigration policy. The Labour Party came to power in 1997, when the net inflow of migrants into the UK had actually fallen from 77,000 in 1994 to 47,000 in 1997 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 1998: During the six years from 1998 to 2003, which defined Labour’s policy towards migration, the approximate net inflow varied between 139,000 and 172,000 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2000: Between 2000 and 2004, the net arrival of migrants has “played a much bigger role in population change than natural change … accounting for around 85 per cent of the total growth in the EU25 population” during this time, said the Government’s ‘independent’ Office for National Statistics (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2002: The UK is reported as one of the top four EU 25 nations, which jointly receive 71 per cent of the net inflow into the EU25 (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005).
In 2004: It was claimed that the net inflow of non-British EU citizens to the UK increased from just 14,000 in 2003 to 74,000 in 2004 and 80 per cent of this increase between 2003 and 2004 was accounted for by citizens of the ten EU accession countries. (Office for National Statistics, 15 December 2005). These figures have been widely debated and now, widely rejected.
In 2005: In 2005, 565,000 migrants arrived to live in the UK for at least one year (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). This data – as with most ONS data – is widely debated, with the Home Office Minister himself saying that it is actually greater than 600,000. Again, even the figure of 600,000 is widely believed to be incorrect. In this year, it is said that approximately 80,000 citizens from the eight central and eastern European countries acceded to the EU in mid-2004 (the A8) arrived into the UK for a year or more – a figure which was 54 per cent higher than the estimate provided for in 2004 (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007). It is reported that 380,000 people then emigrated from the UK, over half of which were British citizens (Office for National Statistics, 19 April 2007).
In 2006: It is reported that 385,000 individuals (including 196,000 British citizens) left the UK between 2005 to mid-2006, the highest figure since the current indicator was first introduced in 1991. From 2001 to mid-2006, the UK population increased by an average 0.5 per cent every year – the population was 60,587,000 in mid-2006, which is an increase of 349,000 (0.6 per cent) on the mid-2005 population (Office for National Statistics, 22 August 2007). The increase in migration into the UK between 2005 and 2006 occurring among non-British EU citizens was 149,000, compared with 146,000 between 2004-2005 and 82,000 between 2003-2004.
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
EU Law and the Philip Lawrence Murderer
The BBC today reported that “A senior High Court judge has refused a government request to reconsider a tribunal's decision to prevent a murderer being deported to Italy. Learco Chindamo, the murderer of London headteacher Philip Lawrence, could be released from prison next year.” The European Journal had already printed the following piece in the last [October] issue, by Bill Cash MP.
EU Law and the Philip Lawrence Murderer
Bill Cash MP
The British people will no doubt strongly support the widow of Philip Lawrence in her distress at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) decision, concerning her husband’s killer. The fact that the decision was taken on the basis of a European directive as compared to the Human Rights Act (1998) makes the situation worse. The essential issue is that whether in respect of the European Communities Act (1972), or the Human Rights Act (1998), Parliament has abrogated its responsibility and accountability to the electorate under both enactments. Westminster, on behalf of the electorate, to whom it is responsible must reassert both in principle and in practice its supremacy (endorsed by a Referendum on the new European Reform Treaty) and legislate in line with the wishes of the voters, overriding when necessary the Act of 1972 and the Act of 1998. Thus, we would reclaim the right to deport foreign prisoners and foreign convicts and to ensure that terrorists are put under proper control and protect the British people from them. The debate in the media has not touched on the fundamental principles nor the requirement that the British judiciary must be required by Westminster legislation to interpret and obey legislation passed in line with the wishes of the electorate and not some allegedly superior European jurisdiction or elite.
EU Law and the Philip Lawrence Murderer
Bill Cash MP
The British people will no doubt strongly support the widow of Philip Lawrence in her distress at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) decision, concerning her husband’s killer. The fact that the decision was taken on the basis of a European directive as compared to the Human Rights Act (1998) makes the situation worse. The essential issue is that whether in respect of the European Communities Act (1972), or the Human Rights Act (1998), Parliament has abrogated its responsibility and accountability to the electorate under both enactments. Westminster, on behalf of the electorate, to whom it is responsible must reassert both in principle and in practice its supremacy (endorsed by a Referendum on the new European Reform Treaty) and legislate in line with the wishes of the voters, overriding when necessary the Act of 1972 and the Act of 1998. Thus, we would reclaim the right to deport foreign prisoners and foreign convicts and to ensure that terrorists are put under proper control and protect the British people from them. The debate in the media has not touched on the fundamental principles nor the requirement that the British judiciary must be required by Westminster legislation to interpret and obey legislation passed in line with the wishes of the electorate and not some allegedly superior European jurisdiction or elite.
