GRASSROOTS Tory Party members in Wales say they feel betrayed and bruised by this week's events.
Members of the Conservative Associations, many of whom heavily backed Iain Duncan Smith, have been reacting in fury to the vote on Wednesday night.
Nick Hacket Pain, chairman of Monmouth Conservative Association, spent yesterday fielding calls from people who felt betrayed. "I have never seen such anger," he said. "I have got branches who are threatening to down tools over this and I think the politicians need to realise the levels of the fury."
Mr Hacket Pain questioned why the eight votes in Westminster should have more sway than the members who supported Mr Duncan Smith.
The formal announcement that Michael Howard is to stand for the leadership has been met with varied opinion.
Mr Hacket Pain said, "Another thing that is worrying people with Michael Howard putting his name into the ring as the unity candidate - what has he been up to to become that in the past six weeks?"
Now the President of the Conservative Board is proposing a postal ballot of members may go ahead, even if there is only one candidate, according to this report from Ananova Howard will still face party ballot.
It appears the cash strapped party will happily throw money away on such absurd exercises, which will convince nobody regarding their democratic or consultative credentials. It is as if having given up fighting the EU, which let us not be under any illusion is what this entire fiasco is all about, they are now determined to waste what funds they have so that they can be as ineffective as possible in the real battle now facing the nation!
Here is a report from Croydon of one Tory MP, Richard Ottaway, refusing to state how he voted in the Leadership ballot. A good rule of thumb would seem to be if they won't say then deselect. When twenty five are suitably replaced it will then be possible to seek appropriate revenge in Parliament!
The day before his departure we finally hear the truth from Wim:-
Duisenberg warns of 'disaster' for Europe ahead of stormy meeting
The full report can be read from this link to EUobserver:
Splits in the Council
In theory, breaking the Pact can lead to fines of billions of euro, but finance ministers are split on how France should be treated.
Germany, for example, which is also currently in breach of the euro rules, wants a soft approach to be taken. It is mindful that any action taken against France will probably be applied to its own situation in the near future.
According to the BBC's 'World at One' Programme the sell out by Howard on the EU takes the following form:-
Howard will not allow "his own Euroscepticism to lead him to be intolerant of the views of others."
Clarke stated that he believed that Howard will end the obsession with Europe. His advice is to get back to the centre ground.
Following the Clarke interview it was announced that John Redwood has also now ruled himself out. The Tories are now therefore finished as an anti-EU alternative for all British voters.
Sir Albert McQuarrie also on the programme added to his letter quoted below that some calling to account was required, preferably by a deselection of the 90 MPs who voted against IDS.
A Conservative Board spokesman was also trying to manufacture some form of pretence that in the event of no ballot the voluntary members would be given the chance to indicate their support. A completely ludicrous situation.
The BBC radio also reports that Ladbrokes was paying out on bets placed on Howard winning. A very unusual decision.
The following letter appeared in today's The Herald:-
155,000 grassroots members versus 90 MPs
THE rejection of Iain Duncan Smith by the 90 MPs should not be taken lightly by the 155,000 grassroots members of the Conservative Party who elected him leader after a straightforward campaign. Who do these 90 dissidents think they are? If the party rules allow a minuscule number of members who just happen to be MPs to override the wishes of the party members, then the rules must be changed at once. What is the point in one man one vote if any result, like this, can be disregarded?
Two decisions must be taken at once. The Conservative board should be forced to cancel the result of this confidence vote on the grounds that those who elected the leader were given no opportunity to decide whether he should remain or not. Secondly, every constituency association made aware that its member was a party to disgraceful betrayal should immediately deselect that member for the next general election. Disloyal MPs will at all costs try to suggest they voted for Iain Duncan Smith knowing that the secret of how they voted lies within the walls of Committee Room 14. If the Conservative board does not decide to meet as a matter of urgency to deal with this matter, there should be an uprising of local party members with a demand that if the no confidence vote is accepted, the rules should be changed to ensure that only the party members can vote for a new leader no matter who the MPs attempt to put forward. The dissidents have put a further nail in the coffin of this great party. There is no confidence in their ability to dictate to us who we should have as a leader.
With friends like these at Westminster, who needs enemies? Blair and Kennedy must be rubbing their hands in glee as any hope of a Conservative government in the future has been wiped out by this disgusting act by people who have the effrontery to call themselves Conservatives.
Sir Albert McQuarrie, Kintara House, Mintlaw, Aberdeenshire.
The commitment to lead from the centre seems to have done the trick for Michael Howard in persuading Ken Clarke not to make another pointless challenge for the leadership.
Kenneth Clarke, Michael Howard's last heavyweight rival for the Tory leadership, has ruled himself out of the race.
Mr Clarke spoke after meeting the leader-in-waiting to discuss the direction he intends to take the party.
The nation's interests have clearly been already sold down the river if this report is true and now we are facing a return to the days of eu-deceit and eu-treachery from these ex-Major ministers. I presume they can already taste the eu-ministerial lifestyle returning!
The question will now be one for the constituency members as their treacherous MPs return for the weekend. The full list of 90 Tory supporters of the clearly electorally doomed Michael Howard can be read from this BBC Link
As a party member put it on Radio 4 yesterday evening the first question he has after the week's events is: "What makes the MPs think that 8 of their number should have that much more say than 150,000 ordinary party members?"
Now the second and even more important question must surely be in what department does Michael Howard, who came bottom of the MPs' leadership poll shortly after leaving government, now seem so much preferable to his two immediate predecessors given the fact that his age is now an even greater disadvantage.
Has anyone in the Tory Party hierarchy who seem intent on rushing towards this disaster thought of getting YouGov or some other reputable polling organisation to do a snap poll of what the voters might be thinking? If they did, in my view, they would be in for one hell of a shock!
The vague amusement invoked by Hague and bemusement at IDS from my impression becomes one of almost actual dislike for Michael Howard. The BBC have already started replaying his Confernce Speech about "6 more prisons and promises of them not being Butlins" on the air....how much more of that do the Conservatives reallly want.
A question occurs from his launch speech "What is it that his government is going to 'trust patients' to do?"
Chirac's meetings with the political parties (other than Le Pen's) were apparently inconclusive on the EU Constitutional referendum question. The withdrawal of the UN from Iraq compounds the obvious absurdity of recent French Foreign policy which continued to stress the importance of that body in a rapid restoration of sovereignty only this week. The Government has already come under fire in Paris for its recent volte face of the legality of the Iraqi ruling council etc in the security council.
Foreign Minister de Villepin gave a typically slick and slippery performance on France 2 'Open Question' slot yesterday evening providing no clues as to a direction for French Foreign Policy other than over the Israel/Palestine problems. Cleverly communicated incoherence!
France and Germany have announced they will act in tandem over the matter of penalties for the excessive French deficits under the Growth and Stability pact, effectively informing their partners 'you will be shafted but what can you do about it'.
Meantime on Saturday another result of a Franco/German stitch-up takes place when Jean-Claude Trichet takes over from Wim Duisenberg at the ECB, years before schedule. The Frenchman who was heavily involved with the Credit Lyonnais scandal, and whose takeover was deferred pending the outcome of his trial, is 'expected to be a good communicator' according to a CNN report this morning. Like Dominique de Villepin I wonder?
Kenneth Clarke reserving his position regarding a possible run against Howard makes things more interesting. If Howard tempers his (already only 'supposed' in my view) euroscepticism to get Clarke not to stand, then a more red-blooded challenge from somebody such as John Redwood will be most definitely required. If Clarke does mount a challenge against Howard then the calculation becomes more difficult.
Hopefully as the days pass it will begin to sink in to the heads of the half-wits, who now appear to be running the Tory party, that both arguments they are putting forward in support of Michael Howard are fatally flawed. The first, that he is a better parliamentarian than IDS is practically meaningless as it counts for little in the country and in any event he is not better than William Hague, who excelled in that area, although it proved irrelevant. The second that he looks better than either of them is rubbish. He looks considerably older than either Hague or IDS and he comes across far worse. The Conservative Party is dicing with extermination before our eyes and I am amazed that more people do not seem to realise it. Howard could even lose his own seat in Folkestone if he gets enough extra TV exposure and the resulting ridicule all Tory Leaders (especially virtual OAPs) should now expect.
The Herald carries an encouraging item indicating that the best possible contender for the leadership is still giving the matter his careful consideration :-
Rumours abounded at Westminster that Theresa May, party chairman, and John Redwood, ex-Welsh secretary, were discreetly canvassing opinion on whether they should stand.
John Redwood must remember that only a handful of votes from MPs could still do the trick as long as there are sufficient to put him in second place and let the party members make a choice using their ordinary common sense, which seems to have gone AWOL from Westminster at present.
Plunging four places from 11th to 15th Britain now comes behind its EU competitors Germany in the tables of international competitiveness, marking yet another failure for the incompetent Blair administration. Further details can be read from this link.
Unbelievably it appears that the Tories are set to make their leadership favourite an individual who appears even worse on television than the previous three such office holders. Not only that he plans to lead 'from the centre' and stated that he was heading straight over to see Ken Clarke when his Press Conference in the old County Hall was finished. A fitting statement by this Majorly-Marred Candidate. Any chance of Heseltine making a come-back too?
While the Tory Party in London prepare to crown the still undeclared Michael Howard, evidence of the damage done to the party in the wider country begins to arrive in the form of local newspaper reports. This is Gloucestershire reports the general dismay felt by local MPs while the 'Halifax Courier has similar reactions in Yorkshire.
A general reaction amongst the Conservatives to shy away from more open controversy could leave them with the worst of all possible worlds. An irritated general membership whose own popularly elected candidate had been thrown out by the MPs with their untelegenic and Major-marred placeman failing to attract new voters.
Michael Howard as portrayed in the press this morning would be telegenically incapable of winning an election. I was recently at an anti-EU rally in Bath where John Redwood appeared fighting fit and ready to take the real battle forward.
All Eurorealists are urged to make John Redwood know of their strong support for his candidature.
Schroeder said Wednesday: "The demands of Slovakia are not so difficult that they put the Convention at risk", and stressed that Germany enjoyed "very friendly" relations with the former communist state.
But he stood firm on the thorny issue of whether favorable voting rights secured by Spain and Poland under a treaty signed in Nice in 2000 should be scaled back.
This always appeared likely to be the first item to be conceded. Interesting that Germany feels able to as good as announce the change unilaterally! Contrary to what the Chancellor impies above, in reality Nice is the backstop on everything.
In 2004, the budget for common EU foreign and security policy is only 52.6 million euro. A number of common operations are financed directly by the participating member states, of which Germany can be expected to contribute a considerable amount due to its size.
German foreign minister Joschka Fischer has said that a German contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq was not possible due to German budgetary problems.
Member states MUST remember that the EU is a corrupt and sick organisation existing solely to inflate the egos and pocketbooks of those who move within its ambit. To the extent that it gives the impression of being involved in administration or government then such areas become neglected. Member states falling for the illusion suffer the consequences, Britain with its fisheries, Germany and France their economies and Greece so incapacitated that it seems unlikely to be ready to host the Olympics. A fitting statement on today's European Union.
"The EU is impoverishing the Continent" would have been a fitting title for Solbes Autumn Economic Statement, (see following post).
Pedro Solbes Economics Commissioner, who should long since have resigned over the Eurostat scandal , painted a picture of almost unmitigated gloom for the EU economy in his Autumn statement. Predicting some countries still not meeting deficit targets even in 2006, no improvement in labour markets, gowth of half a per cent this year - 1.8 per cent next and only 2.2 the year after; this should be considered an official declaration that the Euro and the EU have failed.
Proving beyond any shadow of doubt their total subservience to the Blair Administration the House of Lords has issued a report contradicting the 24 other countries negotiating the EU Constitution. The report agrees with the LIES of Blair and Straw that the EU constitution is no threat, say peers as can be read from the link.
Startling proof of the fear that Blair has been able to instil in Britain's Upper Legislative Chamber by his brutal, arbitrary and far from democratic earlier reforms. Shame on their Lordships!
In the last 30 minutes odds on Michael Portillo being the next Tory Leader have shortened from 20/1 to 7/1 as major money heads that way. The full card at 16:38:-
German Defence Minister Peter Struck Struck has now said for the first time that no separate headquarters is necessary and that a planning staff for eventual operations under solely European auspices should be attached to NATO.
.
This largely tracks with the position of Britain. Radically reversing field after months of objections, the Blair government was characterized in late September, after a British-German-French summit meeting in Berlin, as understanding the need for a European headquarters and ‘‘structured cooperation,’’ a phrase designating participation in a vanguard military group of EU countries.
..........................
But a high British official said two weeks ago that France (and Germany at the time) had given up only on Tervuren, not on the concept of an independent EU headquarters. Comparing French and German attitudes, he said the Germans were genuinely concerned about the future of NATO.
.......................
A British government official, asked on Sunday to address the similarity, replied only that Blair had made clear to his counterparts that Britain would veto any proposed aspect of the constitution’s wording that could appear anti-American.
.........................
But the headquarters issue was not the only American concern. A U.S. official said earlier that he well understood Britain’s interest in playing the leading role in European defense, an area where it could be pre-eminent. At the same time, he said, asserting leadership in structured cooperation, a spearhead defense group of limited membership, could deflect Britain’s engagement in NATO and take on a divisive life of its own.
Blair clearly continues to play personal poilitics with the nations defences. Disgraceful!
The required 25 letters have been received by Sir Michael Spicer and the Confidence Vote on the leadership of Iain Duncan Smith of the British Conservative Party will now proceed. He now needs to keep his nerve!
Latest skirmishing in the IGC centres on these areas according to this very informative EUPolitix Report
Describing the current text, drawn up by a 105 strong convention of EU and national delegates, as a “workman like effort”, London insists “fewer and fewer are calling it a sacred text”.
“The status quo, the default setting is Nice,” said a senior UK source.
Shadow Defence Secretary Bernard Jenkin also warned a new EU constitution would drive a wedge between Britain and Nato and must be vetoed.
The article ends with this quotation, which is exactly the clear, unambiguous statement that has been need for over a month. Thank goodness it has at last appeared!:-
The EU constitution would pull Britain away from its North American allies and Nato, Mr Jenkin said.
He continued: “The Prime Minister has either unwittingly walked into a trap of his own making, or he is deliberately deceiving the British people about his real intention to divide the EU from Nato.
“The only way to protect Nato is to veto any such constitution and to insist that foreign, security and defence policy remain a matter of intergovernmental cooperation, not central co-ordination, completely separate from any institutions for the making or interpreting of laws
Ominously coverage of the debate elsewhere in the mainstream and English media is hard to find!
Two reports from EU Business the first row erupts report of the IGC, concerns parliamentary or finace ministers control of the budget. Other difficulties are those that existed from the opening day. The present meeting apparently ended what seems the regular statement of the Italian Foreign Minister:-
If there is no deal by December, "the Irish presidency will inherit a crisis and I doubt that kind of situation can be resolved", Frattini warned last week.
The second EUBusiness report appears to offer real chance of progress in a meeting to be held between Spain and Germany. These are the heavyweights on the question of voting percentages for the future all-important qualified majority votes under which the citizens of Europe are set to lose their remaining democratic freedoms and individual rights. Germany hopes to bludgeon Spain away from its favourable NiceTreaty position by use of the budgetary cudgel. The meeting is set for next week.
Another country that contributed a big fat zero to Iraq reconstruction at last weeks donor conference in Madrid, in addition to France which is mentioned in the post below for other reasons, was of course Germany. Their press finds the rocket attack on Paul Wolfowitz Ironic according to this press summary from State Broadcaster Deutsche Welle :-
It was not without a certain degree of irony, that of all people, Rumsfeld’s deputy Wolfowitz -- who wanted to use his Baghdad visit to stress the progress made in security Iraq -- had been the target of an attack, Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten wrote.
Am I alone in finding the attitude of our EU partners somewhat bizarre. Read the extraordinary French comments at the attack on the Red Crescent this morning. Colin Powell went out of his way today to stress that these two countries are still US allies....at this rate he is going to have to keep repeating it long and often!
The French have been given a one month extension to the deadline over the huge out of court settlement over the Execuitive Life scandal according to this Guardian Report.
Separately they made these statements regarding the most recent Baghdad bombings:-
France condemned the attacks and said a key to combatting such violence was to restore sovereignty to the country.
