James McConalogue of the European Foundation argued in a letter to the Coventry Evening Telegraph on 3 December:
Dear Sir,
Six years ago on 7 July 2001, the elected Labour MP for Coventry North East, Bob Ainsworth, told the House of Commons that there was a compelling case for the Labour government “to recommend United Kingdom entry into the single currency and [if] Parliament and the people in a referendum were to agree.” Whilst I must congratulate Mr. Ainsworth on both his honesty to espouse his essentially pro-European ambitions and views as he thinks fit (although I disagree) and to recommend the use of a democratic referendum and parliamentary agreement to reach an agreement, I wonder if he would now support the democratic case for referendum on the incoming EU Reform Treaty which – like the single currency – fundamentally and irreversibly alters the nature of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
I can only assume, on his own terms, that the case for a referendum remains in the interest of British democracy and to put it right, he must enable a referendum or better still vote against the Treaty given its detrimental consequences for the democratic future of Britain. Any action to the contrary would surely make Bob Ainsworth unelectable at the next election?
Yours sincerely,
James McConalogue
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Friday, 30 November 2007
EU Treaty & Sovereignty on Energy Policy
Leading eurosceptic, William Cash MP, said in the House of Commons on 27 November that:
"I am concerned also about the fact that the EU reform treaty, which the House will debate soon, contains a new energy chapter and essentially the same provisions as those in the original constitutional treaty. It also adds a new element to the policy—the interconnection of energy networks. As was the case under the original constitutional treaty, energy measures cannot affect a member state’s right to determine conditions for the exploitation of energy resources, its choice of energy resources or the structure of its energy supply. However, environmental measures ... can affect such matters. Although such matters are governed by unanimity, the doctrine of the “occupied field” could severely inhibit the manner in which we can legislate. If the new energy chapter goes in, albeit unanimously, we would remain in a very difficult position should we seek to legislate on our own terms—something that I insist upon, because Parliament has to have sovereignty over its energy policy and legislation."
This is worth noting, since it has hardly been argued previously in Parliament that the EU Reform Treaty will have a huge impact on the ability for Britain to determine it's own competitive energy policy.
"I am concerned also about the fact that the EU reform treaty, which the House will debate soon, contains a new energy chapter and essentially the same provisions as those in the original constitutional treaty. It also adds a new element to the policy—the interconnection of energy networks. As was the case under the original constitutional treaty, energy measures cannot affect a member state’s right to determine conditions for the exploitation of energy resources, its choice of energy resources or the structure of its energy supply. However, environmental measures ... can affect such matters. Although such matters are governed by unanimity, the doctrine of the “occupied field” could severely inhibit the manner in which we can legislate. If the new energy chapter goes in, albeit unanimously, we would remain in a very difficult position should we seek to legislate on our own terms—something that I insist upon, because Parliament has to have sovereignty over its energy policy and legislation."
This is worth noting, since it has hardly been argued previously in Parliament that the EU Reform Treaty will have a huge impact on the ability for Britain to determine it's own competitive energy policy.
EU Constitution & an accountable Parliament
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said in the House of Lords on 22 November:
What exactly did the Government mean in the gracious Speech when they talked about making Parliament more accountable, given that they propose to give the powers of this Parliament to a supranational body without the consent of the people and on a whipped vote on their side of the House?
When Brown does sign the Treaty on 13 December, it will make Parliament even less accountable and even less trustworthy than it had been previously (if that is possible).
What exactly did the Government mean in the gracious Speech when they talked about making Parliament more accountable, given that they propose to give the powers of this Parliament to a supranational body without the consent of the people and on a whipped vote on their side of the House?
When Brown does sign the Treaty on 13 December, it will make Parliament even less accountable and even less trustworthy than it had been previously (if that is possible).
Lord Howell: Denial over EU Constitution is a Waste of Time
Lord Howell of Guildford said in the House of Lords on 22 November:
"Regardless of whether we have a referendum — I suspect that we probably will in the end, now that 12 heads of member states, all the authors of the previous treaty and some authors of the present treaty concede that this is 90 or 95 per cent similar to the constitution and contains all the European constitution treaty provisions—is it still government policy to go on denying that this is a constitutional treaty? That might be rather a waste of time when everyone agrees that it is."
It sends a clear message to the Government: the denial over the EU Constitution is a waste of time.
"Regardless of whether we have a referendum — I suspect that we probably will in the end, now that 12 heads of member states, all the authors of the previous treaty and some authors of the present treaty concede that this is 90 or 95 per cent similar to the constitution and contains all the European constitution treaty provisions—is it still government policy to go on denying that this is a constitutional treaty? That might be rather a waste of time when everyone agrees that it is."