Law Lords Mixed Decision on Protecting the Terrorist
After the law lords today gave a mixed decision on the government's control orders breaching the human rights of terrorism suspects, it is time that the UK Government realises that the control order regime they rushed through, which is grounded within the Human Rights Act, has been a recipe for disaster. More importantly, there is urgent need for reform here: the UK Government has created a dreadful situation by jeopardizing the security of UK citizens – and in the interests of their security, the Human Rights Act needs to be repealed.
If the Government, as the Home Secretary said today, is “to take every available step necessary to protect the public from the very real threat we face from terrorism", then why has the UK incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law via the Human Rights Act of 1998, creating a significant obstacle to public security
Although we must allow for a fair trial of terrorist suspects, habeas corpus, and for due legal process, the whole practice on human rights, from the Belmarsh case to the present day has clearly shown that the judiciary will continue to refuse to place public security first. The incorporation of ECHR into UK law via the Human Rights Act of 1998 is a major obstacle to public security. We need to opt out of ECHR. The Human Rights Act of 1998 needs to be repealed.
If the Government, as the Home Secretary said today, is “to take every available step necessary to protect the public from the very real threat we face from terrorism", then why has the UK incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law via the Human Rights Act of 1998, creating a significant obstacle to public security
Although we must allow for a fair trial of terrorist suspects, habeas corpus, and for due legal process, the whole practice on human rights, from the Belmarsh case to the present day has clearly shown that the judiciary will continue to refuse to place public security first. The incorporation of ECHR into UK law via the Human Rights Act of 1998 is a major obstacle to public security. We need to opt out of ECHR. The Human Rights Act of 1998 needs to be repealed.
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
63% of Conservative Supporters Back "Renegotiation Referendum" … Britain Must "renegotiate back to the idea of a free trade area"
David Cameron has done well recently to generate such a huge level of support for the Conservative Party but a poll by ConservativeHome today shows the importance of getting his message right on Europe. Whilst 77% agree that the EU Treaty amounts to a significant surrender of British powers, there are 63% who support the idea that if the Treaty is ratified, they would support a referendum that mandated the incoming Conservative government to renegotiate back to the idea of a free trade area.
As long as David Cameron pledges a post-ratification referendum with conviction, the opportunity for the "renegotiation" of Britain's position within Europe remains possible. The leadership must begin by endorsing the Early Day Motion (EDM) laid down by William Cash MP, and signed by 47 Tory MPs, calling for a referendum "before or after ratification."
"Renegotiation" must be Cameron's long-term concern on Europe in order for the Party to create a credible agenda. This referendum must seek to renegotiate all the existing Treaties, since – as the EDM says – "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 European Foundation has been campaigning for fourteen years on demanding the renegotiation of the binding European Treaties, and thereby the existing relationship which the country which has with the European Union. There is no other credible and diplomatic way out of our troubled relationship with Europe. As Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin told ConservativeHome: "The question is not whether there should be renegotiation, but how it should be achieved."
James McConalogue of the European Foundation said:
"This means that the Party must debate the need for renegotiating on the Lisbon Treaty and the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice. They must recognise that there is a need for free trade but not European government, and ought to propose, as Winston Churchill asserted, that Britain must be associated but not absorbed by Europe. What we need is a Europe based on an association of freely trading nation-states, not a Europe under one super state."
As long as David Cameron pledges a post-ratification referendum with conviction, the opportunity for the "renegotiation" of Britain's position within Europe remains possible. The leadership must begin by endorsing the Early Day Motion (EDM) laid down by William Cash MP, and signed by 47 Tory MPs, calling for a referendum "before or after ratification."
"Renegotiation" must be Cameron's long-term concern on Europe in order for the Party to create a credible agenda. This referendum must seek to renegotiate all the existing Treaties, since – as the EDM says – "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 European Foundation has been campaigning for fourteen years on demanding the renegotiation of the binding European Treaties, and thereby the existing relationship which the country which has with the European Union. There is no other credible and diplomatic way out of our troubled relationship with Europe. As Conservative MP, Bernard Jenkin told ConservativeHome: "The question is not whether there should be renegotiation, but how it should be achieved."
James McConalogue of the European Foundation said:
"This means that the Party must debate the need for renegotiating on the Lisbon Treaty and the Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice. They must recognise that there is a need for free trade but not European government, and ought to propose, as Winston Churchill asserted, that Britain must be associated but not absorbed by Europe. What we need is a Europe based on an association of freely trading nation-states, not a Europe under one super state."
Monday, 29 October 2007
Cameron Needs to Cement New Victory By Confronting Europe
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?”
“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?”
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