"In the face of such acts of violence, it is more urgent than ever to embark on a political process, based on the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty, mobilizing all energy toward the country's reconstruction," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Herve Ladsous.
He said France "condemns with the utmost firmness" the wave of car bombings across Baghdad on Monday and a rocket attack Sunday on a hotel full of U.S. occupation officials. Monday's attacks struck the international Red Cross office and four police stations.
We suggest those wishing to retain a Eurosceptic at the head of the Conservative Party should quickly and instantaneously show their support for IDS by signing the Petition for a Referendum on the EU Constitution at Conservative Central Office, where the numbers signing-up will be immediately seen.
Jacob Soderman the former EU Ombudsman, the only official of the giant bureaucracy charged with the citizen's interest, has declared that the new EU Constitution will fundamentally change the nature of the Union (Jack Straw please note).
Soderman writes in the newspaper Kaleva, that the constitution would turn the EU into a judicial authority. This would mean that it would have the power to create laws for the whole union, and these laws would take precedence over national and constitutional laws.
He believes that a situation could arise in which the EU creates legislature that contradicts a Finnish law, or even part of Finland's constitution.
Soderman strongly disagrees with claims that the constitution won't alter the EU very much from the organisation that Finland joined in 1995.
He also wants the country to organise a national referendum on the issue. He feels that this would guarantee that Finns are thoroughly briefed on the proposal.
The same situation pertains even more so for Britain that joined in 1973, where the legal situation is exactly similar but the need for a referendum consequently that much greater
Monday's talks will notably cover who should chair EU ministerial meetings and the scope of qualified-majority voting, which the draft constitution would expand into several new areas that previously required unanimous decisions.
Those wishing to follow the negotiating detail and procedures can read the various National positions on a new facility offered by EUobserver from this link IGC Watch.
Many contentious issues come up from tomorrow and the negotiating looks as though it will finally begin in earnest. The article ends with the following note of hope:-
"If on the other hand certain countries take on the responsibility of vetoing an agreement, the Irish presidency will inherit a crisis and I doubt that kind of situation can be resolved," he warned.
Hi Pakistan has no difficulty in seeing the impossibility of Blairs position on EU Defence. In this item filed today from Brussels it points out:
Despite the reassuring words, however, European diplomats make clear that like the introduction of the euro, moves towards creating an autonomous EU defence cannot be stopped. Also, whether the US likes it or not, Britain, with its huge army and post-Iraq war hopes of joining the EU mainstream, will be pressed by its partners to become part of the European plans. As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin put it, "there will be no Europe without European defence - and no European defence without Britain."
The article ends with this uncomfortable plain common sense for Blair:-
But Blair now finds himself in the unfortunate position of being publicly reprimanded by US officials for trying to draw closer to France and Germany. Seeking to calm tempers in Washington, Blair has vowed that he will never put Nato at risk. "Nato is the basis and the cornerstone of our defence," the British premier insisted at last week's EU summit.
Making no secret of the fact that he is torn between Washington and Europe, Blair forcefully underlined he was "a staunch ally and friend of the US" but also wanted to be "strong in Europe." There was nothing wrong with the EU developing its own military planning capacity for operations that Washington did not wish to undertake, Blair argued. But the EU must not set up separate military command structures.
France and Germany, however, are unlikely to take 'no' for an answer from London. And they - along with Belgium and Luxembourg - also have no intention of giving up on their own defence ambitions. Diplomats in Brussels argue that an EU anxious to play a global role must have a defence arm if it is to be taken seriously. And while that does not mean competing with Nato, it does mean acting independently of the alliance - both in Europe and abroad.
The people of Britain must make it clear to their Prime Minister that the French and Germans must be told NO. If Blair cannot see the Defence imperative, then either he or the nation is lost!
We are grateful for having been sent the following:-
Quote
14.2.84 page 1-309/80 Mr Faure (MEP) -----" Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are parliamentarians. The word 'parliament' comes from the verb parler, to speak, and we must speak frankly. We must call a spade a spade. We must not disguise resolute intentions and precise facts behind euphemisms or circumlocutions."
"The text on which we are going to vote today is not an act of thanksgiving as we approach the end of our term; it is not a votive offering that we are piously laying to rest in a crypt".
"The European Union means political union, and political union of course means a federal structure, in other words the United States of Europe. Like the United States of America? Just so."
Although it is a timid document it is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe that we can and must authenticate today with our vetoes. Since I have only a few minutes at my disposal', I shall give just two demonstrations or, if you prefer, two illustrations." "The first is concerned with currency. If economic Europe is to subsist, there must be a common European currency, in the full sense of the term. We have seen enough of the mishaps of monetary comensatory amounts to appreciate that. Only if it has a European currency, with no national fluctuations, will economic Europe be able not only to subsist but to succeed. For fifteen years, economic Europe has dealt with the problems that have presented themselves to it. Others have arisen. Michel Albert and Albert Ball have demonstrated in a splendid report how much non- Europe has to answer for. The Community is slipping into backwardness and balkanisation. Only unified effort, based on the federal structure, with its monetary symbol, will enable us to recapture the position we occupied for so long and still deserve to occupy in technological progress and its concomitant economic development and in the social progress and improvements which depend on these two factors."
"As the currency is the essential fuel of the economy, so a nuclear strike force is the supreme guarantee of security. A proper European defence entity should have a single decision-maker for this ultimate weapon, in other words a President of the United States of Europe. It is unthinkable that control over nuclear weapons should be shared among twelve countries and entrusted to twelve key-holders. It is no less unthinkable that the countries which are most advanced in these technologies, of which my own country is one, should jealously guard a monopoly of them, thereby arrogating to themselves a suzerainty totally out of keeping with the spirit of a community of free and fraternal peoples: fratres consanguinei,” etc, etc.
Page 1-309/88 Mr Estgen ----- " There is another consideration which should not be overlooked. Until such time as we have created the United States of Europe, it will be impossible not to take account, in one way or another, of certain needs, certain national imperatives". etc -----
"Europe's future is now at the crossroads both in the national parliaments and in this Chamber. Let us therefore have the humility and frankness to recognise this, and let us show our colleagues in the national parliaments that we are worthy of the title that the President of the Commission, Gaston Thorn, conferred on us one day in this Chamber, when he called us the 'true missionaries of Europe'. Let us therefore go out and preach our faith and convince those not yet converted of the need for a united Europe".
"I am firmly convinced that, with today's vote, this Parliament will have borne Witness, before the electorate and for prosperity, that it is not content to take us in a parody of European democracy but is genuinely determined to create a new consciousness of the political necessity of a united Europe".
"The challenge is enormous. We must show that we measure up to it. The first step is being taken today but in this case, contrary to received wisdom, it is not so much the first step that is difficult as the second, and we are determined to move on to that next stage"
Unquote
BRITAIN is sleepwalking into its biggest security crisis since World War Two.
Germany wants our nuclear weapons and all our armed forces handed over to Brussels.
They would form part of a new EU army that would be set up as a rival to American military power.
It would be the end of NATO, the organisation that has kept the peace in Europe for 50 years.
Just think what this means.
Under the proposed new EU Constitution, German and French commanders could order British troops into battle and threaten other countries with our nuclear weapons.
And our prized independent voice in the UN Security Council could be stifled.
There would be NOTHING we could do about any of it if Tony Blair surrenders Britain to Europe as he intends to do.
Our greatest ally in history, the United States, is appalled at what is being planned.
Especially as Mr Blair promised President Bush he would never allow NATO to be undermined.
Some promise.
We shouldn’t be surprised that the Europeans want our nukes.
The proposed constitution already demands a share of our other national riches, from our North Sea oil to our fisheries.
This is the reality of what Mr Blair risks lining up for Britain — without ever asking the rest of us what we think of it.
According to this from EUPolitix the Crisis Continues NATO’s secretary general will travel to Warsaw on Monday to garner Polish support following recent heated exchanges over the future of EU defence policy.
With US concerns that plans to establish a separate EU military HQ will undermine NATO, Lord Robertson will be currying favour with Poland, known for its strong Atlanticist tendencies.
"US Justice 'For Sale' says French Finance Minister"
The following is the latest strange twist in the Executive Life scandal where the French State faces criminal charges if the final deadline for an out of court settlement is allowed to slip by on Monday.
As we reported earlier and again from this in Expatica.com the French Finance Minister, Francis Mer, is planning to meet US Treasury Secretary John Snow in a side meeting in Mexico on Sunday. It says:-
If a new settlement is not reached by Monday, the French state and Credit Lyonnais could face US criminal charges. In addition Credit Lyonnais - which is now a unit of Credit Agricole - could lose its US banking licence.
"In the United States we have the impression the only result that matters is money," Mer was quoted Thursday in International Herald Tribune as telling a conference Wednesday of Anglo-American journalists here.
"After all, with money you can buy everything, including an innocent or guilty" verdict, he was reported as adding.
Calling into doubt the impartiality of the US Justice system seems hardly the best way to go about reaching a negotiated settlement.
Jean-Claude Trichet, next ECB President, who was inimately involved with the running of Credit Lyonnais during the period when the Executive Life scandal took place had his replacement at the Bank of France announced on Tuesday of this week as reported in another Channel News Asia report. Christian Noyer, new governor of the Bank of France has recently worked under Finance Minister Francis Mer on a special mission concerning state-supervised savings.
We rarely print entire articles, but this from yesterday's EUobserver, following on from the 'Telegraph' article linked earlier, is a necessary exception:-
Quote
We will oppose any defence plans threatening the supremacy of NATO, Prime Minister Tony Blair told journalists in London.
Germany is pushing for the creation of a fully-fledged Euro-army, according to plans obtained by the Conservative Party in Britain, writes the Telegraph. This revelation is likely to send ripples of concern through Britain, one of the more sceptical member states - over close military co-operation in Europe.
The memorandum, written by senior Germany army officials on the future of European defence, allegedly suggests that a European army should have joint structures that go beyond the ones already in place.
The document adds, "The army would report to the EU government and to the EU Parliament. Through a deployment law Parliament should decide if deploying troops is an option or not."
There are also suggestions that the EU's nuclear capabilities should also be "integrated within the European defence system". At present, Britain and France are the only EU countries with a nuclear deterrent. (Emphasis added - ed.).
The memorandum acknowledges the need to define the future relationship with NATO, saying that "a decision should be made about possible collaborations of the EU army with the UN, the Security Council or with NATO itself".
The Tories have wasted no time in using the document for political gain, saying that it conclusively shows the deceit of the current Labour government, who have for a long time insisted that there are no plans to create an EU military army.
At his monthly press conference on October 24, the Prime Minister continued to insist that his government would not support plans for an independent European defence headquarters and would oppose any defence plans threatening the supremacy of NATO. "We don't want duplication and we certainly don't want competition with NATO," he said.
The plans also have the backing of France and Belgium, according to the Telegraph.
Unquote
To quote directly from the Daily Telegraph on the nuclear issue, the paper stated:-
Addressing the sensitive issue of nuclear capabilities, it says these should also be "integrated within the European defence system". Britain and France are the only EU countries with a nuclear deterrent.
In connection with this extremely important matter now hitting the headlines of the mainstream media, we reproduce this article from 'Free Nations'.
Quote
Report by the German Journalists of www.german-foreign-policy.com
Date of original report 28 July 2003
Translated by Edward Spalton 2 August 2003 for www.freenations.freeuk.com
POTSDAM near Berlin may well become headquarters for worldwide military
operations under EU leadership within the facility of the German
"Operational Leadership Command" . This location is a symbol of Prussian
militarism and of Germany's climb to the status of a Great European Power.
The "Operational Leadership Command" has been established in Potsdam-Geltow
near Berlin since July 2001. It plans and controls operations of all German
fighting forces, whether national or international, and so corresponds to
the earlier German "General Staff"(*1). Amongst other things it houses the
German-Dutch Operations and Coordination Centre for the International
Protection Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.
According to the wish of the German military, the Headquarters of the future
EU Rapid Reaction Force would be in the old buildings of the Operational
Leadership Command and the Bundeswehr would have a more modern operational
centre. There are current EU operations in Macedonia and the Congo. Next
year the EU will take over in Bosnia Herzogovina and military operations in
Moldova are presently under consideration.
"VALHALLA"
The likely site of the future EU military Headquarters is a symbol of
Prussian and German militarism. After the "Wars of Liberation"(*2) at the
beginning of the 19th century and the "Reich Unification War" of 1870/71
(*3), the Potsdam garrison church received the dedicated war trophies of the
Prussian army (amongst them some 200 French, Danish and Austrian standards
and regimental colours(*4)) and so was developed into a sort of "Valhalla"
of the Prussian-German ascent to world power status. In 1914 the garrison
church became the symbolic point of farewell for the departing troops.
Because of the Prussian myth of Potsdam it was chosen as the place for the
founding of the Third Reich. The Nazis used the "spirit of Potsdam" to place
their movement within the Prussian tradition and those of middle class
Conservatism.
Notes
(*1) After the First World War, Germany was forbidden to have the "Great
General Staff" which had been so potent in aggressive militarism. Its
functions were disguised under the name "Truppenamt" - literally "Troops'
Office". The new title appears to be in this tradition.
(*2) Against the French under Napoleon Bonaparte.
(*3) Known outside Germany as the Franco-Prussian War
(*4) Whilst old regimental colours are often laid up in British churches,
they are not places for the display of captured enemy colours.
This shows the difference in tradition.
SEE ALSO
(On www.german-foreign-policy.com in German)
Erstmals nach 1945: Deutscher Generalstab in Aktion (First time since 1945:
German General Staff in Action)*
EU Stratgie "Preventivkriege" weltweit (EU Strategy "Preventive Wars"
worldwide) *
Testlauf fuer europaeische Militaermacht (Test run for EU Military Power)*
Bundeswehr: Beteiligung am Kongo-Einsatz (Bundeswehr participation in Congo
Operation)*
Berlin uebernimmt taktische Fuehrung der Afghanistan- Schutztruppe (berlin
takes over tactical command of Afghanistan Protection Force)*
Deutscher Diplomat fordert Ausweitung des Mandats (German diplomat demands
widening of mandate)*
Denkmal fuer Preussiche Militaers;" Die Baende des Vorurtiels loesen "
(Memorial for Prussian Military: dissolving the bands of prejudice)*
SOURCE
GELTOW UNDER CONSIDERATION AS EU HEADQUARTERS; Maerkische Allgemeine
16.7.2003
Unquote
Recent reports from the EU have suggested that the proposed headquarters might be in Holland or France. For the moment, following last Monday's emergency Nato meeting, the four European Countries pushing hardest for an EU army (supported by Blair!) have publicly stopped talking about a Command Centre.
The Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Quentin Davies, this evening on BBC Radio Four 'Any Questions', directly accused the Prime Minister of lying to the House of Commons last Wednesday when he stated that he had received a prior briefing from Disarmament chief for Northern Ireland, retired Canadian General John de Chastelain, regarding the IRA disarmament exercise. He stated that he had checked Hansard and de Chastelain's statements and the evidence was clear.
A related report would seem to be this from news.com in Australia which headlined the linked item: Blair 'lying' about IRA weapons which stated:-
Today Blair repeated his view that the Northern Ireland public would be impressed by the latest IRA move if they could be told the volume and type of weaponry offered - information that the British leader suggests de Chastelain told him in private.
Here is a picture of the sun taken a very short while ago by satellite and downloaded onto my blog just now. It shows the huge solar storm that is causing the precautionary shut-down of other such satellites.
I might not be able to fly supersonic across the Atlantic any more, but on the other hand, I never would have dreamt I might one day be able to do this!
As reported earlier when quoting from Le Figaro the full horror of the German financial situation was announced today "Ruined" Germany on new collision course with Brussels in EUobserver. A full report is also available from the FT(click here) from which we take this:-
Jürgen Michels, an economist at Citigroup, said he was expecting a deficit of more than 4 per cent of GDP next year, partly due to the planned tax cuts, followed by a renewed breach of the pact in 2005
As suggested previously, the only way France, Germany and Italy are going to be able to avoid the Maastricht penalties in the end is for Maastricht to be scrapped. Which is exactly what the EU Constitution is being so indecently pushed to do. Wake-up the other 22!