It sends a clear message to the Government: the denial over the EU Constitution is a waste of time.
Why are so many people leaving the UK?
John Redwood, MP, has a noteworthy piece on his blog, in which he attempts to grapple with why so many people are leaving the UK. In his blog, he says:
"We are told we have to love the EU and accept its constitution, after the promised of a referendum in order to win a General election. Many of us see the EU as a hostile bureaucracy, tying us up in ever more rules and regulations. We are not xenophobes - most of us like our continent and appreciate its range of cultures, languages and cuisines. We just do not want to be governed by a bunch of bureaucrats who think they have to regulate every aspect of our increasingly complex lives and who we cannot sack via an election." Read on.
"We are told we have to love the EU and accept its constitution, after the promised of a referendum in order to win a General election. Many of us see the EU as a hostile bureaucracy, tying us up in ever more rules and regulations. We are not xenophobes - most of us like our continent and appreciate its range of cultures, languages and cuisines. We just do not want to be governed by a bunch of bureaucrats who think they have to regulate every aspect of our increasingly complex lives and who we cannot sack via an election." Read on.
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Reform Treaty means European Court of Justice will become “conclusive arbiter of the meaning of Union measures and … of national law”, says report
The European Foundation welcomes the UK’s parliamentary Labour-dominated European Scrutiny Committee new report on the Reform Treaty, published today, and in particular we welcome its understandable conclusions on: the Government’s deceptive red lines, disastrous Treaty provisions on the role of national parliaments expressed as a legal obligation, the Government’s false guarantees that the Charter can have no effect on the law of the United Kingdom when it is combined with consideration of the implementation of Union law, the weakness of the ‘opt-in’ on amendments to existing EU measures, and the loss of protection that will occur every time jurisdiction is transferred from UK courts to jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice and the Commission.
However, the report itself does not conclude with any sufficient warnings, pointers or redeeming aspects, since it weighs the concerns on the Reform Treaty not only as a purely technical task but one which must not unsettle the current Labour Government any further. (Note, the Committee is dominated by Labour MPs). It is therefore a matter of absolute priority that the Foundation endorses the draft report, published alongside the Committee report, which provides a proper case for why the requirements of this Treaty provide the necessary conditions for a national referendum.
Most importantly, the short appended report (pp.32-34) proposed by Mr William Cash and voted by James Clappison, Greg Hands and David Heathcoat-Amory makes the following points:
“We [already] concluded that “The new Treaty produced an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” and we would add that even where derivations or opt-outs for the United Kingdom have been sought by the Government that these do not provide anything like adequate protection nor guarantees for the United Kingdom, its electorate and its Parliament. This substantial equivalence, together with the substance of the Reform Treaty, and the merger of the existing treaties into a union amounts to substantial constitutional change warranting a referendum in accordance with the Government’s own criteria for referendums.”
“The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if not the same. It is a distinction without a proper difference and, in the words of our 34th report, is “substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty”.”
“There are also specific provisions arising in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the legal obligations imposed on the united Kingdom Parliament, measures relating to the criminal law, and measures related to Title IV which are deeply contentious and would require specific exclusion from having effect in UK law which for the avoidance of doubt could only be achieved by excluding their effect by the use of a provision preceded by the words “Not withstanding the European Communities Act 1972”. Such a formula would be essential but the government, by all accounts, would not be prepared to employ such wording, thereby putting the vital national interests of the electorate in jeopardy.”
“The Reform Treaty on all these tests requires a referendum. It would be a deceit of the electorate (even by the criteria for a referendum set out by the Government) to refuse to hold one, unless the Treaty itself was rejected by the Prime Minister before signature in December. Unless this occurs, refusal to hold a referendum would be a breach of trust with respect to the Reform Treaty (let alone past promises about the original Constitutional Treaty made in 2004) and would run clearly contrary to the assertions of the present Prime Minister that he is committed to restoring good governance, democracy and trust.”
However, the report itself does not conclude with any sufficient warnings, pointers or redeeming aspects, since it weighs the concerns on the Reform Treaty not only as a purely technical task but one which must not unsettle the current Labour Government any further. (Note, the Committee is dominated by Labour MPs). It is therefore a matter of absolute priority that the Foundation endorses the draft report, published alongside the Committee report, which provides a proper case for why the requirements of this Treaty provide the necessary conditions for a national referendum.