The Italian General Strike that was reported to be 95 per cent effective in the transport sector by AGI in Rome highlights another huge hole in the Eurozones economic calculations. This report from EU business concentrates on the Italian situation which is replicated in other large European basket economies. Italian strike highlights pensions 'time-bomb' facing EU
'The finances of the 12-nation euro zone are already under strain as countries such as France and Germany breach a ceiling on public deficits.
Pedro Solbes, the commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, has repeatedly warned France as well as Italy that they must remedy their finances, not least to get them in shape for a bulging pensions bill.'
Commission Concern at Possible Parliamentary Perceived Power-Loss
'Double Strength MEPs at Risk' is the headline from this item in EUpolitix, from which comes these qyuotes:-
“QMV needs to be extended but may be withdrawn,” said a commission spokesman.
“Some member states are trying to reintroduce national vetoes to the financial perspectives.”
EU sources are identifying a bloc of up to six countries trying to claw back vetoes on the financial perspectives that set Europe’s budgets.
Debates between QMV or “unanimity” decisions giving each country a national veto at councils of ministers will also be seen on taxation and social policy issues.
Monday will see a “classic cleavage” emerge, say EU sources, between countries pushing for European powers on tax fraud or evasion.
And there will be resistance from opponents such as the UK and Ireland which have drawn “red lines” around those policy areas.
An entirely satisfactory note on which to end the week.
For those who have not been following our coverage of this growing but dated scandal, the following link provides a brief, somewhat dated overview in English France denies US extraditions over Executive Life. The Economist also has an article this week titled 'French Follies'.
Meantime from Le Figaro we learn that a frantic weekend of discussions is scheduled as Monday's Californian deadline approaches. A phone call from Chirac to Bush has apparently not been ruled out a true guage of the gravity of the situation. Francis Mer the French Finance meinister is hoping to buttonhole Treasury Secretary John Snow when both are expected to be in Mexico on Sunday afternoon and Dominque Perben is expected to raise the matter with his oppo John Ashcroft on Tuesday, but by then the wheels of justice will once again be grinding in California.
Regular updates will continue to be given on this blog!
Also in the French Paper a rather gloating item on Germany's spending deficit now being expected to reach 44 billion rather than the19 billion level originally forecasrt for this year. Also not allowed to pass without somewhat sarcastic mention is the fact that for the third year running Germany will breach the Maastricht limits...best seen in its original:-
Ce que tout le monde savait depuis des mois est devenu, hier, officiel : Hans Eichel a admis que l'Allemagne sera en 2004, et ce pour la troisième année consécutive, en violation du pacte de stabilité européen. Berlin affichera en effet un déficit budgétaire «supérieur à 4%» du PIB, contre un maximum de 3% autorisé par le traité de Maastricht.
Most European and US media seem to have avoided this headline, but fact it is, as it was also announced on CNBC yesterday. This report that Germany the EU's largest economy will remain in recession for the remainder of this year and only struggle to grow at a very lowly rate next, bears out all we have been saying on the economic ravages now being wreaked on the people of Europe by the Euro. Italy's General Strike today seems worthe mentioning here in passing, as is my experience of personal calls to France finding economic morale very low!
MENAFN - 24/10/2003 The German government has cut its economic growth to zero this year and expects the German economy to grow by 1.5-2.0-percent next year.
The six leading economic research institutes in Germany predicted that the German deficit ratio would surge to as much as 4.0 percent this year and fall only slightly to 3.5 percent in 2004.
Under the terms of the European Stability and Growth Pact, euro-zone countries are not allowed to run up deficits in excess of 3.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
However, Germany and France were in breach of that limit last year and expect to remain so again this year.
One month ago on 22nd September Ironies under the following headline Blair sells out British Defence began a post as follows:As exclusively predicted on 'Ironies' this morning .....
The German military high command wants to create a fully fledged European army that would report to a European Union government and be financed by the European Parliament, documents obtained by the Tories show.
They claimed last night that a memorandum written by senior Germany army officials on the future of European defence proved that Tony Blair was deceiving the British people by claiming there were no plans to create a unified EU military force.
If its predictive comment on the EU you seek, you now know where to look!
"France is perfectly aware that the IGC is a place for discussion, it's an open discussion, ... and that a compromise is necessary in the form of consensus," Noelle Lenoir French Minister for European Affairs is reported to have said following a meeting with her Finnish counterpart, according to this report in EU Business France and Finland
This is of course a major advance, recalling that France, Germany and Italy (Blair as usual in tow) started the IGC procedures trying to insist changes would not be acceptable! Look at this summary from the Finns:-
"We have some points were we differ, but we are united in our common understanding that we need to find compromises, but things need still to be discussed," Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja said a joint press conference with Lenoir.
Among the contentious items named are defence and the number of Commissioners, but the countries report they are agreed on about 90 per cent of matters. So that's all right then!
After fumbling his way through his interview with John Humphries on the Today programme this morning over the (still non-) referendum on the EU Constitution, the Foreign Secreatry tonight heads for Chester where he reportedly plans to drum up some pro-European fervour.
The speech is trailered in this article in The ScotsmanStraw Warns of ‘Crisis of Complacency’ among Pro-Europeans which must, I imagine be certainly true, given the depth of corruption, economic inefficiences and total lack of democracy in the EU.
The BBC also reports on the proposed talk, but with an even tougher headline Straw defends EU direction. Now that would be an interesting achievement. How could anybody defend such a dreadful and abominable institution which has never done the slightest bit of good for anybody anywhere, but sucks up and squanders at a rate now exceeding a billion euros a year.
This item reported in EU Business this afternoon quotes Blair as follows:-
"We don't want duplication but we don't competition," Blair said, adding that Europe had no intention of developing a European force in competition with NATO. "We will never do that," he said.
But he added: "It's important to carry on with European defence. I'm not giving up the ability of Europe to have a proper defence capability in circumstances when NATO or America wish not to be engaged."
The item below from an official IGC document illustrates the extremely dangerous line Blair is treading in his determination to sell out his country, its people and now its staunchest and only dependable allied defence arrangement apparantly in the sole reckless pursuit of his burning European ambitions. If these risks were being taken with the advice of other ministers in proper formal treaty negotiations with the outcome being put to the entire voting population in a referendum, that would be one thing; but of course they are not. The defence row was started remember, as a result of a 'luncheon promise' Blair made on his own to Chirac and Schroeder. The advantage of that arrangement of course now being that with Blair looking dodgy healthwise, in addition to that caused by his standard lack of moral compass, one more nasty shock or bit of stress and whatever private promises he once made will be of no more relevance!
Quote from Conference of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States "Brussels, 2 October 2003, CIG 2/03
SubjectIGC 2003 - The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs: main points
From Page 2
The role of the Minister: Common Foreign and Security Policy (including CSDP) 8 On CFSP.....
9. The provisions of CFSP, stating that the Minister is not bound by Commission procedures, apply a fortori to the Common Security and Defence policy (which is considered to be an integral part of the CFSP).
There you have it as clear as day: EU Defence is planned to be an integral part of the Common Foreign and Security policy (intended to be) administered by the Foreign Minister
Another treat found when reviewing the IGC papers to date was this from 10th October, a new paragraph for inclusion in the Preamble :
"Determined to continue in a new Union the process of European integration begun by the Treaties establishing the European Communities and the Treaty on European Union, by ensuring the continuity of the Community acquis."
Just when I had believed the Convention had at least rid Europe of the dreadful never-ending commitment to 'ever close union' they come up with this.....surely a very.very, sick no disgustingly retchingly evil joke.
The acquis of course is the golden unwritten rule of the EU, or it was until now, that any power or authority once gained shall never, ever, EVER be given back to the nations from which it came. Hence my hope this amendment is a lawyer's joke that entered the public domain as some kind of dreadful mistake. (It will be useful in the referendum Tony is eventually going to have to give us though!)
The attitude of France and Germany, who are only planning low level representation in Madrid today, is again beginning to appear petty and petulant; especially after the unanimous vote in the UN Security Council last week. USS Clueless has a blog on 'real friends' today, something that Tony Blair in particular should ponder upon as he watches the present performance of his recent luncheon hosts in Berlin of four weeks ago next saturday. With friends like those who needs........?
Following a live television interview on CNN International at 3:30 pm CET this afternoon, Chris Patten the EU's external Relations Commissioner can also be included in the list of those now looking foolish and less than competent, let alone generous in his case, over the monies for the re-building of Iraq. To boast that Europe was good at delivering clean water was crass in any circumstance but considered against the plight of many Iraqies and the 200 million total EU contibution to date it went beyond even that.
It is always somwhat sickening to see overwieght and self-important people, when speaking of large aid budgets, constantly using the personal pronoun when discusing the amounts and destinations of the funds disbursed. I counted several in one sentence from Patten, who similultaneously managed to give the impression that he had been forced to rush through lunch in order to make the interview and was consequently suffering some ill side-effects as a result.
Reproduced is a letter from the 22nd October Yorkshire Post:-
> From: Mike Hughes, Mill Dam, Clifford, Wetherby.
Further to the letters from Nick Martinek (October 20) and David Bowes MEP (September 25), I wonder how the Prime Minister can sign up to the EU constitution without a referendum when the constitution clearly provides that: "Before the date of entry into force of the treaty on the constitution, each member shall make a solemn declaration confirming the resolve of its people to continue to belong to the European Union."
"If any member state cannot provide that assurance that state shall leave the Union, "with the option of continuing to to be a contracting party to the agreement on the European Economic Area".
The very fact that the EU constitution allows EU law to have primacy over the laws of this ountry is a momentous decision which in the name of democracy calls for a referendum to be held.
"Is the U.S. winning or losing the global war on terrorism?" Rumsfeld asked his deputies in the first sentence of the memo.
"Is our current situation such that 'the harder we work, the behinder we get?'
More gravely he also asks and explains in a subsequent press conference:-
"How many young people are being taught to go out as suicide bombers and to kill people, that's the question," Rumsfeld told reporters. "How many are there, and how does that inflow of terrorists in the world get reduced so that the number of people getting captured or killed is greater than the ones being produced? There isn't anyone who knows a metric to that ... but elevating that issue I think forces people to think about it in the broadest possible context, which is why I did so."
According to this report in the Daily Telegraph Umberto Bossi leader of Italy's Northern League and according to the paper 'reform' minister in the Berlusconi Government doesn't mince words over the EU:-
He described the elite as "filthy pigs" who wanted to "make paedophilia as easy as possible".
Mr Bossi, leader of the Northern League, said Brussels was "transforming vices into virtues" and "advancing the cause of atheism every day". He denounced the European arrest warrant as a step towards "dictatorship, deportation, and terror, instilling fear in the people, a crime in itself". It would lead to a Stalinist regime "multiplied by 25".......He added that the euro was a "total flop", its inflationary effects costing ordinary people "a fortune" in lost purchasing power.
The Tories have launched their National Petition calling for a Referendum on the EU Constitution. Clicking this link and typing your name and address will take but a moment and you will have done something to save Democracy for today!
According to Le Figaro the Californian justices have now given France until next Monday to reach a new settlement in the above case. See Link in French. Co-incidentally this was also the day on which Jean-Claude Trichet's (who had some responsibilities for Credit Lyonnais at the time of the problems) successor at the Bank of France (from the ECB) was also announced.
A German Attack on French Farm subsidies leads to some interesting speculation on another possible cause for the eventual collapse of the EU. Find the pice from this link: Free Nations Breaking News
The problem — which the EUnuchs are incapable of addressing — is that when you combine many weak militaries the same result obtains as when you combine weak economies without addressing the basic problems.
EU DEFENCE: MARTINO, CONCRETE FINANCING NEEDED
(AGI) - Rome, Italy, Oct. 21 - In 2010, the European defence forces will be functional, but it will not be an alternative to NATO. It will be complementary to the Alliance. The umbrella under which a given military force can be chosen each time, both for EU and for NATO. The force will not have an operational command but can count on five already existing commands. In order to start working fully, however, concrete financing is needed and because of this Defence Minister Antonio Martino is thinking of launching an appeal to EU governments to that they will guarantee the funds for the new commitment. Italy, in fact, gives 218 per capita for defence, compared to 430 in France and 640 euro in Great Britain. And even this year the budget diminished the share for the armed forces. "Often, we forget the advantages of being all together: if Italy was not part of NATO, it would have to use 2.5 pct of its GDP for military spending.
And since post-WWII until now, we have saved a lot of money, which we have been able to use for health and social spending," said Martino to journalists. (AGI)
The NATO chief further upbraided so-called “Old Europe”, reminding European capitals recently gripped by anti-war protests why new EU member states from Eastern Europe maintain a strong Atlanticist outlook.
“You do not often hear the chant ‘Yanks go home’ from the peoples in Central and Eastern Europe who owe today’s freedom to the United States’ long-standing commitment to a Europe whole and free,” he said.
Threatening Poland and Spain with financial penalties in the next budgetary round is the latest German bullying to endeavour to get the totalitarian and autocratic EU Constitution approved in its present form. Read the report in EUobserver from this link:Schr?der threatens to block future EU financing. Amongst much else it says:-
For the two countries providing the most difficulties in the negotiations on the new Constitution - Poland and Spain - the battle over future financing of the Union is of particular interest.
There are some invaluable links provided from this article on the topic of EU Financing from which we have taken this pie chart:-
The above is the headline from a Guardian article of today which quotes from various other journals, all on the subject of the grave danger Blair is now bringing to the bedrock institution of European Security:-
Daily Mail Editorial, October 21
"When Britain suddenly caved in last month to Franco-German demands for a European army under EU command ... [Tony Blair] wanted to show he was a good European. He wanted to persuade France and Germany to offer more help over Iraq. He wanted concessions on the EU constitution. So now we have the worst of all worlds. The Americans are incensed. The [Nato] alliance is in danger of unravelling. And for what? Despite their pretensions, the EU nations spend pitifully little on defence. Their 'army' essentially exists only on paper. Their ability to protect Europe is slight. Their reliability in times of crisis is non-existent."
Wall Street Journal Editorial, October 20
"Nobody should have any doubts that [the] plan to set up an independent European defence organisation... aims to effect a transatlantic break-up...
Gavin Esler Scotsman, October 21
"Nato, [the US] insists publicly, is vital to the defence of our common values and a powerful shared forum between transatlantic nations. Anything that puts this relationship in jeopardy is dangerous
Francesco Venturini Corriere della Sera, Italy, October 18
"It is all very well to speak of a Maastricht treaty for defence, and its attendant minimal criteria, but the fact that at the same time Germany and Italy are cutting back on defence spending escapes no one.
John O'Sullivan Chicago Sun-Times, October 21
"Mr Blair wanted to demonstrate his 'commitment' to European unity at a time when he was unwilling to risk the politically unpopular step of taking Britain into the euro... That now looks like a colossal misjudgment... Mr Blair... blathers on about not being forced to choose between Europe and America even as he does exactly that by default - and, what is more, chooses Europe."
Times Editorial, October 21
"Mr Blair can afford no more ambiguity. This is an issue that could be more damaging by far than Nato's 'near-death experience' on Iraq - all for the sake of a 'European army' that is incapable of deploying more than 3% of its forces."
We have yet to find evidence that the trailered Nato press conference actually took place. Nor have we found reports as to why it may not have done. We continue to search for news on this crucial transatlantic rift!
EU Business reports that there was to be a press conference after the Tuesday evening meeting, the details of which are in this subsequent report NATO chief swipes at "gang of four" over defence row which dispels the spin of harmony and light being pushed out by Jamie Shea yesterday morning. Lord Robertson the Nato chief said:-
Referring to a landmark NATO-EU accord giving the EU access to Alliance resources, he said it allowed "countries like Belgium (to) invest in the usable capabilities we desperately need for multinational operations of all kinds .. rather than wasting money on duplicating in the EU expensive assets and headquarters which already exist in NATO," according to a text of the speech distributed to reporters in advance.
The report adds this item towards the end:-
To make matters worse for Washington, Britain has been sending out confusing signals over its stance on the plans, fueling US concerns that London is softening its opposition.
To expand on that side of things the statement from 10 Downing Street can be read from this link:-
Straw's Statement from which this is summary of the Governments non-position on the defence of the Nation its most important responsibility:-
The Government believes in a strong Europe and a strong NATO. Our leading role in European Security and Defence Policy has been based on these twin commitments. They are widely shared across the enlarging European Union and the Atlantic Alliance. They will be at the heart of the development of European Security and Defence Policy in the Inter Governmental Conference and beyond.
This is a nonsense the EU is not strong nor will ite ever be so. With a populace and politicians wedded to collectivism and state provision of everything, there will never be the funds for adequate defence!
Germany, France and Britain now 'The EU' from Deutsche Welle
The German State Broadcaster has the following headlines in its report from Iran:-
"Iran Agrees to Inspections after EU Talks
The foreign ministers of Europe's big three -- Great Britain, France and Germany -- breathed a sigh of relief when Iranian officials agreed to nuclear inspections after a tense day of talks."
I trust all the smaller European Nations are happy about being so discounted. Britain will shortly have to get used to again being disregarded as well, once the other two have duped Blair into ditching Nato and all our other arrangements that have served to protect us so well and for so long from Continental interference.
During the first phase from June 1 next year, each country will be able to choose whether to include photographs, fingerprints and biometric data, such as eye measurements, on the "national" side of the card. Britain is opting for a minimalist version.
Nationalised health provision is the excuse being used for this worst ever encroachment of the EU conglomerstate into every aspect of the private lives of those caught up in its ever expanding zone of control.
The final version will be introduced by 2008 and according to the demented individuals plotting this:-
The European Commission said yesterday that the final phase in 2008 would add a "smart chip" containing a range of data, including health files and records of treatment received. "The ultimate objective is to have an electronic chip on the card, as the technology improves," said a spokesman.
Radio Free Europe provides a reasonable summary of the present state of play, of which the following seem the salient points:-
NATO officials yesterday sought to downplay media reports ......
....there have been no reports to suggest that either France or Germany are ready to give up their plans for autonomous EU operational planning facilities. Neither has Britain conclusively ruled out its participation in any EU defense cooperation, beyond saying it must not threaten NATO's role as the preeminent security guarantor in Europe.
More can be expected from the meeting between the U.S. secretary of state, Colin Powell, and his EU counterparts in Brussels on 18 November
France gets another year. Euro looks increasingly Mickey Mouse!
From ForbesBRUSSELS, Oct 21 (Reuters) - The European Commission on Tuesday told France to cut its structural deficit next year by more than planned but gave it an extra year, until 2005, to comply with EU budget rules.EUpolitix carries a similar piece
What is the point of comment? We leave it to OUR title!
A relevant quote taken from the body of the paper (and referring to the Iraq situation), given here to provide a flavour:
Now that the smoke has cleared, we can see that the U.S. acted rightly to secure its interests in the region and that those interests really are different from the interests of France and Germany. The alliance that held our four countries together was an alliance forged by a common threat--which was the military might and ideological frenzy of the Soviet Union. That threat has gone and, unsurprisingly, the alliance has begun to fall apart. The ambition of France and Germany to build a European military force and a common foreign policy will hasten its disintegration, and within a few years NATO will have ceased to exist as an effective voice in the world.
Also worthy of quoting for those too pressed to use the link, but perhaps tempt their return, are the final two paragraphs:-
A strong case could therefore be made for its (UN -ed) abolition. Multilateral treaties agreed between individual states, securing areas of the globe against war, and guaranteeing mutual aid in times of crisis might be far more effective at doing the work for which the U.N. was designed.
It is certainly true that nothing has more effectively kept the peace in Europe than NATO; and even if NATO is now destined for destruction, it is probably a healthier state of affairs when alliances and treaties can both live and die in response to the shifting interests of the nations than when a treaty is immortalized and inoculated against change, like the Charter and Conventions of the U.N.
The paper is a worthy counter to the nonsense (including the unattainable concept of world democracy) put forward by the French Foreign Minister Mr de Villepin in his Dimblelby Lecture of last Sunday, the link for which can be found below.
.... also found "systematic and flagrant incompetence within the committee" and evidence a private company had received contracts from through manipulated bidding procedures.
Chris Heaton-Harris, a British Conservative member of the European parliament (MEP), who has read the report, yesterday cited a passage from the document accusing the body of an "endemic culture of unprofessionalism and improvisation" where opacity was preferred to openness.
Profound Implications of EU Constitution from The Independent
Quote
Peers warn of 'profound effects' of EU constitution
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
21 October 2003
A European constitutional treaty would have profound implications for the UK and "raise issues of principal" for Britain's constitution, a Lords report concluded yesterday.
The report identified 15 areas where the draft EU treaty would pose "constitutional concerns for the UK", including the future sovereignty of Parliament.
The select committee report said there would be an impact on Britain's criminal justice system because the treaty would increase the EU's powers "in the criminal law field", with a European public prosecutor. Foreign policy could also be affected by the creation of an EU foreign minister.
The findings of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution will be seized on by Eurosceptics and those calling for a referendum on the treaty. Yesterday Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, faced renewed calls in the House of Commons for a referendum from both the Tories and Liberal Democrats. But Mr Straw, who attended last week's EU summit with the Prime Minister where the draft EU constitution was discussed, defended his decision not to put the issue to the public.
Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: "This report simply confirms the view which the Liberal Democrats have formed that, in spite of what the Government says, there are constitutional issues at stake in the proposed treaty. The case for a referendum is overwhelming."
The report includes submissions from experts on the effects of the draft treaty which will reorganise the provisions governing the EU.
The peers concluded that it will "change the structure of the EU" and the way it works, including its relations with member states.
It highlights constitutional concerns such as the ability of British bodies to influence the EU after the introduction of further qualified majority votes. It also raises the future status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and "whether continuing development in the European Union will have material effects upon the constitutional doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament".
The peers warn that the treaty could have implications for government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They said they wanted to study these issues in greater detail and draw them to the attention of those negotiating the treaty.
Coup d'etat on Europe
Tuesday October 21, 2003
The Guardian
In your leader on the EU constitution (October 20), you come out against a referendum on the grounds that "this is a proper course of action for a prime minister to take in a parliamentary system".
Yet it is precisely because we have a parliamentary system that the people must agree to any constitutional changes that would erode their right to elect and remove those who make the laws under which they are governed and which they have a duty to obey.
The electors, when they vote, only lend their sovereign powers to the MPs, who must then return them, at the end of a parliament, to those to whom they belong, and MPs have no moral right to hand those powers over to others, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that no parliament can bind its successors.
The real issue is what sort of Europe do we want? One run by bankers and commissioners, or one working through close cooperation between the democratically elected parliaments of the member states.
Those who hold the second view - as I do - are democrats and not Eurosceptics, and if the cabinet, the Commons, and the unelected Lords impose the new EU constitution without popular endorsement in a referendum, they will be carrying out a coup d'etat against parliamentary democracy itself.
Tony Benn
London
The European Commission meets today to supposedly give final deadlines for France to remedy its deficit or face fines. All expectations are that this will be avoided. Indeed Finance Commissioner, Pedro Solbes, (who should by now have resigned over the Eurostat corruption scandal) is actually on record as saying in an interview in the French newspaper, Le Monde on 11th October, that ,'I will do my best so that sanctions aren't imposed".
Will not the floodgates for all the other Eurozone countries not then open? If there are to be no penalties for France and Germany, both of which economies are now almost everywhere forecast to remain in deficit through 2004, what is to stop all the other one-,time nations who have been given their own Euro printing presses, getting them cranked up and then spending like crazy? After all, if there are to be no curbs or penalties on countries who spend recklessly, the inevitable result will be currency value erosion, which must result in a race to spend the most the soonest!
We will report on the outcome of the Commission meeting later, but we expect nothing but further fudge.
Jamie Shea, the official Nato Spokesman, blustered his way through a CNN Internetional interview at 0815 CET this morning trying to give the pretence that all was well between the US and European members of Nato. Shrugging off yesterday's emergency closed door meeting of Ambassadors to the Alliance and and another meeting apparently likewise called at short notice for this evening, he convinced neither the interviewer Hala Gorani, nor this viewer, that matters were in any way 'normal'. This was particularly the case when asked towards the end of the interview, whether he had personally confirmed with the US representatives that they were as happy with the situation as he'd indicated, to which question he was unable to directly reply.
We will be watching for reactions on the other side of the Atlantic, but tight lips seem the order of the day on all sides for the moment!
Confirmation via EU Business that nothing was resolved at the two and a half hour closed door meeting at Nato today. Talks resume tomorrow evening, further evidence of their apparent gravity.
If this reported trip on Wireservice is to be believed the mission is all a simple matter of Iran's nuclear programme. If hints start to appear during or following the visit of Iran pricing its oil in Euros then you can be sure this is one more sign that the Blair Government is on course to shift our main alliance away from the US and towards the EU.
As the Americans, for all their occasional bellicosity and what are seen as other superpower failings, still believe in individual freedom and democracy, this would be a disastrous move for our country. Let's hope my suspicions prove groundless.
Another gift from the EU, or how about Grey Mullet and Chips or Ling and Chips. These are the complacently given suggestions of a fisheries expert Mathew Fort given on the BBC's PM programme a few minutes ago! He was followed by Ben Bradshaw, who pretends to be responsible for Britain's fisheries, who, then voiced further platitudes as if he had some say over anything that now takes place in what were once OUR surrounding seas!
Deutsche Welle has a fairly detailed report on today's meeting on their web site which can be read from this link Crisis Meeting to Iron Out EU-NATO Rift. To illustrate their article they use a photograph of the tiny mission to the Congo which numbered a few French troops, plus one or two others, hastily renamed as an EU force just before their deployment, which as far as we can recall lasted a mere month or so and could hardly be considered either significant or a success.
For an American view we have this report from the Atlanta Journal which can be read here.
Standing in for the apparently still sickening PM, Jack Straw stated:-
“The draft constitutional treaty is designed to improve the way the EU works after enlargement by reform, clarification and consolidation,” he insisted.
“The claims made by the Opposition and others that the treaty would undermine Britain’s independence are frankly absurd.
As has already been demonstarted in our series of posts "Jack Straw's Facts Flaws" he is one of the few, if not the only one, of Europe's Foreign Ministers who believes this Constitution is not of absolutely fundamental significance to the whole of Europe.
The midday Press Releases from Brussels today include this confirmation of how they have almost totally destroyed Britains fishery stocks and future. (Remember this has been accomplished with the connivance of several British Governments; mainly Conservative) :-
Quote
The first indications from the scientific advice released by the independent International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) confirm the need for the recovery measures proposed by the European Commission to ensure the rebuilding of a number of endangered fish stocks. ICES advice is rather stark for a number of stocks including cod in the North Sea, Skagerrak, Eastern Channel, Irish Sea and West of Scotland for which ICES advises zero catch. Its advice is the same for whiting in the Irish Sea. In the case of hake from Ireland down to Portugal, ICES recommends rebuilding plans and zero catch for the southern hake stock. Rebuilding plans are also advised for plaice in the North Sea, cod and plaice in the Celtic Sea and sole in the western Channel and Bay of Biscay. It is not all bad news, however. Some stocks such as North Sea haddock, mackerel and saithe are, according to ICES, in a more healthy condition. The issues that the Commission will discuss with the fisheries sector at the end of October will include ways of allowing continued fisheries on stocks that are in a more healthy state but that are caught along with endangered ones. One example is North Sea haddock whose catches include by-catches of cod which is currently an endangered stock. The advice can be found on the internet at http://www.ices.dk
Le Figaro finds the absence of comment by the American authorites over the French withdrawal from the previously agreed out of court settlement somewhat strange. Bearing in mind the implications, so do we! The lull will, we imagine, be of short duration. When the storm breaks it will be fully covered here on "Ironies"!
NATO Secretary General George Robertson on Monday warned against any moves by the European Union to duplicate the military role of the Atlantic alliance.
"Any duplication and competition between the European Union and NATO will be deeply unsatisfactory," Robertson told reporters after his arrival in the Ukrainian capital Kiev.
A full report on the Nato meeting is also carried in EUobserver. This indicates that while Chirac and Schroeder have publicly plans for the EU Command Centre, Blair has apparently not!
Also, although Berlin and Paris have publicly dropped plans for a separate military headquarters to be set up in Tervuren (a Brussels suburb), Mr Blair has not ruled out that a planning headquarters would be needed to be able to carry out missions
Meantime away from the Nato meeting the dollar is experiencing some strength against the Euro as Treasury Secretary Snow talks it up in The Times as reported in Business World Rising interest rates soon?
The main thrust of the BBC report is this: Senior US officials say an independent EU planning and command headquarters is unacceptable. That is the nub of the argument.
As has been detailed here over the past few weeks, European news sources and reports have been implying that Blair agreed to such a command post during his lunch in Berlin some three weeks ago. He has, however, since been sending conflicting signals, some across the Channel and others over the Atlantic. We will update on this meeting throughout the day as comment is received!
Not surprising really, being so many different things to so many different people must be stressful even to somebody as naturally duplicitous as our Prime Minister seems to be. Five hours in hospital, was that four and a half hours waiting and half an hour on a monitor or did he get some special treatment? It certainly seems to have distracted attention from the French Foreign Minister's incredible speech. The only coverage of that really critical item we can find, other than the advance billing of The Scotsman, already posted, and the BBC News Report, who were obliged to cover it as after all they hosted the event is this in a brief report from the Reading Chronicle:-
"Ours must be a political union. Were we to confine Europe to a mere free-trade area we would be betraying the spirit of the founding fathers and failing to seize the opportunity Europe offers to each of us."
Mr de Villepin said the new EU must have its own foreign policy and foreign minister, as set out in the controversial constitution. It must also have a common defence policy.
Last winter, France advocated Iraq's complete, immediate and verifiable disarmament on the basis of Security Council Resolution 1441. Along with the UK, France was one of the major architects of the consensus achieved on this text. France made proposal after proposal throughout the first months of two thousand and three to increase the effectiveness of the disarmament efforts. There was absolutely no idea of condoning the existing regime or its behaviour. On the contrary, France's constant aim was to achieve as fast as possible the objectives we had set ourselves together.
Has history ever been so quickly re-written?
Coalition soldiers are dying in Iraq. Among them Britons. My thoughts are with the victims' families. I pay tribute to the memory of the fallen. I share your grief. Every day civilians are dying.
Asked during the conflict which side he wished to prevail - this Frenchman and so-called ally and partner of this country refused to provide an answer!
My country isn't naive. Every day the constraints on multilateral action are clear to everyone.
Indeed not! Let us hope no more are the real powers in our country that must force Blair from his present course.
For, without world democracy, there will be no stability.
France and the United Kingdom are key players in this remodelling process.
Blair and Chirac are engaged in the destruction of what little democracy that now remains within Europe - across the entire Continent of Europe. There is NO democracy in the proposed EU COnstitution.
The UK and France are both firm and reliable allies of the US
Read our posting of yesterday evening, indicating some in the USA are now beginning to recognise that France seems to wish to become their enemy.
Take NATO : It's our countries which are today making the most active contribution to the modernisation of the Alliance. They are putting forward proposals, ideas and, most of all, providing troops.
Completely without any foundation in fact. France is the long term and perfectly clear enemy of Nato.
France wants a strong Europe. We believe that Europe, by pooling together our sovereignties, increases, not reduces, each of our nation's influence. Ours must be a political Union. Were we to confine Europe to a mere free-trade area, we would be betraying the spirit of the Founding fathers and failing to seize the opportunity Europe offers to each of us.
At least the French Government honestly spells out its objectives, unlike ours.
But believe me we know that, in order to exert influence on the course of history, Europe represents a key asset. Unity is the essential condition if we want Europe to take its future into its own hands.
For me this 'urge to influence the course of history' smacks, just a little of megalomania? It is where one always feared the drive towards a superstate might inevitably lead and the trappings of flags and anthems seem to bear out.
Unity is the essential condition if we want Europe to take its future into its own hands.
This is especially true in an area where Britain and France can make a major contribution : defence.
There can be no Europe without European defence and no European defence without Britain. And indeed it was your Prime Minister who paved the way for the agreement reached at the Saint-Malo Summit in 1998, which gave a decisive boost to the European security and defence policy.
The St Malo accord was a disaster for Britain and Blair should renounce it fully. Tomorrow's emergency Nato meeting will provide the perfect opportunity. After this speech he will no longer be able to claim he does not know where the agreement is leading.
It appears to me Tony Blair will consider this speech as an act of treachery by his French friends upon whom he has previously been able to rely on keeping quiet about the masterplan while on this side of the Channel.