Most importantly, the short appended report (pp.32-34) proposed by Mr William Cash and voted by James Clappison, Greg Hands and David Heathcoat-Amory makes the following points:
“We [already] concluded that “The new Treaty produced an effect which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty” and we would add that even where derivations or opt-outs for the United Kingdom have been sought by the Government that these do not provide anything like adequate protection nor guarantees for the United Kingdom, its electorate and its Parliament. This substantial equivalence, together with the substance of the Reform Treaty, and the merger of the existing treaties into a union amounts to substantial constitutional change warranting a referendum in accordance with the Government’s own criteria for referendums.”
“The Reform Treaty, as compared to the Original Constitutional Treaty, requires a referendum of the electorate of the United Kingdom because it is the equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty, even if not the same. It is a distinction without a proper difference and, in the words of our 34th report, is “substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty”.”
“There are also specific provisions arising in respect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, the legal obligations imposed on the united Kingdom Parliament, measures relating to the criminal law, and measures related to Title IV which are deeply contentious and would require specific exclusion from having effect in UK law which for the avoidance of doubt could only be achieved by excluding their effect by the use of a provision preceded by the words “Not withstanding the European Communities Act 1972”. Such a formula would be essential but the government, by all accounts, would not be prepared to employ such wording, thereby putting the vital national interests of the electorate in jeopardy.”
“The Reform Treaty on all these tests requires a referendum. It would be a deceit of the electorate (even by the criteria for a referendum set out by the Government) to refuse to hold one, unless the Treaty itself was rejected by the Prime Minister before signature in December. Unless this occurs, refusal to hold a referendum would be a breach of trust with respect to the Reform Treaty (let alone past promises about the original Constitutional Treaty made in 2004) and would run clearly contrary to the assertions of the present Prime Minister that he is committed to restoring good governance, democracy and trust.”
Monday, 26 November 2007
EU Blows Billions on Galileo Project
The EU will go ahead with the Galileo and European Institute of Technology projects, it has announced.
The European Parliament said today:
"We came here to cut the Gordian knot", said Reimer Böge (EPP-ED, DE), chair of the EP delegation and of the Budgets Committee, at the start of the conciliation, referring to Galileo and the European Institute of Technology (EIT). By the close of the talks it was agreed, thanks to Parliament's insistence, that Galileo (the European satellite navigation system, which will be independent of the American, Russian and Chinese systems) will be funded entirely by the Community. The amount needed by 2013 (a shortfall of €2.4bn) will be found mainly from the revision of the Financial Perspective (€1.6bn of "new" money taken from agricultural expenditure not used in 2007). The rest will come from the redeployment of funds intended for a few programmes that do not come under co-decision (€200 million), the "re-prioritisation" (change in the order of priorities to be funded: €400 million) of certain amounts earmarked for research and the unused margins in Heading 1a (Competitiveness and growth: €300 million). Funding for the EIT (€300 million) is part of this financial package totalling €2.7bn (up to 2013). Failing a satisfactory agreement on the Galileo programme, this project, which is politically, economically and symbolically crucial for the EU, might have collapsed." Click here.
Heise Online said:
Following months of disagreements, the EU has reached a funding compromise and resolved the crisis around its Galileo satellite navigation system. Two thirds of the missing 2.4 billion euros will be provided from EU farming pots alone. This was announced by the Portuguese Chair of the European Council in Brussels on Friday night following more than 12 hours of budget negotiations for 2008 by the EU Ministers of Finance or their representatives. Click here.
EU Observer said:
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU ministers have agreed to full public financing of the Galileo satellite system and a brand new technology institute, as part of a deal on the bloc's 2008 budget - the first ever to earmark more cash for growth and jobs than for farm aid.After months of disagreement over who should foot the bill for the two big projects – private sector co-financing was originally the plan - member states agreed late Friday (23 November) to push forward with them using funds solely from EU coffers. Click here.
The European Parliament said today:
"We came here to cut the Gordian knot", said Reimer Böge (EPP-ED, DE), chair of the EP delegation and of the Budgets Committee, at the start of the conciliation, referring to Galileo and the European Institute of Technology (EIT). By the close of the talks it was agreed, thanks to Parliament's insistence, that Galileo (the European satellite navigation system, which will be independent of the American, Russian and Chinese systems) will be funded entirely by the Community. The amount needed by 2013 (a shortfall of €2.4bn) will be found mainly from the revision of the Financial Perspective (€1.6bn of "new" money taken from agricultural expenditure not used in 2007). The rest will come from the redeployment of funds intended for a few programmes that do not come under co-decision (€200 million), the "re-prioritisation" (change in the order of priorities to be funded: €400 million) of certain amounts earmarked for research and the unused margins in Heading 1a (Competitiveness and growth: €300 million). Funding for the EIT (€300 million) is part of this financial package totalling €2.7bn (up to 2013). Failing a satisfactory agreement on the Galileo programme, this project, which is politically, economically and symbolically crucial for the EU, might have collapsed." Click here.