Speculation on the true French motives is interesting. I initially think Chirac like De Gaulle before him has decided he does not want Britain in Europe, in which case we must thank him. This should give the British people their referendum and their chance to leave the corporatist and apparently imperialist superstate that France wishes the EU to become.
This report just filed by The Scotsman reports the Tories now demanding a referendum on the EU Constitution as the oleaginous French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, calls on Britain to join his country in a proper political union with its own defence policy.
If anything will rouse the man in the street to resist the EU, surely this idea, if not the messenger, must be it!
The speech which is due to be televised this evening on BBC 1 continues as follows:-
"All forms of sovereignty would be surrendered by Britain in a new “single European state”, he said.
Prime Minister Tony Blair had “hoodwinked” the British people and must now call a referendum to allow them to decide if they wanted to go down the “dangerous road”.
Mr de Villepin’s comments came in the Richard Dimbleby Lecture to be shown on BBC 1 tonight.
He said: “France wants a strong Europe. We believe that Europe, by pooling together our sovereignties, increases, not reduces, each of our nation’s influence.
“Ours must be a political union. Were we to confine Europe to a mere free-trade area we would be betraying the spirit of the founding fathers and failing to seize the opportunity Europe offers to each of us.”
Mr de Villepin said the new EU must have its own foreign policy and foreign minister, as set out in the controversial constitution. It must also have a common defence policy.
“There can be no Europe without European defence and no European defence without Britain,” he said.
Mr de Villepin said Britain was “key” to the future development of the EU and he paid tribute to the factors uniting Britain and France."
We took this plea from a member of CIB and the East Midlands Constitutional Convention
I am being asked questions off list by people who do not know about the registration of Regional Assemblies as private companies limited by guarantee.
It is a big subject.
Let me give you just a flavour of the many clauses in the Draft Articles and Memorandum of Association. These are taken from the proposed East Midlands Assembly Ltd but I have read similar in the documents to the THREE companies being registered in the North East i.e. a parent company and two subsidiaries.
3.11To purchas or by any other means acquire and take options over any property whatever...........
14.2 Provided that he (a director)has disclosed to the directors the nature and extent of any , material interest of his, a director..may be party or otherwise interested in, any transaction or arrangement with the Assembly or in which the Assembly is otherwise interested .
14,2.4 Shall not, by reason of his office, be accountable to the Assembly for any benefit which he derives from any such office or employment or from any transaction or arrangement or from any such interest in any such body or organisation and no such transaction or arrangement shall be liable to be avoided on the ground of any such interest or benefit.
Under ACCOUNTS No member shall... have any right of inspecting any accounting records....except as conferred by statute or authorised by the directors.
3.25 appears to give the Assembly the authority to actually sell the Assembly!
2.1 No legal person shall be appointed a member of the Assembly unless his membership is approved by the directors....
The Assembly is therefore self appointed!
Just a flavour. I could quote much more.
Please phone your Assembly and obtain copies of Articles and Constitutions.
Begin to make appointments with your MP. Begin to question your local councillors sitting on Assemblies.
You have only a matter of weeks to TRY and stop this happening by public outcry.
This all forms part of the pattern to destroy this nation's democracy and hand its governance to a clique on the Continent. Blair's absolute refusal again last Friday to even have the chance of expressing their views just once on the wholesale sell out of the country clearly illustrates his blind determination. He must be stopped!
There is more on this topic in the immediately following post.
NEARA (North of England Against Regional Assemblies) will be happy to help with advice on steps you can take in your own local area. Contact them at metricmartyrs@btconnect.com
Christopher Booker's Notebook leads on the scandal of the formation of the Regional Assemblies into Limited Liability Companies entitled Regional assemblies become private firms
Neil Herron of NEARA had been onto this problem earlier in the week when he sent this letter to his own council:-
Bob Rayner
Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Sunderland Council
Sunderland Civic Centre
SR2 7DN 15th October 2003
Dear Mr. Rayner,
Can you please confirm the current legal status of the North East Assembly?
Can you confirm that it is in the process of becoming a Limited Company, and on what date it is expected to be incorporated?
What are the reasons behind this move and how will it now be held accountable and scrutinised, and what is the position of Sunderland Council on this matter?
It appears as though the procedure of incorporation is for the main reason of protecting individual members should the Assembly be caught 'misbehaving' in some way, perhaps by unlawfully using public money for certain purposes, something with which we are all too familiar.
If, for arguments sake, the Assembly were to be successfully sued (and the liability due to the creditor could not be met by the assets) then the relevant creditor of the Assembly could look to individual members to 'top-up' the sums owed to it.
With incorporation creditors would not, "be able to pierce the veil of incorporation."
Hence it would therefore appear to be unaccountable to the public , who are the source of its funds...either by subscriptions from ratepayers, or from taxpayers via the ODPM.
I am sure that there must be a simple explanation for what appears to be an outrageous way of removing the Assembly from any scrutiny process, and from any accountability. I hope you will be able to satisfy my concerns.
Yours sincerely,
Neil Herron
cc. Sunderland Councillors
cc. Stephen Barber
bcc. numerous ratepayers across the North East
bcc. press and media contacts
bcc. North East Council Leaders and Chief Executives
According to this article in The Independent on Sunday Tony Martin, who was jailed for defending himself against burglars, is on a fast track to becoming a centre for the public's dismay over the dreadful shortfalls and inefficiencies in the matter of their governance.
"I will never put at risk Nato. There are people who want to pull me away from Europe and people who want to pull me away from America. We will remain strong with both."
The Prime Minister clearly has now not only lost his grip on the truth, but also the direction of world events. It is a month today since the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a perceptive piece for that paper titled: Our War with France.
In it he made the point that France was becoming America's enemy according to this precis taken from the magazine 'The Week':-
"France is not just our annoying ally. It's not just our jealous rival. France is becoming our enemy." When you consider its behaviour throughout this Iraq affair, the only conclusion one can draw is that Paris wants us to fail. Before the conflict, the French made it impossible for the Security Council to put a real ultimatum to Saddam that might have averted a war. Then, once the fighting started, Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin refused to say which side he'd prefer to win. And now France is demanding that the US transfer sovereignty to some hastily thrown-together Iraqi provisional government. The French know damn well that "there is no coherent, legitimate Iraqi authority able to assume power in the near term" and that trying to force one now would cause huge problems. It's just more mischief. France seems to think that if the US sinks into a quagmire in Iraq, its own fortunes will rise.
This represents one view that was taking shape on the other side of the Atlantic, before Blair travelled to Berlin to sell out his country's defences. It seems extraordinary that he could have been so diplomatically inept to have apparently taken no account of what the American reaction to his luncheon betrayal would be. Where was the Foreign Office advice? Or perhaps more significantly is another factor at work, also betrayed by Blair's announcement yesterday that he still would resist a referendum.......did all Blair's political astuteness depart Downing Street along with Alistair Campbell?
The Guardian publishes this morning the acceptance speech, made last week at the Frankfurt book fair, by Susan Sontag who had been awarded the prestigious Friedenspreis peace prize. In it she explored the conflicts and connections between Europe and America: The fragile alliance. While there are several points on which I personally would take issue with the author it is nevertheless recommended to anyone interested in the present state of transatlantic relations.
Those seeking further reading on the same topic with an alternative viewpoint are directed to 'Power and Weakness' by Robert Kagan available from this link to Policy Review
In what has been an otherwise good day for informed comment and coverage of EU events, the tone is lowered considerably by this almost chidish statement put out from the Prime Minister's office. Hopefully at least it shows he is becoming rattled, if not yet prepared to engage in serious debate or even contemplate the depth of the hole into which he continues to dig:-
An extract, more than enough to illustrate the tone:-
Quote
Mr Blair said that there was no way the UK would ever give up its basic constitutional position during discussions on the new European Constitution.
"That's part of our identity as a country," said the Prime Minister, "and of course what we will continue to do is to try and make sure that Europe can work effectively."
He added that nothing that can remain in any Treaty without British agreement since it requires unanimity.
"I don't think there's going to be a great deal of problem on it," he said. "I think that everyone will accept in the end that the defence guarantees for us and for most of the countries around the table have got to be rooted in NATO." Unquote
As we have given considerable space to the Referendum 2004 campaign on this blog, and our plea that the two groups combine and/or coordinate has, as expected, not borne fruit; we feel we should give a link to the opinion piece by Lady Meyer in today's TelegraphWe should all worry about the Euro-constitution , from which we take this encouraging quote:-
It is not only the Queen who is deeply worried about the new constitution. Sir Stephen Wall, head of the Cabinet Office Secretariat and one of the Prime Minister's leading advisers, has told Tony Blair that he must do a U-turn on his decision not to hold a referendum on the constitution. Sir Stephen believes it must have the consent of the people and told Mr Blair that his current stance on the issue was "untenable".
Still firmly maintaining that he will not grant a referendum, adamant that the status of the Queen remains secure and that the nation's defence remains safe in his hands...Blair departs Brussels with hardly a soul believing a word!
According to this report just out from The Scotsman, 'We've nothing to fear from Europe' says Blair. No indeed! In fact it's him as our leader that is the immediate worry and what Europe will inflict upon us all later when he has finally sold his country out in what appears to be his determined pursuit of the chimera of perhaps sometime gaining the EU Presidency!
If any believe this man can be trusted with the security of the country read the EurActiv Report of 23rd September on his Berlin meetong and what he has been saying today Blair backs Franco-German plans for EU army
In what is seen as a major shift in British defence policy, Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed backing for a Franco-German plan for the EU to have its own military planning structure independent of NATO.
Reports such as the above have been published all over Europe for three weeks as we have been posting them on this blog. Only now that the Americans have become concerned is Blair trying to imply something else was in fact discussed and apparently agreed by him.
The word of this man, unhappily still the Prime Minister of Britain, is quite clearly not to be believed!
Radio Netherlands seem far from happy at the rate of progress at the summit just concluded in Brussels. Bored Stiff in Brussels is their headline for the coverage of the meeting. They report:-
Leaders of the 15-nation bloc are losing patience with Rome for failing to break the impasse over a new constitution.
Euractiv meantime reports that the US has received a promise allaying their fears by vowing "never" to undermine NATO. The emergency Nato meeting set for Monday will go ahead as scheduled! Read EurActiv from here.
The latest report from Reuters indicates that publicly at least the crisis atmosphere is cooling somewhat and that Blair is being pulled back into line, but what a disaster for Britain that we should ever have had a Prime Minister who could have been so careless of the nation's security requirements. Reuters says:-
Washington, which suspects the plan is a French-inspired bid to subvert the Atlantic alliance, has piled pressure on Britain, its closest European ally, to block the loftier ambitions of a pioneering quartet of EU states led by Paris and Berlin.
Although he agreed with France, Germany and Belgium on Thursday to closer cooperation between the bloc's militarily most advanced member states, Blair has flatly rejected proposals the United States says trespass on NATO territory.
The following is an excerpt from the latest News Release:-
To All,
Referendum04's Poll made the front page and page 4 of yesterday's Telegraph. The article 'Three in four want Euro referendum,' was alongside 'Queen raises fears over EU constitution,' (for both, see below) in which the Palace appears to be waking up to the constitutional implications of the proposed European Constitution.
The office has been inundated with offers of support today and the coverage, along with the headlines in today's Sun, " ER vs EU," gives a massive boost to the People's Campaign calling for a referendum.
Blair's position of continuing to deny the people their voice is looking weaker by the day.
Good luck to all those starting their signature gatherings tomorrow, and any requests for forms posters, car stickers for future events please give us a call on 0191 565 2004.
Anyone wishing to become a more active part of the network and become a local point of contact and liase with others in an area, can also give us a call.
Regards,
Neil Herron
An interesting discussion on how having taken the dates out of history might swing the referendum, that I am increasingly confident Britain will have on the EU Constitution, to the proper result.
How huge an irony would that be? The very people who have worked hardest to beat British national pride out of Britain, namely the teaching profession and the theorisers of teaching who have been guiding them, have ended up with a kind of History that says only one thing: Germany bollocks!! Don't want nothing to do with them bastards!!! As a result these anti-historical history persons, mostly rabidly pro-EU on anti-British grounds, could be achieving what looked impossible as recently as only a decade ago, namely the saving of Britain from permanent EUro-subjugation.
Lefty bastard enemies of British History, we hail you, the saviours of British national independence.
According to a TV report from CNBC the 'bizarre' two day EU summit has now drawn to a close with absolutely nothing having been agreed and prospects for the IGC being finished this year. In their words, but not ours, 'BLEAK'.
They also report a meeting on defence was held last evening among France, Germany, Britain and Belgium. Berlusconi reportedly pretended no knowledge of this as EU President!
Apparently Jaques Chirac was reported as saying at a French Press Conference after the summit that Britain's policy on defence was 'incoherent', which is probably one of the few areas in which he now finds himself in full agreement with the Americans.
Just as Jean-Claude Trichet is confirmed as the new ECB head, Jaques Chiarac announces that France is pulling out of the USD 575 million out of court settlement it had previously agreed over the California/ Executive Life scandal.
Now, perhaps, the US COurts will be able to really get their teeth into the some of the events surrounding the dealings between Drexel Burnham Lambert, Credit Lyonnais, etc. Expect some high powered names of European finance to be dragged through the mud and some eye-opening times ahead for the minority of French Citizens able to read and understand English.
(See our new side link French Media Control)
It has softened resistance to plans in the draft for closer cooperation between the most militarily capable members of the EU, but insists that this must not be an exclusive club.
In London, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the EU and NATO had "differing but mutually supportive" security roles.
To what extent has Blair's resistance been softened and WHY?
A reminder of what was agreed at Nice can be found on this link to a BBC report at the time
EU leaders strike defence deal which stated:-
The declaration states specifically that it does not involve the establishment of a European army and links the force to Nato, despite France's call for it to have an independent planning structure.
It has yet to be decided whether a core group of states should be allowed to forge ahead with greater military co-operation - a move that is strongly opposed by the UK.
The agreement attempts to dispel fears of a split between the EU and Nato by underlining the Atlantic alliance continues to form the basis for the EU's collective defence.
The Rand Organisation published a paper after Nice on the delicate balance that had seemingly been achieved, which can be read from this pdf link Nice and Beyond.
Doubts were plentiful regarding the wisdom of having gone even as far as Blair did back then; as can be read in the report from this link of William Hague's subsequent attack on what had been agreed: BLAIR SOLD US SHORT IN NICE, SAYS HAGUE
But the Tory leadership believes that loss of the national veto powers, coupled with the plans for a European defence force, will arouse public concerns over the pace of integration. Mr Hague said the Government should hold a referendum on the treaty and Euro force. If he came to power he would seek to renegotiate many of the elements of the treaty.
Those were the days, of course, when the Tories were still concerned about their country, its sovereignty, its defence and the role and powers of the monarch. Unlike today where the topic of their leadership seems all enthralling!
“There is a proper place where this constitution will be debated. It is Parliament.”Tony Blair.
Meantime in The Sun:-
Trevor Kavanagh writes on the threat of the Queen becoming second fiddle to the likes of Schroeder and Chirac. Thats more likely to wake up the complacent British Public.
Happily, very little, if any, progress was made towards agreement on anything at the Brussels summit on the Constitution. One thing that became crystal clear is that Jack Straw has absolutely no comprehension of the nature of the process in which he is involved, Blair probably does, but neither have any idea as to how to disentangle themselves. Take these quotes from a report from EUobserver, Foreign Minister post causes rifts:-
Not only does the UK want the person to have a less ‘government-like’ name, such as Foreign Secretary or Foreign Representative but it is also calling for the minister to be responsible only to the member states.
At the moment, the draft Constitution proposes that the Foreign Minister be both vice-President of the Commission and head of the external relations council – essentially a foot in both the intergovernmental and the communitarian camp.
But this is causing a myriad of problems.
Mr Straw spoke "relatively strongly" on this, said a council source. The UK Foreign Secretary also raised the issue at the preparatory IGC meeting in Luxembourg on Monday.
The article then eleaborates on some of the problems and inconsistencies that creation of the Foreign Ministers post will cause, ending as follows:-
"Governments are realising what a messy issue this is", said a diplomat "and how much work is still needed to solve it".
To the framers of the Constitution in the Convention and those now driving the IGC forward towards such a rushed conclusion before the end of this year namely: Germany, France, Italy and at this point Blair for Britain, none of these practical considerations are of the slightest significance or importance. They will resolve all such detail, amongst themselves, in private, behind closed doors, as and when they arise, after the Constitution has been ratified and democracy across the continent of Europe has therefore ceased to exist!
The British people will come to realise this when the document achieves its final form. Blair probably knows it already, but it would appear Jack Straw has not yet twigged the fantastic fraud of which he is about to be made a victim. It appears he might therefore still believe the ridiculous statement he made to Parliament, which he again largely re-iterated yesterday according to this report in EU Business
"You have a referendum where the choice before a country is whether to join or to leave a major international organization, like the European Union. That is not the issue here," he said.
"Our judgement is that the institution... will stay the same, and above all the fundamental relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union will not be altered, and therefore there is no case for a referendum."
Jack Straw's judgement is very, very seriously flawed, if that is what he believes. Up to this point I had a small amount of respect for his common sense. I felt that he conducted himself well during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. It would appear that either he has not fully read the constitutional document or he has seriously misjudged the true venality of his continental partners, who from any reading of the history of the European Treaties of the past fifty odd years can have only one single intent, from this constitutional document as far as our nation is concerned, that being of course to stiff Britain!
Jack Straw made himself appear naive yesterday. Just as Blair is now appearing, to those who were so recently our very staunch allies in the USA. He now appears to them as selling out that 'Special Relationship' for the price of a Berlin lunch and furtherance of his own personal ambitions. Read more on that below!
After being somewhat of a lone voice on what looked like a complete sell out of Britain's defence interests ever since the Berlin lunch some weeks back, we are relieved this matter now seems to be getting some of the attention it deserves. Tonight the FT reports that the USA has called an emergency meeting of Nato to discuss the matter US calls Emergency Nato meeting
This followed a report earlier today in the FT about US 'dismay' at reports of Blairs reported 'slipperiness' blithely shrugged off by a British spokesman as reported in The Scotsman and linked from our earlier post below. The first FT piece may be read from this US Dismay over Blair's stance on EU Defence
It seems the US Government and the Royal Family are simultaneously and finally awakening to the real danger now posed to Britain from Europe through the manipulations and duplicitous language of Tony Blair.
At Nice, the resistance of the British Prime Minister did not allow for the introduction of this possibility. We hope that the new Rome treaty will give us this new possibility. I understand that the recent summit between France, Germany and the UK has helped to bring positions on this question closer to a possible compromise.
What exactly has Blair agreed....or indicated he might be prepared to agree????
According to The Scotsman this morning a spokesman for the Prime Minister, now increasingly frequently becoming known as "B Liar" has stated that the Queen's position will not be affected by the new Constitution, once again trotting out the tired old line that :-
“It does not change the position in any way. This is simply a consolidation of existing treaties.”
A UK Newspaper has, therefore, finally reported the defence implications of Blair's most recent private sell-out over a discreet 'behind closed door ' luncheon with Schroeder and Chirac recently in Berlin, when the paper continues its report:-
Mr Blair’s spokesman also sought to ease any American fears over an European defence project. Members of President George Bush’s administration were reportedly “dismayed” at the prospect of a new force acting outside Nato.
The spokesman insisted “I don’t recognise that picture”. He said: “What is important is that in terms of European defence our position has not changed. “We are in favour of co-operation. That co-operation has to be based on conditions. “Defence of Europe territorially is a matter for Nato. That has not changed at all. “Secondly, co-operation has to be complimentary to Nato.”
...Our staff allowance is ?12,305 (£8,620) a month - enough to employ a genuine secretary, and a research assistant, and still have fifty or sixty grand left over for the missus.
The idea of auditing any of these expenses strikes many Euro-MPs as sacrilegious - "an assault on the dignity of our office" as an Italian friend grandly put it. So everything is done on the basis of no receipts, no invoices. The most outrageous case is the travel allowance, whereby MEPs get the equivalent of a full fare plus twenty per cent, regardless of how they actually make the journey. If you're prepared to fly Ryanair from Stansted, you can easily trouser £600 a week - tax free, of course, since it counts as expenses, not income.
The same applies to our "general expenses allowance" (£2,540 a month) which is meant to cover petrol, postage and the like, but which several members find convenient to have paid directly into their current accounts.
Ditto the £180 daily attendance rate. In theory, this is meant to pay for accommodation and meals. But most of us have flats in Brussels, and you can always sub-let a room to your assistant for surprisingly high rate which you happen to make up to him through your staff allowance. This would allow you to keep another £900 a week in more or less clear profit. (Forget paying for meals: whenever you're hungry, you just stretch out your arm and hail a
passing lobbyist.)
He ends with some words of warning about the high flown phrase now being used to justify the new Constitution, words that will be no surprise to regular readers here:-
As Euro-enthusiasts muster in defence of the new constitution, we are once
again being treated to some rather uplifting rhetoric about peace and
democracy and so forth. To quote the document itself: "The Union is founded
on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and
solidarity".
Yet, behind these phrases is the reality of the Brussels system: the sacking
of whistleblowers, the Eurostat scandal, the Committee of the Regions
affair, the self-righteous bureaucracy, the complacent Commissioners. And
where are the MEPs, supposedly the people's tribunes? Why, awarding
themselves an additional perk of £35 a week to pay for any taxis that they
may be forced to use when the limousine service stops running at 10.00pm.
Again, let me stress that many MEPs are scrupulous about their accounts, and
some of them - notably the Tory budgets wonk, Chris Heaton-Harris - have
been relentless in exposing sleaze. But the regime itself, despite ritual
promises of reform, remains as rotten as ever. So when you are next told
that the Euro-constitution "will strengthen democracy in Europe", bear in
mind exactly whom you are being invited to strengthen.
As well she might be! According to today's Telegraph the Palace has sent for briefing papers on the constitutional implications of the negotiations presently being sold down the river by our euro-ambitious PM. In the article titled Queen raises fears over EU Constitution the point is made:-
It is believed that the Palace's concerns focus on whether the Queen's supreme authority as the guardian of the British constitution, asserted through the sovereignty of Parliament, could be altered or undermined by article 10 of the draft text.
This states: "The constitution and law adopted by the union's institutions in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the member states."
If you scroll down this page to the post 'IGC Key-points' below, you will note this was the very item we chose to highlight in our post of yesterday afternoon. "Has Ironies a Royal readership, we wonder?"
A European Union agreement on a proposed Rapid Reaction Force has been hailed as a "victory" for the UK by Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The declaration at the Nice summit specifically links the force to Nato - as demanded by the UK but opposed by France.
While welcoming the deal, Mr Blair also stressed he would not be making concessions on his summit negotiating position.
He met privately with French President Jacques Chirac on Friday night as they and other EU leaders attempted to thrash out an accord to pave the way for European enlargement.
The defence declaration specifically rules out the establishment of a European army.
It attempts to dispel fears of a split between the EU and Nato by underlining that the Atlantic alliance continues to form the basis for the EU's collective defence.
THIS IS THE DEAL THAT FRENCH AND GERMAN PRESS REPORTS REPEATEDLY STATE BLAIR HAS NOW GONE BACK UPON IN HIS RECENT BERLIN LUNCH, WHICH FACT SEEMS TO CONTINUE TO BE UNREPORTED BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA
Mr Prodi warned: “It is important for Europe not to become bogged down in an institutional power struggle in the weeks and months ahead“.
"Same old stuff!" one may well say......but how about this shocker, slipped in at the end of the piece:-
The fact that French President Chirac will “represent” Germany at the summit on Friday while Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder returns to Berlin for a vital vote in the German parliament, only reinforces the re-emergence of a powerful Franco-German alliance in the EU.
Surely even Blair will now manage to get the message that this Europe is not for us!
Another mneeting is scheduled for tomorrow in Brussels. The link lists the main points as presented by EU Business we quote this one:-
- EU LEGISLATION: EU law shall have primacy over national legislation. The current legislative devices are to be replaced by six legal measures: laws, framework laws, regulations, decisions, recommendations and opinions.
This report from the unlikely source for us of the World Socialist Web Site gives one of the best brief summaries of the recent Convention and the present IGC. Some random quotes we liked follow, but the whole piece is recommended:-
....a fantasy backdrop—a mixture of pomp, kitsch and reminiscences of fascism---- A “kind of imperial Disneyland,” ...........
.....a “European Convention”..............a mixture of deceits and illusions.
Even the term convention is a fraud. It harks back to the American and French revolutions, in the course of which conventions prepared the first truly democratic constitutions of modern times. But while these conventions relied upon broad popular movements, the European Convention largely worked behind closed doors
......the convention began to flag, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer peremptorily made himself a member, in order to lend more weight to Germany’s interests.
"....The convention was billed as the great Democracy Show. I have never seen a darker darkroom than the convention.”
.....lacing up a legal corset for the European institutions, which are increasingly reviled in the population........
Tony Blair consented to the EU developing a common planning and leadership capacity for independent military operations. Closer military cooperation between individual groups of EU members envisaged in the draft constitution no longer seems to face a British veto.
Yet again, more confirmation, as if any more were needed, that Blair sold out Britain in Berlin. How else can he justify having abandoned the once non-negotiable stands he took at Nice?
Before ending with an appeal towards a socialist utopia, the factual account of the background to the IGC draws to a close with this paragraph:-
France and Germany openly threatened opponents of the draft with economic sanctions. “I do not know who can take the liberty of blocking the constitution,” French President Jacques Chirac said in Rome, adding a warning that any delay in the constitution could hinder the negotiations beginning 2004 over financial assistance to the poorer EU states. German government representatives referred in the press to a “long list of tortures” that could be deployed against opponents of the constitution, and reiterated that Germany was the largest net contributor to the European Union.
The Blair obsession with appearance rather than substance, continues apace. Yesterday in Luxemburg, the EU Foreign Ministers met to again discuss the Constitution. One report of that apparently inconclusive gathering can be read from EU Business, from which we quote:-
The European Union remained split Monday on key proposals for a first-ever constitution for the bloc, including the creation of an EU foreign minister, diplomats said.
Britain is claiming some support for its opposition to the term "minister," although the majority of countries did not express problems with the name, they said.
"The British were quite pleased with the way things went," said an official close to talks between EU foreign ministers, their second talks on the future constitution which is planned to be completed by December.
"There is not an EU government, so there shouldn't be a minister. It's misleading," said the source, adding that six or seven countries -- out of the 25 current and incoming EU states -- supported its stance.
This obsession that the words are all-important would seem infantile if we could not see the terrible end consequences of such guile, as is now being untangled by the Hutton Enquiry.
Blair actually seems to believe that because he negotiated the word federal out of the convention document, the resulting structure will magically not become federal, in spite of the reality that that is exactly what it is .
Now he has apparently instructed Jack Straw, to negotiate the word 'Minister' from the title of the new EU Foreign Affairs supremo (and effectively EU Vice President, as I read the draft, therefore hugely more powerful than any minister could ever dream), as if this will convince the British electorate that we as a nation will continue to run our own foreign policy.
We must ensure that this typical 'Government' confidence trick is not allowed to happen yet again, as it has so many times before. The quotes in the immediate post below show how determined Blair has become to finally destroy the nation.
There can be no justification for his decision when considered against the enormity of what is being proposed, and this statement from the Prime Minister "Foreign policy, defence, tax all remain the prerogatives of the nation state" is patently untrue as the Constitutional Document is presently drafted and therefore must be proof positive that Blair does not intened to stand tough on these issues but concede the clear principle that others will be involved in these matters clearly ending our status as a Nation State.
This Prime Minister is dug in so firmly he will need to be uprooted!
We have developed a Banner Heading for this site, which we call 'Enough'. Hopefully it sums up our philosophy in a word. Anybody wishing to use this image please feel free to do so, but an acknowledgement and link to our website would be appreciated.
Christopher Booker commenting in the Sunday Telegraph on the fear of the EU topic at the Tory Conference last week, makes the following point:-
What makes this bizarre, of course, is that the EU is no longer a matter of foreign policy. It is now responsible in large part for the way our country is governed.
This is the crucial point that we have been making on Ironies for some time, most lately yesterday morning in 'Countering the Consensus', namely that the EU is now so all pervasive throughout every small detail of the administration of the nation's affairs, that it is perfectly feasible for an anti-EU single issue party to fight an election with a feasible and coherent policy strategy of EU out on every normally considered solely domestic policy area.
Christopher Booker continues... We have ceded the power to make laws in a wide range of policy areas that might each have once had a debate to themselves, from farming, fishing and the environment to trade and industry. By pretending that the EU is merely a foreign policy issue, Ancram and his colleagues tacitly acknowledged that there is no point in discussing much of what constitutes the government of our country, since we no longer control it. Hence the concentration on health, education, police and tax. The rest has been given away.
As the Blair Government moves towards ratification of the Constitution and the principle of EU involvement in the setting of tax policy (that seems to have already begun) becomes accepted through judicial precedent it will very soon become impossible to argue that complete control of even the latter policy areas truly remain in our national hands. Leaders who are not free in so many other areas can hardly be considered truly independent in other smaller matters, of what would be considered by Brussels, as details.
Worse the principle of ministerial responsibility, having become a sham elsewhere, could hardly be ruthlessly enforced on the unlucky holders of those three or four mainly middle management portfolios, as we have already clearly witnessed.
Seven out of ten people in Portugal would like a referendum on the EU Constitution according to this report in EU Business
Two of the last three EU treaties extending the bloc's powers have been held up by lost referendums in Denmark and Ireland that had to be re-run to secure eventual approval.
Roughly one third of EU member states are pondering, or have already decided, to put the draft constitution to a referendum.
And the more countries that have referenda, the greater the chance that some will say NO, and the less the chance this dreadful Constitution will be imposed on the people of Britain by the totally discredited Blair Administration!
I was struck by this passage in a review of the book, The Age of Reagan: I 1964 –1980 written by Steven F. Hayward on Samizdata by Findlay Dunachie this morning.
For anyone who has been misled into thinking that Reagan was an intellectual nullity, here is ample evidence that he was an independent and original thinker, often insisting on keeping to his own line or script in face of criticism from his advisers and speechwriters. Many of his statements, which at the time seemed naive, questionable, wrongheaded or too extreme, now seem merely farsighted. He was also optimistic about America and had no time for any rationale for its decline, such as Kissinger, student of the rise and fall of European states, believed in, or at least feared. Nor was he put off by the "complexity" arguments of those who despised him for his simple attitude to problems and their solutions. Some of his difficulties with his own advisers and supporters lay in persuading them that this attitude could be made plausible to the public as electorate.
The emphasis to the final sentence of the quotation has been added here, as this seems to me to be where the lesson for the Euro-realists lies in Britain today. We must have the courage to believe that the electorate can be shown and IMO, quite easily accept, that all problems do come down to the EU, whether its law and order, transport, health, defence or any other item that directly impacts their daily lives. Why? Because quite simply it is a fact and will increasingly be seen to be a fact!
British Ministers no longer feel responsible for the decisions being taken by their departments, often quite correctly so. Democratic Accountability has therefore ceased to exist and nobody is in charge. Hence the breakdown of services! The EU is the cause! QED.
A new Eurobarometer survey on public opinion in the Candidate Countries has been published today with enthusiasm for the organisation unsurprisingly high, generally in the seventy per cent range of most topics, amongst the sampled population. (When EU policies take affect watch support plunge to the levels now seen among existing members).
On Defence which will be one of the crucial areas within the IGC the EU makes much of the high level of support for the EU to take over that crucial function. The summary implies huge majorities are are in favour of such a move. Separating out the nations with meaningful defence forces however the responses can be viewed quite differently with Turkey, prefering Nato or National control at 47 versus 43 per cent, Poland 45 to 41 per cent and the Czech Republic at 45 to 37 per cent. Do the other countries really matter in defence terms?
The full report of the poll can be found in pdf format from this link, allow some time to download due to the ridiclous illustrations they have these days taken to putting on the cover page!
The Scotsman reports that Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing a teenage burglar, was addressing delegates at the UK Independence Party’s annual conference today
Mr Martin judging from his Radio Four interview with John Humphries on the Today programme a few weeks ago (reported here 15th August), is one of the clearest and strongest voices for sound common sense now remaining in the country. The ordinary rank and file membership of UKIP, who are thoroughly worthy people dedicated to removing Britain from the EU will no doubt give him a very warm reception and be fascinated to hear what he has to say.