Heise Online said:
Following months of disagreements, the EU has reached a funding compromise and resolved the crisis around its Galileo satellite navigation system. Two thirds of the missing 2.4 billion euros will be provided from EU farming pots alone. This was announced by the Portuguese Chair of the European Council in Brussels on Friday night following more than 12 hours of budget negotiations for 2008 by the EU Ministers of Finance or their representatives. Click here.
EU Observer said:
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - EU ministers have agreed to full public financing of the Galileo satellite system and a brand new technology institute, as part of a deal on the bloc's 2008 budget - the first ever to earmark more cash for growth and jobs than for farm aid.After months of disagreement over who should foot the bill for the two big projects – private sector co-financing was originally the plan - member states agreed late Friday (23 November) to push forward with them using funds solely from EU coffers. Click here.
Friday, 23 November 2007
The Deportation Report 2007 – The Labour Government’s Failure to Deport EU Criminals Resulting from the Superiority of EU Law
The Labour Government has failed catastrophically in its attempts to enforce deportation orders against criminals to within EU Member States on release from prison. This has greatly jeopardised public security within Britain and has largely been a result of European policy under the EU’s Citizens Directive 2004, as implemented in the UK under the Immigration Regulations 2006.
In the European Foundation’s ‘Deportation Report 2007’, there is an analysis of the recent European legislation, implemented under the Labour Government, which shows that it is wholly incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK law, relating to deportation orders.
James McConalogue, Director of the European Foundation, said:
“The issues of immigration and deportation of prisoners after release from prison are extremely sensitive issues, but they are not ones that we can continue to simply pass by. We abide by a Labour Government’s Home Secretaries, whether that be Charles Clarke, John Reid, David Blunkett or Jacqui Smith, who claim to ensure deportation orders are working effectively yet simultaneously have introduced draconian EU legislation in through the back door to prevent such deportation orders taking effect, leaving Britain open to serious public risk from crime on the streets through to acts of public terror within the cities. This issue must be addressed. And Europe is at the core of the problem.”
The Deportation Report 2007 concludes with the following:
It is incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK immigration law.
We emphasise a number of Asylum Immigration Tribunal cases which are public testaments to second-rate British asylum and immigration laws that have necessarily been obliged to converge with the Citizens Directive, under which the Community has asserted an unconditional free movement of ‘EU citizens’, without taking into account the proper and detrimental consequences for Member States. This has put the British public in the path of grave danger.
Independent and eminent legal advisers have already said that the introduction of at least one new immigration regulation under the Citizens Directive “may make it more difficult for the Secretary of State to remove or deport an EEA national on the ground of criminal conduct than appeared to be the case previously.” It is for the Home Secretary to answer to those grounded proposals, since they are now determining the safety and welfare of British citizens.
The UK’s own Asylum Immigration Tribunal has been forced unreservedly into accepting the case that EU law takes precedence over British law which enabled deportation measures under the authority of British judges. This is contrary to what Britain actually needs to properly address the dangerous deportation situation.
It is clear that when transposed into UK law, the Citizens Directive assumes that previous convictions do not warrant deportation. This is due, in part, to the fact that the ECJ has determined the “present threat” and “the requirements of public policy” for deportation of prisoners at an arbitrary European level, regardless of the conditions stated by the national Secretary of State.
The UK Government, under ECJ guidance, is not entitled to use deportation as a preventive or deterrence measure, leaving open concerns that British criminal policy will be severely restricted in what can be delivered for the safety of British citizens since the Government has accepted a potentially dangerous European judgement: that the use of such measures as a deterrent is to be barred by law.
In the European Foundation’s ‘Deportation Report 2007’, there is an analysis of the recent European legislation, implemented under the Labour Government, which shows that it is wholly incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK law, relating to deportation orders.