If Tony Martin does not wish to be reminded of some of the flawed characters with whom he was forced to mix during his term of wrongful imprisonment, however, he would do well to avoid spending too much time today with those who have recently been responsible for running the party. A full account of all their dirty dealings, of course being available on our sister blog UKIP Uncovered
There is an interesting analysis on the above topic in Forbes from Reuters of which this is a brief extract:-
Another possible compromise might be to raise the population threshold for majority voting to 66 percent, making it easier to put together a blocking minority. A former Spanish policymaker told Reuters he thought this might be enough to win over Madrid.
Entwined with the constitutional debate is EU funding.
Since joining the European Union in 1986, Spain has received billions of euros from Brussels, enabling it to modernise its infrastructure rapidly and to raise citizens' living standards.
This year alone, it received a net injection of more than seven billion euros ($8.3 billion) of EU funds. But that cash is expected to dwindle as money is diverted to new entrants such as Poland.
Germany, the EU's major net contributor, has made veiled threats that its funding for the next EU budget for 2007-13 will depend on progress on the constitution, prompting speculation Spain could lose out financially if holds out against Berlin.
Even The Economist is providing some coverage to the EU Constitution this week in the Charlemagne column with the title Claims that the new constitution is designed to cope with European Union expansion are false. It is premium content so no link can be provided. The title says enough!
EUobserver being a somewhat eurosceptic source always tends to make more cheerful reading than much of the mainstream press, two consecutive headlines definitely qualify today. The first: Constitution Referendum Crisis Looms says:-
As more and more EU leaders say they will put the Constitution to a referendum, the big political question of what to do when one country says no has not been answered.
A totally ridiculous question, of course, given the nature of the document, there is hardly likely to be one solitary country out of the twenty-five saying NO. There are almost bound to be several .ONE OF WHICH, AFTER THE SPEECH BY TORY PARTY LEADER IAIN DUNCAN SMITH TODAY, I NOW STRONGLY BELIEVE WILL BE GREAT BRITAIN!
... according to the report, "the headline result ... is that price level dispersion has again not narrowed". Prices are much further apart in the euro zone than across the US - probably the nearest comparable currency zone. The opposite of what was planned!
Both these facts are truly excellent news for those who believe in democracy and must, therefore, by definition detest all the EU has come to represent.
The two flagship ventures of the EU namely the Euro and the Constitution, both look doomed to FAILURE
This is a brief piece of an interesting article by Steve den Beste all of which can be found
over at USS Clueless. It goes to the heart of the Blair/EU problem and we recommend using the link to read the entire topic.
Quote
The Tranzis (as many of us refer to those who support Transnational Progressivism) accept that necessity, too. They don't really approve of the kind of thing that Saddam was doing to the Iraqi people, but are willing to tolerate it because from their point of view the long term consequences of our interference in Iraq will be even worse. Saddam's brutality was bad, but it was a lesser evil.
Their long term program at the highest level diplomatically is post-nationalism. When nationalism is strong it can be pathological, leading the people of many nations to think of ausl?nders as somehow sub-human, intrinsically less valuable, and perhaps worth nothing at all. That makes it easy to consider waging war or committing commercial exploitation or genocide, leading to misery and suffering, since ethnocentric nationalists won't feel guilt about causing such misery to others they don't really think of as being human. They may even see themselves as being noble, "bringing civilization to the savages." (There can be no better demonstration of this self-deception than Kipling's "White Man's Burden".)
If nations can be deemphasized, then the newly-enlightened citizens of the world will no longer be willing to accept such things, and this will necessarily mean there will be no more wars, no more exploitation, no more misery. By deemphasizing nations and nationalism, a world utopia becomes possible.
Anything which reinforces nationalism postpones that end, possibly forever. Thus anything which makes people proud of their own nation, and makes them identify with their nation, is in the long term bad even if it involves objectively good short term results.
It is the most powerful nations where nationalism represents the most profound danger to this idealistic new world order. When there is a single superpower whose people strongly identify with their nation and are proud of its achievements, then they represent a profound threat to the process of creating a post-nationalist one-world utopia.
Of course, if everyone in the world embraced the Tranzi vision, the process of establishing that utopia would be very straightforward. But it's not to be expected that this take place, and the Tranzis understand that the majority of the human race will resist it to the end, for a wide variety of reasons all of which are fundamentally wrong. Those who would oppose it are unwise, unenlightened, indoctrinated, deceived, dogmatic; but they cannot be reached intellectually, so it's necessary to force it onto them. Once it's in place, they'll come to realize that they were wrong and will accept it and even support it, but there's no way to convince them of that before the fact.
The new utopia is clearly right, but it cannot be brought into being by honest participation in democracy. The enlightened Tranzi elite will have to work on establishing this new utopia subtly, surreptitiously, in small steps, without ever admitting how each such step supports their true goal. They cannot let the incorrect but unavoidable opposition of the majority prevent it.
I suppose I need to make clear that I don't agree with what they believe. Moreover, I think that it contains deep contradictions, deep presumptions which are empirically false, and deep calculations of results which run counter to much of what we know about economics and human psychology. But I'm trying to explain their point of view. And necessarily I'm speaking in broad generalizations.
Unquote
Me neither! Some further reading from a linked item headed Fourth Dimension
I suggest that we add a fourth dimension to a conceptual framework of international politics. Three dimensions are currently recognizable. First, there is traditional realpolitik, the competition and conflict among nation-states (and supranational states such as the EU). Second is the competition of civilizations, conceptualized by Samuel Huntington. Third, there is the conflict between the democratic world and the undemocratic world. My suggested fourth dimension is the conflict within the democratic world between the forces of liberal democracy and the forces of transnational progressivism, between democrats and post- democrats.
The conflicts and tensions within each of these four dimensions of international politics are unfolding simultaneously and affected by each other, and so they all belong in a comprehensive understanding of the world of the twenty-first century. In hindsight, Fukuyama is wrong to suggest that liberal democracy is inevitably the final form of political governance, the evolutionary endpoint of political philosophy, because it has become unclear that liberal democracy will defeat transnational progressivism. During the twentieth century, Western liberal democracy finally triumphed militarily and ideologically over National Socialism and communism, powerful anti-democratic forces, that were, in a sense, Western ideological heresies. After defeating its current antidemocratic, non-Western enemy in what will essentially be a material-physical struggle, it will continue to face an ideological-metaphysical challenge from powerful post-liberal democratic forces, whose origins are Western, but, which could be in the words of James Kurth, called "post-Western."
Barroso said he had no intention of ratifying any EU constitution "against the will of the Portuguese people". Any treaty needed to be subject to political debate and "legitimized by the people" before it takes effect, he said.
Portugal are one of Britain's longest standing international allies. I wonder if they will rally to the support of their long-time friend as Blair sells out our Democracy for a tiny chance of being a future EU President?
At the same time, EU leaders must be mindful of the fate of the December 2000 IGC that also hoped to create a constitution and ended in failure. At some point, there must be respect for the process that yielded the document that is being debated in Rome. The claim that a complete re-examination of the document would be tantamount to "re-opening Pandora's Box" is not without reason. Still, there is room for compromise.
At a minimum, the call for dissenters to swallow their criticisms and accept the draft as presented smacks of arrogance. That will only guarantee that the constitution -- and the Union it represents -- lacks legitimacy. In other words, the IGC must be vigorous; amendments are both probable and desirable.
While the IGC is a conclave of leaders, the measure of its success will be acceptance by the people of Europe -- both "old" and "new" -- of the new constitution. Those representatives must remember that their document is just a "draft," and that they are just "representatives." Only then will the IGC be a success and the European project proceed.
Other coverage of note on the IGC is a report of some give from Germany on the question of numbers of Commissioners, ever one of the least justifiable changes as pointed out here previously. In the Financial Times and from the BBC, we learn that German strong arm tactics, regarding the possible Budgetary implications, could result in the Poles already playing their referendum card....far sooner than even we had expected.
Well if one waits long enough to make the first post of the day, some good news is bound to come along. How about this headline to start the week from The Edinburgh Evening News we are informed of an 'Optimism and output boost for UK economy'
Also last week, the latest monthly update on the services sector from the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply (CIPS) showed the key sector had grown faster in September than in any month since April 2000.
It represented the fifth consecutive month of expansion and was driven primarily by new business. And the latest CIPS figures on the manufacturing sector also indicate the shoots of recovery.
Personally, I remain a bit of a pessimist on the outlook for Britain, because of the ever-growing red-tape and rising tax grab from Brown, but relative to the EU, of course, anything must look good.
Malta Media provides a good overview, while Britain's Sky News reports Foreign Minister Jack Straw saying the 'failure is not an option', while making clear 'that the Prime Minister would maintain the UK's "red lines" on tax, social security, defence and areas of foreign policy.' To be taken seriously, he would of course, had to say that failure was therefore not only an option ,but a real prospect. The British battle is lost before it has begun!
According to a BBC Report, Blair uses the same words guaranteeing a formula for failure, while EU Business in the piece most worth reading, states the hard facts under the title, 'EU leaders fail to disguise differences on constitution'.
The Italian minister indicated that Madrid and Warsaw were playing with fire. "It's a big political choice," he cautioned.
Frattini acknowledged that both countries could block proposed changes in voting weights because all decisions have to be agreed unanimously.
"If they say no, then the idea won't get approved... then by default Nice would apply." But he said he hoped a "third way" might emerge during the intergovernmental conference (IGC), which Rome hopes will end in December.
There is absolutely no reason why either Poland or Spain should reduce the voting percentages agreed in the Nice Treaty. If the other large countries, and it is Germany, France, Britain and Italy who are attempting to take advantage of these two, do not concede, the whole project would be wrecked. If they do concede, the point then the Convention Framework has been blown apart and the planned Franco/German strategy of keeping those terms untouchable will lie in tatters with Christianity and its inclusion then having to be accepted by the French, thus opening the floodgates, so that in the end even the pathetically timid British, "Red Lines" might get a hearing.
Finally! ... A break from the Constitution and the IGC. My last post reminded me that scandal and corruption does not just lie in the future but is with us already thanks to all the other dreadful European Treaties various Conservative and Labour Governments have signed up to.
Not often we can link to a report from the London;s Times but we found this on the internet regarding MEPs and their increased allowances:-
"WITH business-class air fares paid and an all-day limousine service on tap, Euro MPs had only to pay for the taxi home after dining out in Brussels’ vaunted restaurants. Now they have eliminated even that small cost. Blithely ignoring charges of “moral corruption”, MEPs have voted to give themselves an allowance of up to €50 (£34) a week to cover the cost of getting back to their Brussels pads after the free limousine service ends at 10pm.
The allowance, approved by the Parliament’s ruling body of MEPs responsible for administration, has angered members keen to tackle its reputation as a “gravy train”.
Christopher Heaton-Harris, a Conservative MEP, said: “It’s ridiculous. We’re quite well paid already.”
Michiel van Hulten, a Dutch Member who spearheads the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform, said: “We’ve been working for four years on the reform of the expenses issue, and all we’ve managed to achieve is giving ourselves more money. It’s a sign of moral corruption that MEPs feel they can treat themselves better than anyone else.”
In addition to their salaries, MEPs already get a daily living allowance of €257, which is meant to cover accommodation, food and local transport.They can claim the full business-class return air fare back home every weekend, even if they buy discount flights. They also get allowances for staff.
The new allowance is due to start next month. European Parliament authorities insist that it is needed because the limousine service, costing €2.3 million annually, will not be able to cope when ten new nations join the EU next year, boosting the number of MEPs by 100.
“Without this, we’d have to buy more cars and hire more chauffeurs. This very modest allowance is actually an economy measure,” a spokesman for the president of the Parliament, Pat Cox, said.
But Mr van Hulten has written an official letter of protest to Mr Cox, saying:“Just one week after the European Parliament tells the Commission to clean up its act over Eurostat, MEPs give themselves another pay rise.”
Pat Cox then jetted off to Rome to make fatuous comments to the world's assembled press about not tinkering any more with EU Institutions, we all know why he would object to that now don't we just?
EUobserver reports the beginning of the IGC. Berlusconi urges member states to co-operate and pleads that the conclusion be speedy so that the agreement can be concluded in Rome where Europe (he means the present European Union) began fifty years ago. Hardly a compelling argument for such haste over such horror!
Fresh from presiding over a vote in favour of himself and other MEPs being able to claim increased expense allowances from next month, Pat Cox, the President of the European Parliament said, "How would public opinion react if we were to undo the Convention's work, behind closed doors, and end up with a miserable lowest common denominator?"
The answer, of course, has to be with the same sullen indifference or total ignorance with which the tamed European media have compelled them to react to all such previous outrages. It seems doubtful that the scale of the grab for democratic freedoms and individual liberties foreseen in this Constitutional Treaty will be quite so readily swallowed over the longer term, when the full scale of the peoples' loss becomes clear.
According to a report in EurActiv, seven smaller countries have made several demands to the Italian Presidency of the IGC to open various issues, including some from Part III of the draft Constitutional Treaty, which was withheld from the British Parliament.
The statement put out by IDS to delegates attending next weeks Conservative Blackpool Conference has but one brief sentence on Europe and the EU Constitution. The more definitive statement from Central Office carries a statement headed by a picture of the EU Flag, presumably flying proudly from the Conference Hotel or is it Conservative Party Central Office in Smith Square? What a clanger! See it for yourselves from the link:-
The draft constitution "is the result of a very balanced compromise between the interests of the large and the small countries", German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.
"I am absolutely convinced that we should not touch it, because otherwise the success of the intergovernmental conference (IGC) will be endangered," he said.
"Anyone putting forward proposals to modify it must be aware that he is also undertaking to look for a new consensus."
Same old threat that has been made over the past few weeks, still lacking either in logic or justification. The Convention was a totally non-democratic procedure and locking its conclusions into the final Constitutional Treaty would be so inequitable as to doom Europe to almost certain disintegration. Is that what Germany is seeking?
EurActiv reports again on the implications of the Defence Ministers meeting in Rome:
The minister will also hold a "preliminary discussion" on the military strategy paper to be presented by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana to heads of state and government at the December 2003 EU summit.
The British minister, who one presumes is still Geoff Hoon (although any man of integrity or conscience exposed as he was during the Hutton enquiry would long since have resigned), cannot possibly consider such a document if the Government of which he is a part had any intention of sticking by its statements to the effect that British defence will remain SOLELY secured by Nato.
British taxpayers pay for their armed forces for purposes of the Defence of the Realm. They do not pay for them to become part of those forces working towards its very destruction. They most certainly do not expect them to be merged with those of foreign powers who are clearly intent on undermining the very nation state which our armed forces exist to protect.
What did Blair agree in Berlin? What is going on in Rome? And finally, what has the Spaniard, the so-called High Representative of the Council of Ministers and one time Secretary-General of Nato, Javier Solana, got to do with Britain's Defences?????
Huge treachery is afoot, with Parliament kept in the dark, a press and broadcast media avoiding all mention of these matters and an opposition nowhere in evidence. See the link Parliamentary Procedural Fiddle
This excerpt from a comment in EUobserver signals problems ahead in the compulsory Danish referendum on any Constitutional Treaty:-
According to the Borsen poll, one particular issue could trigger stronger opposition. 78 percent want to keep one Commissioner per country, while only 12 percent would accept the principle being dropped.
As reported yesterday the provision to reduce voting commissioners to 15 out of 25 is quite unnecessary for administrative convenience as where matters are decided by 50 per cent majority the total number of Commissioners does not affect matters at all. The reduction is clearly another excuse to reduce consultation and to consolidate power in the hands of as few as possible individuals, a prime essential for the totalitarianism now sweeping in.
Along with the Spanish the Poles look as thought they plan to hold out for the Nice voting arrangements. This quote is from EU Business
Polish leaders go to battle at talks on thrashing out a European Union constitution in Rome on Saturday, knowing their country's politicians are fully behind them in their fight for power in the bloc.
One of the six biggest members of the EU after it joins next May, Poland, has dug in its heels ahead of the Rome meeting insisting it will not give up the beneficial voting rights it secured under the EU's 2000 Nice Treaty.
"I hear no convincing argument in favour of changing the Nice provisions," Foreign Minister Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz said on Thursday, signalling a tough fight over the coming weeks.
One of the six biggest EU members by demographic weight, Poland was allocated 27 votes in the EU's decision-making Council of Ministers under the Nice treaty, just two less than Germany despite having half its population.