James McConalogue, Director of the European Foundation, said:
“The issues of immigration and deportation of prisoners after release from prison are extremely sensitive issues, but they are not ones that we can continue to simply pass by. We abide by a Labour Government’s Home Secretaries, whether that be Charles Clarke, John Reid, David Blunkett or Jacqui Smith, who claim to ensure deportation orders are working effectively yet simultaneously have introduced draconian EU legislation in through the back door to prevent such deportation orders taking effect, leaving Britain open to serious public risk from crime on the streets through to acts of public terror within the cities. This issue must be addressed. And Europe is at the core of the problem.”
The Deportation Report 2007 concludes with the following:
It is incorrect for the Home Office to consistently claim that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport criminals after release from prison to the EU Member States. Recent legislation, introduced into the UK under the Immigration regulations 2006, consistent with the EU Citizens Directive, has demonstrated how EU law now takes precedence over a redundant UK immigration law.
We emphasise a number of Asylum Immigration Tribunal cases which are public testaments to second-rate British asylum and immigration laws that have necessarily been obliged to converge with the Citizens Directive, under which the Community has asserted an unconditional free movement of ‘EU citizens’, without taking into account the proper and detrimental consequences for Member States. This has put the British public in the path of grave danger.
Independent and eminent legal advisers have already said that the introduction of at least one new immigration regulation under the Citizens Directive “may make it more difficult for the Secretary of State to remove or deport an EEA national on the ground of criminal conduct than appeared to be the case previously.” It is for the Home Secretary to answer to those grounded proposals, since they are now determining the safety and welfare of British citizens.
The UK’s own Asylum Immigration Tribunal has been forced unreservedly into accepting the case that EU law takes precedence over British law which enabled deportation measures under the authority of British judges. This is contrary to what Britain actually needs to properly address the dangerous deportation situation.
It is clear that when transposed into UK law, the Citizens Directive assumes that previous convictions do not warrant deportation. This is due, in part, to the fact that the ECJ has determined the “present threat” and “the requirements of public policy” for deportation of prisoners at an arbitrary European level, regardless of the conditions stated by the national Secretary of State.
The UK Government, under ECJ guidance, is not entitled to use deportation as a preventive or deterrence measure, leaving open concerns that British criminal policy will be severely restricted in what can be delivered for the safety of British citizens since the Government has accepted a potentially dangerous European judgement: that the use of such measures as a deterrent is to be barred by law.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
European Court of Justice Soon to Impose Criminal Penalties on UK
On 23 October, the European Court of Justice gave its ruling in a case [Case C-440/05], whereby the Commission was seeking annulment of the Council framework decision to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of a law against ship-source pollution on 12 July 2005. According to the Commission, the aim and content of the framework decision came within the European Community’s sphere of competence as provided for by the EC Treaty as part of the common transport policy and therefore the decision should have been adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty rather than on the basis of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union. The Court stressed that the common transport policy is one of the foundations of the Community, and that, within the scope of the competence conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the Community legislature may adopt measures aimed at improving maritime transport safety.
The Framework Decision in question introduces the obligation of Member States to provide for criminal penalties for persons who have committed, aided, abetted or incited certain environmental offences. It also states that the criminal penalties must be effective, dissuasive and proportionate and lays down the type and level of applicable criminal penalties. The European Court of Justice reiterated that the Community has competence under the EC Treaty for adopted criminal law measures when they are necessary for the implementation of Community objectives. The ECJ has stressed that the Framework Decision provisions “must be regarded as being essentially aimed at improving maritime safety, as well as environmental protection, and could have been validly adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) EC.” However, according to the Court “the determination of the type and level of the criminal penalties to be applied does not fall within the Community’s sphere of competence.” Yet Member States are not free to introduce small sanctions since the criminal penalties must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive.”
According to Article 47 EU, none of the provisions of the EC Treaty is to be affected by a provision of the EU Treaty. Hence, the ECJ concluded that Framework Decision 2005/667 encroaches upon the competence which Article 80(2) EC attributes to the Community, infringing Article 47 EU. Therefore the ECJ annuls the framework decision.
This ruling has implications for a Directive proposed by the Commission last February on the protection of the environment through criminal law under which the Member States would have to impose criminal sanctions for certain environment crime sentences of one to ten years in prison or high fines. However, according to the ECJ ruling the Commission does not have the competence to determine the type and level of criminal penalty which must be left for the Member States. Unsurprisingly, the Commission is looking forward to the Lisbon Treaty as at that point, the Commission will have a legal basis for this law. Article 69f (2) states that “if the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.”
The power to impose criminal penalties mut remain a sovereign power and should be handed over to the individual Member States and intergovernmental forms of cooperation but not to the Community. However, in the new Reform Treaty, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are incorporated in the Community Treaty. Therefore, the decision making procedure and instruments of action which currently are intergovernmental will be from the “Community method.” Hence, it will be subject to the co-decision procedure (ordinary legislative procedure) and to qualified majority voting. Moreover, the European Court of Justice will have full jurisdiction. The UK has the right to choose whether to take part in JHA legislation but it is not a free choice, as in several cases the UK will be compelled to opt in. Hence, once opted in, the UK can be taken before the ECJ for failure to implement a criminal law.
The Framework Decision in question introduces the obligation of Member States to provide for criminal penalties for persons who have committed, aided, abetted or incited certain environmental offences. It also states that the criminal penalties must be effective, dissuasive and proportionate and lays down the type and level of applicable criminal penalties. The European Court of Justice reiterated that the Community has competence under the EC Treaty for adopted criminal law measures when they are necessary for the implementation of Community objectives. The ECJ has stressed that the Framework Decision provisions “must be regarded as being essentially aimed at improving maritime safety, as well as environmental protection, and could have been validly adopted on the basis of Article 80(2) EC.” However, according to the Court “the determination of the type and level of the criminal penalties to be applied does not fall within the Community’s sphere of competence.” Yet Member States are not free to introduce small sanctions since the criminal penalties must be “effective, proportionate and dissuasive.”
According to Article 47 EU, none of the provisions of the EC Treaty is to be affected by a provision of the EU Treaty. Hence, the ECJ concluded that Framework Decision 2005/667 encroaches upon the competence which Article 80(2) EC attributes to the Community, infringing Article 47 EU. Therefore the ECJ annuls the framework decision.
This ruling has implications for a Directive proposed by the Commission last February on the protection of the environment through criminal law under which the Member States would have to impose criminal sanctions for certain environment crime sentences of one to ten years in prison or high fines. However, according to the ECJ ruling the Commission does not have the competence to determine the type and level of criminal penalty which must be left for the Member States. Unsurprisingly, the Commission is looking forward to the Lisbon Treaty as at that point, the Commission will have a legal basis for this law. Article 69f (2) states that “if the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.”
The power to impose criminal penalties mut remain a sovereign power and should be handed over to the individual Member States and intergovernmental forms of cooperation but not to the Community. However, in the new Reform Treaty, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters are incorporated in the Community Treaty. Therefore, the decision making procedure and instruments of action which currently are intergovernmental will be from the “Community method.” Hence, it will be subject to the co-decision procedure (ordinary legislative procedure) and to qualified majority voting. Moreover, the European Court of Justice will have full jurisdiction. The UK has the right to choose whether to take part in JHA legislation but it is not a free choice, as in several cases the UK will be compelled to opt in. Hence, once opted in, the UK can be taken before the ECJ for failure to implement a criminal law.
Ukraine’s election: is it all about the Russians?
In the next edition [November/December] of The European Journal, Carl Thomson argues that the tendency to interpret Ukraine’s current political crisis as a straightforward conflict between those who want the country to be “pro-Western” in outlook, and those who wish it to adopt a “pro-Russian” stance, is overly simplistic. He warns that popular misconceptions about Ukraine are being exploited by politicians in Kiev looking to promote their own interests and by those in Europe and America pushing for conflict with Putin’s Russia as a means of furthering their own ideological and geopolitical agenda.
In Thomson's article, he writes that the Ukraine "will never prosper so long as it is exploited by politicians on all sides of the debate and her people remain unwilling participants in the new great game for influence, resources and expansion between Russia, America and the European Union."
Order a copy of the next issue from the European Foundation: euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk
In Thomson's article, he writes that the Ukraine "will never prosper so long as it is exploited by politicians on all sides of the debate and her people remain unwilling participants in the new great game for influence, resources and expansion between Russia, America and the European Union."
Order a copy of the next issue from the European Foundation: euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk
Monday, 19 November 2007
Socialist Miliband Is Off Telling Porkies in Bruges
This is our Foreign Secretary’s best effort in putting forward the case for the UK remaining a member of the EU. What a humiliation. It is just as well he gave the speech in Bruges … We wouldn’t have him on our doorstep.
Following David Miliband’s speech to the College of Europe in Bruges, it must be evident that his foundations for the UK relationship with Europe, pushing for solidarity on climate change & environment, common defence, and the single market, are impractical, ideological, unrealisable and often false aims, which will scupper the hopes, aspirations and economic enterprise of UK citizens and business now and well into 2030.
The Foreign Secretary’s ambitions detailing ‘how the EU can help to shape the world of 2030’ are no more than rhetorical ramblings, since there is no considerable evidence to support such claims. Europe isn’t working. An analysis based on the existing hard facts proves that it is failing. One can only assume that Miliband’s positive case for defence means an Anglo-French push for the common defence plans in the 27 EU bloc will soon be on the agenda.
For Miliband to even suggest that ‘the case against economic protectionism is overwhelming’ whilst actually defending EU regional protectionist policies is double-standards and plainly wrong, especially since he is looking into the long-term. Furthermore, it remains the case that by 2015, the UK exports to other EU Member States will diminish, making the case for a global international trade solution outside of the European Union even greater. The campaign group, Global Vision, have already made clear that in the period 1999-2005, UK exports to countries outside the EU grew on average 44 per cent faster than exports to other EU member states and that on present trends, by 2015, around two-thirds of all British exports will be going outside the EU.
Following David Miliband’s speech to the College of Europe in Bruges, it must be evident that his foundations for the UK relationship with Europe, pushing for solidarity on climate change & environment, common defence, and the single market, are impractical, ideological, unrealisable and often false aims, which will scupper the hopes, aspirations and economic enterprise of UK citizens and business now and well into 2030.
The Foreign Secretary’s ambitions detailing ‘how the EU can help to shape the world of 2030’ are no more than rhetorical ramblings, since there is no considerable evidence to support such claims. Europe isn’t working. An analysis based on the existing hard facts proves that it is failing. One can only assume that Miliband’s positive case for defence means an Anglo-French push for the common defence plans in the 27 EU bloc will soon be on the agenda.
For Miliband to even suggest that ‘the case against economic protectionism is overwhelming’ whilst actually defending EU regional protectionist policies is double-standards and plainly wrong, especially since he is looking into the long-term. Furthermore, it remains the case that by 2015, the UK exports to other EU Member States will diminish, making the case for a global international trade solution outside of the European Union even greater. The campaign group, Global Vision, have already made clear that in the period 1999-2005, UK exports to countries outside the EU grew on average 44 per cent faster than exports to other EU member states and that on present trends, by 2015, around two-thirds of all British exports will be going outside the EU.
Friday, 16 November 2007
The Government’s Red Lines: dishonest, irritating and useless
In the November/December issue of The European Journal, the Director of Global Vision, Ruth Lea, argues that the Prime Minister’s Red Lines are not only a dishonest diversion from the real integrationist thrust of the Lisbon Treaty, and a major irritation to our EU partners, they are likely to be as leaky as sieves. Ruth Lea discusses the impact of the European Scrutiny Committee report, the friction between Barroso and Brown and the comments of Giscard d’Estaing.
Quote from Ruth Lea's article:
"Earlier this year, Giscard d’Estaing, grand architect of the Constitution, openly discussed the notion of a ‘special status’ for Great Britain. . . . Giscard believes passionately that integration is necessary for the Continent of Europe but understands that the British people are unlikely to be happy with this prospect. He is on record as saying that, if Britain does not want to continue with the ‘process of integration’, then a ‘special status’ must be offered to Britain which ‘they must be able to accept.’ "
Quote from Ruth Lea's article:
"Earlier this year, Giscard d’Estaing, grand architect of the Constitution, openly discussed the notion of a ‘special status’ for Great Britain. . . . Giscard believes passionately that integration is necessary for the Continent of Europe but understands that the British people are unlikely to be happy with this prospect. He is on record as saying that, if Britain does not want to continue with the ‘process of integration’, then a ‘special status’ must be offered to Britain which ‘they must be able to accept.’ "
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Why Gordon Will Not Accept That We Need “British Law for British Judges”
Chairman of the European Foundation, Bill Cash MP, told the Prime Minister in the House of Commons yesterday that “the whole question of the protection of the public from terrorism is often jeopardised by judicial interpretation of the Human Rights Act and European law generally” and in order for him to “achieve his aim of the protection of the public we need British law for British judges and British judges for British law”.
Brown swiftly brushed Cash aside with the arbitrary claim that: “…whatever his [Bill Cash’s] doubts about European law might be it has not prevented us from deporting up to 4,000 people from this country, and nor has it prevented us from deporting a large number of people to within the European Union.” Sadly, Brown’s alleged control of the situation is not the national reality for the protection of Britons from terrorists or serious criminals.
There is no guaranteed protection for Britons from serious crime and terrorism within the current remit of the Human Rights Act and European law. This is a pitiful remark from Gordon Brown, since outside of Parliament the widow of Philip Lawrence now faces the national reality of Brown’s true European principles. A High Court judge has refused the government request to reconsider a tribunal's decision, based on a European directive, to prevent Lawrence’s murderer being deported to Italy. It is said that Learco Chindamo, the murderer of London headteacher Philip Lawrence, could be released from prison next year. The judge of the case openly declared his decision was mainly based on an EU directive and that it would seem "disproportionate" to remove the murderer, as an EU citizen, under the given European regulations.
Brown swiftly brushed Cash aside with the arbitrary claim that: “…whatever his [Bill Cash’s] doubts about European law might be it has not prevented us from deporting up to 4,000 people from this country, and nor has it prevented us from deporting a large number of people to within the European Union.” Sadly, Brown’s alleged control of the situation is not the national reality for the protection of Britons from terrorists or serious criminals.
There is no guaranteed protection for Britons from serious crime and terrorism within the current remit of the Human Rights Act and European law. This is a pitiful remark from Gordon Brown, since outside of Parliament the widow of Philip Lawrence now faces the national reality of Brown’s true European principles. A High Court judge has refused the government request to reconsider a tribunal's decision, based on a European directive, to prevent Lawrence’s murderer being deported to Italy. It is said that Learco Chindamo, the murderer of London headteacher Philip Lawrence, could be released from prison next year. The judge of the case openly declared his decision was mainly based on an EU directive and that it would seem "disproportionate" to remove the murderer, as an EU citizen, under the given European regulations.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Time to Renegotiate: Why the Lib Dem ‘EU Membership Referendum’ could be a Tory Advantage
After six leading Liberal Democrats today put down an amendment to the Queen’s speech saying that they “humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to announce proposals for a referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union”, the leading Eurosceptic in the House of Commons, Tory MP, Bill Cash, has also put down a supporting amendment to the Liberal Democrat proposals that such a referendum, in receipt of a ‘No’ vote, “would properly lead to a new Intergovernmental Conference and the fundamental renegotiation of the existing treaties as they now stand.”
Read the parliamentary Order of Business for today:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmagenda/ob71114.htm
The amendments will be discussed later today in the Commons.
Bill Cash MP sought to amend the Lib Dem amendment (supported by Vince Cable MP) with a new amendment:
‘which despite a No vote arising from any such referendum would not necessitate automatic withdrawal from the European Union because such a No vote would then be on the Reform Treaty, devised and agreed in secrecy by the European elite, which undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its Parliament and its electorate and consists of all the now existing European Treaties and is, as the European Scrutiny Committee has reported, “substantially equivalent” to the original Constitutional Treaty on which a referendum was promised by the Government and any such No vote would properly lead to a new Intergovernmental Conference and the fundamental renegotiation of the existing treaties as they now stand.’
Read the parliamentary Order of Business for today:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmagenda/ob71114.htm
The amendments will be discussed later today in the Commons.
Bill Cash MP sought to amend the Lib Dem amendment (supported by Vince Cable MP) with a new amendment:
‘which despite a No vote arising from any such referendum would not necessitate automatic withdrawal from the European Union because such a No vote would then be on the Reform Treaty, devised and agreed in secrecy by the European elite, which undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its Parliament and its electorate and consists of all the now existing European Treaties and is, as the European Scrutiny Committee has reported, “substantially equivalent” to the original Constitutional Treaty on which a referendum was promised by the Government and any such No vote would properly lead to a new Intergovernmental Conference and the fundamental renegotiation of the existing treaties as they now stand.’
European Idea or European Ideology?
President of the Portguese ‘New Democracy Party’, Manuel Monteiro, argues that the debate over the future of the European project must be understood through the separation of the European Idea from the European ideology. This will enable us to denounce European nationalism, clarify the real meaning of words used by the institutions and contained in the Treaties and remind us to demystify the fears.
....
The debate over the political future of the European Union – with or without the simplified treaty – has implied a distinction between two concepts that we cannot continue to approach as identical. Only this distinction will allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff, in a manner of thought, and position us in face of what we want to accept in our state relations at communitarian level. What then must we distinguish? The Idea of Europe from the European Ideology!
To read the article, click here
....
The debate over the political future of the European Union – with or without the simplified treaty – has implied a distinction between two concepts that we cannot continue to approach as identical. Only this distinction will allow us to separate the wheat from the chaff, in a manner of thought, and position us in face of what we want to accept in our state relations at communitarian level. What then must we distinguish? The Idea of Europe from the European Ideology!
To read the article, click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