Poland, in league with Spain which got the same, have baulked at a proposal in the draft constitution drawn up by former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, under which decisions would pass if they have support of more than half the member-states representing three-fifths of the EU population.
Nice stands ratified. It is difficult to see how the other nations can force a retreat. Extremely nasty tactics will be necessary to do so, things are becoming interesting!
We highlighted the meeting of Defence Ministers in Rome today by posting the agenda on the blog yesterday evening. This report in The Independent implies that there was no actual sell-out by Blair in Berlin as reported in France and Germany Defence Rome Meeting
More accurately EU Business in its report talks of the seven smaller such countries when reporting of their Appeal for fair play.
Another EU Business item covers Slovakia's markers and in yet another from that source is a report of Austria criticising Germany in its Warning over blueprint.
Last amongst the early news reports we can find is this from Voice of America which reports on the Spanish and German rift over Voting Weights.
We will be returning to some of these topics during the day.
We have been asked to give as much publicity to the following as possible.
Quote
Jenny Sleep has email problems at present, so I'm circulating this information on her behalf.
Please distribute it as widely as possible, and she also asks that people
write to their local papers and to their MPs, and do everything else they can to give maximum public exposure to this fiddle, which seems more fitting for some banana republic, than for the Mother of Parliaments!
For reference, what seems to be the most recent text of the draft Constitution - CONV 850/03,dated July 18th, with corrigenda dated August 22nd, is available on:
The background material states that Part III of the draft Constitution, omitted from the paper debated in Parliament, "assembles and amends the present EU and EC Treaties".
It occupies pages 61 - 220, now has 342 Articles, and covers virtually every aspect of our daily lives - eg citizenship, economics, employment, agriculture, fisheries, transport, energy, borders, immigration, police, education and health. Could this be why they excluded it from the debate?
A "reader friendly" edition from Jens-Peter Bonde, dated June 24th, is also on the same link.
PROCEDURAL FIDDLE ON EU CONSTITUTION - FROM JENNY SLEEP (29.09.03)
Whilst Blair recently gave his assurance of the end of spin a procedural fiddle on the European
Constitution was being advanced in both Government Houses.
In July a White Paper Cm5872 titled "A Draft Constitution for the European Union" was presented to Parliament numbering 53 pages, that omitted entirely Part III which
contained 338 Articles.
The official EU constitutional draft Cm5897 was published on 12th August titled "The Draft
Constitutional Treaty for the European Union", had Parts I to IV, and was given no publicity.
Significantly this contained 187 pages, including Part III with 338 Articles.
On 9th September, Cm5934 titled "A Constitutional Treaty for the EU", with subtitle "The British Approach to the European Union Intergovernmental Conference 2003", was presented to both Houses, which was simply the Government's view of the Treaty. (The MPs were given negligible notice. The 59 pages were issued in the morning and debated in the afternoon.) Only on page 21, para 31 did the text fully refer to the official draft document. Limited debates ensued to gain general approval. The Paper contained 59 pages and excluded Part III with 338 Articles.
On 16th Sept a Motion by Conservative MP's calling for a referendum on the EU Constitution was debated. Two votes were taken, which the Government won, with a "We will do our best" pronouncement to placate doubters of the new constitution, and no referendum. Many Labour MP's abstained.
The upshot is that a Resolution was gained from both Houses ready for the Intergovernmental Conference on the Constitution of the EU in Rome starting on the 4th October 03.The official EU draft has not been debated, the one third discussed (Parts I, II & IV) was rewritten as the Government's view, from which two thirds (Part III) was entirely omitted.
Our Government is now steaming ahead with no referendum or further discussion, by setting up two committees in the Commons: Foreign Affairs and a Scrutiny Committee. This appears to be a procedural deception on a grand scale that will incur the end of our nation and the freedom to make our own decisions, WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSULTING THE PUBLIC OR OUR ELECTED PARLIAMENT.
European Security is secondary to unnecessary unity in everything. This report on a meeting tomorrow in Rome from the Italian EU Presidency:-
Place: Rome
Date: 3-4 October 2003
Event Type: Informal Meetings of Ministers
Policy Area: General Affairs and External Relations
The Defence Ministers of the 15 Member States of the European Union will hold an informal meeting with the Ministers of the other 10 Countries that will join the Union in May 2004. The meeting, although an informal one, will allow for a detailed exchange of views on the major issues of general interest related to the European dimension of security and defence and on all other sensitive and important international issues. The meeting will not produce conclusions or formal decisions; nevertheless, it will be a fundamental moment for the improvement of dialogue, the strengthening of cohesion, a verification of the unity of purpose of the new enlarged Europe. At the same time, the meeting will make it possible to take stock of the current status of ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy)
This link is to the official website for the Intergovernmental Conference. It sets out an objective which would result in the following incredibly rapid progress:-
Against this background, the Presidency hopes to complete the IGC by the end of the year, taking into account the time needed for the legal/linguistic finalisation of the text with a view to its signature in time for next year's European Parliament elections.
Signature being the final act, the above pre-supposes conclusion of the IGC and ratification by all the Parliaments, in many cases with a full referendum of the people, all before June of next year. Surely indecent speed, for such a far reaching and revolutionary change for so many hundreds of millions of peoples in twenty-five different countries. For what possible reason is such rush required and what risks does such haste entail?
Forbes Business lists these main items of potential disagreement for the IGC: Voting Rights, Commissioners, Foreign Minister, Council Presidency, Religion and Defence. Pretty well everything then. Read the article from this link.
That realistic view of the difficulties is in stark contrast to the ludicrous Franco/German position being heavily pushed by those two countries and supported by Schroeder's new dachshund Tony Blair, well summarised in the conclusion of the FT article linked in the post below and quoted by a German official as follows:-
"There are no taboo topics in the IGC, but any country that wants to re-open an issue must make a proposal that finds a new consensus. It is the responsibility of those who want to change the draft to find this consensus, not those [including Germany] who want to stick to [the draft]."
In EUobserver meanwhile there is a general discussion of the path ahead and the crucial role of the conciliatory powers of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi....let us hope he maintains his reputation in this area! Read it from this link Testing months ahead for Europe
According to this report from the FT, Germany is once again trying to crush Polish opposition, this time in respect of the latter country's perfectly legitimate opposition to the proposals contained in the draft EU Constitution Treaty. Germany hits out at Poland's attack on EU constitution.
Hans Martin Bury, the foreign ministry state secretary responsible for Europe, said: "It is incomprehensible that Poland has joined a group of smaller countries in voicing criticism that doesn't reflect Poland's own situation."
It is incomprehensible to this writer that only Spain and Poland seem to be presently so complaining! Later the article reaffirms this situation when it again quotes Herr Bury in saying there was "no support" for the position taken on this issue by Poland and Spain "from any other member state, or in the context of broader European interests".
Absolutely untrue of course. ONLY SPAIN AND POLAND CAN NOW BE SAID TO BE REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF ALL THE PEOPLES OF EUROPE, more power to their arm. Britain should be ashamed of its new role in standing alongside the bullying by Germany of its neighbour.
More evidence of the pressure now being applied comes in the penultimate paragraph of the article quoted here:-
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister, has been criticised by new member states for allegedly linking agreement on the constitution to future funding levels. He denies making this link.
Old Europe is reverting to Old European methods in its determination to get its way in crushing all opposition before it. Shame!
New Labour's ethos also brings grave threats to our society other than through the EU, as this Opinion piece in yesterday's Daily Telegraph points out: How we let our emotions take over from our brains by Damian Thompson:-
In a recent disbursement of National Lottery money earmarked for health, 25 per cent went to advice and counselling schemes; only six per cent was allocated to research charities.
Furedi believes that these developments are playing havoc with social relations in Britain, shrinking us into a state of self-indulgent anxiety.
His forthcoming book, Therapy Culture, subtitled Cultivating vulnerability in an uncertain age, argues that contemporary society encourages people to feel traumatised and depressed by experiences hitherto regarded as routine. Children as young as four are regarded as legitimate objects of therapeutic intervention; we are informed that every stage in life involves such grave risks as to require counselling.
The article conludes: Yet, like the state socialism of the postwar years, the detailed management of emotion requires a formidable apparatus of bureaucratic inspectors. No government can hope to build such a structure on its own: it requires entire professions (such as the police, post-Macpherson, or the BBC) and large sections of the public to submit willingly to ideological control. That is how totalitarianism works.
Is there some all permeating autumnal fog afflicting Belgium's capital, that prevents those within its confines seeing that such schemes are typical of all totalitarian states? One only has to read the language of the article's opening two paragraghs to realise what is afoot:-
From the Atlantic to the Carpathian mountains, a massive series of engineering schemes is being planned to unite Europe.
High-speed rail connections, a global satellite navigation system and "motorways of the sea" formed the centrepiece of ambitious European Commission proposals announced yesterday by the president, Romano Prodi, at an expected cost of ¤220bn (£155bn).
At least 11 states are backing a Vatican effort to have the first European Union constitution include a reference to Christianity, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls was quoted as saying Wednesday.
It appears the health of the Pope might be another factor we have to consider in weighing the likely outcome of the IGC, Rome is unlikely to have had such importance for many centuries!
Jack Straw tells another whopper. This time it's not so serious, as the audience was the Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth, as reported in 'The Guardian':-
As an independent sovereign state, we will always have control over our own foreign and defence policy. But where, in particular, we in the UK can develop common policies in the EU we will, because we can do so much more together than we can apart.
Contrast this with the Dummy's Guide to The Constitution, posted earlier:-
The constitution also creates an office of the European Union Foreign Minister. The candidate would be selected by the European Council, but would also be subject to confirmation by the European Commission. The foreign minister would also serve as vice president of the Commission.
The constitution also calls for the Union to take over competency in matters of common foreign and security policy -- including all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security. The "progressive framing of a common defense policy" could lead to a "common defense," it stipulates. However, national vetos still apply to foreign policy decision-making.
NB the phrase we placed in italics - INCLUDING ALL AREAS OF FOREIGN POLICY
These are the concluding paragraphs of the study mentioned in the previous post: Decision Making and the Constitutional Treaty:Will the IGC discard Giscard?:-
Amazingly, the reforms that found their way into the CT were among the many reforms considered -- and rejected -- by the IGC2000. The Commission pushed the double majority system, tried to expand the range of issues covered by QMV, and tried to make the Parliament an equal to the Council on all QMV issues. Several Commission streamlining reforms were also discussed. In 1997 and 1999, the EU15 could not agree on any of these. How is it that they agreed in the European Convention?
The likely answer is that they did not.
Giscard d'Estaing seems to have created a mood where reluctant nations were characterised as being selfish troublemakers. Once it became clear that there would be a draft Constitutional Treaty, member states may have decided that the Convention – with its wildly undemocratic structure – was not the place to fight over the important details. The whole thing has to be reconsidered in this year’s IGC where the member states are in
charge.
The analysis in this essay suggests that many of the fights that arose in the last two IGCs will re-emerge in the next one.
The full study by Richard Baldwin, HEI, Geneva, Switzerland, and CEPR Mika Widgren, Turku University, Finland, and CEPR 1 date 19th June 2003 can be read via this link Decision Making and the Constitutional Treaty
In the opinion of the blog Ironies, given that the EU is clearly an inefficient and corrupt organisation which has proven itself beyond reform, all in Europe will suffer as the following aspects of the Constitution highlighted in the study take effect:-
make it dramatically easier to pass EU legislation thus strongly improving the EU’s ‘ability to act’, or what has been called ‘decision-making efficiency’. The main change is that it will be much, much easier to find a winning majority the Council of Ministers............
Plainly the four big members – Italy, France, Britain and Germany – gain a great deal, with Germany’s share of power rising 65%; from roughly 8% to 13%. The sum of big four’s power share rises from 31% under Nice rules to 40% under draft Constitution rules.2 Our calculations show that 17 of the EU27 would lose power – all the nations with populations between 3 and 40 million. Somewhat unexpectedly, the tiny members also gain from the draft Constitution’s rule changes.............
Finally, we note that as the Commission becomes more powerful, it becomes much more important that it is viewed by all members as representative. That is, to be sure that the Commission’s pre-veto is not being mis-used, all member states should have a representative in the Commission (see the excellent piece by John Lang on this, Lang 2003). The CT’s reform here is probably a mistake. The Commission should be streamlined by having voting Commissioners without a DG rather than non-voting Commissioners. The point is that the Commission’s general decision-making rule of 50% majority means that its efficiency does not decline with numbers.
The power-balance impact of draft Constitution will stem from two features of the decision-making changes.
As shown above, the reforms will sharply raise the Council’s decision-making efficiency.
This efficiency gain will substantially broaden the range of propositions that can pass the Council, and, naturally, increase the flow of EU legislation.
The Commission’s power as agenda-setter in EU legislation will rise – and perhaps substantially. The reason is that the greater ease of finding a winning coalition of member states gives the Commission more scope to shape EU legislation to its own liking.
Significantly Spain and Poland seem to be among the largest losers in the changed voting arrangements between Nice and the proposed Constitutional Treaty. More power to their arm in their fight to resist!
The following is a post made here back in June on the significant change the Convention's qualified voting provisions have, as compared to those of the Nice Treaty. It is repeated in view of the significance of the negotiating stance now being taken by Spain and Poland.
Quote
There is an extremely well researched and highly significant article in today's Financial Times by Richard Baldwin and Mika Widgren. (Now only available to FT Subscribers-ed.1/10/03 but their paper can be read by clicking here)
Almost a first that I have seen in reports on Giscard's Constitution, the article opens by stressing the awesome change these proposal really represent:-
The European Union's draft constitution proposes radical reforms of the EU's institutions - more sweeping than those in the Single European Act and the Maastricht and Nice Treaties combined. Many reforms have been debated but little attention has been paid to the most critical: the reform of EU decision-making procedures.
This lack of scrutiny is astounding. ......
The area that the authors explore is the shift in voting weights for qualified majority; voting on which they have determined the following startling implications:-
The increased decision-making efficiency stems from reform of majority voting in the Council of Ministers. Instead of the Nice Treaty's complex system, the Council would pass EU laws when half the members, representing at least 60 per cent of the EU population, vote for it. This would make it easier to achieve a winning majority in the Council. Under the Nice rules, only about 2 per cent of all conceivable coalitions constitute a qualified majority. Under the Constitution's rules, over a fifth of all coalitions will achieve that goal.
Other commentators on the subject of this change have tended to discuss the matter in terms of a shift of power from the smaller to the larger countries. Here the conclusion is that the gain in power will flow mostly to the commission and European Parliament, at the expense of the Council, or in real terms the nation states. Almost exactly what the British Government have been fighting to avoid.
The consequences from a eurosceptical viewpoint are much more optimistic, the authors concluding:-
The new rules are good for Europe but they have complex implications. Once EU leaders begin to appreciate these, they are likely to reject the draft constitution, or at least many of its proposals.
As reported earlier, it is Spain and Poland that look like leading the fight to protect our freedoms. This is an extract from a report from Pakistan (the British Media is conspiring with the Government to pretend none of this is taking place):-
Spain and Poland rejected changes in EU voting rights proposed in a draft of the EU’s first-ever constitution. The two countries’ foreign ministers blasted the proposals as "pernicious," saying they would prevent a proper balance of power in an enlarged European Union, which is due to take in 10 new members next May.
"Poland and Spain as well other member states cannot accept reforms in the voting system," said the statement by Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio and her Polish counterpart Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, here with President Aleksander Kwasniewski on a three-day state visit since Monday.
The full report from HiPakistan is recommended to be read in full.
The EU Commissioner for Economics, Pedro Solbes (who should by now have resigned over the Eurostat Fraud scandal) has outlined the timetable for the imposition of fines upon France for its persistant breach of the Maastricht Treaty and the ensuing Growth and Stability pact. This is given by EUobserver as follows:-
France now has until this Friday (3 October) to reduce their deficit to under three percent, but Mr Solbes confirmed today that this would not happen and that the Commission would take the next step in the process.
A long and maybe expensive process ahead for Paris. Within a month of the 3 October deadline, the Commission will draw up concrete steps that France will have to take to reduce their deficit.
These steps will then be discussed by EU Heads of State on 4 November, who will then decide how long to give France to comply with the Commission's wishes.
Paris will have a maximum of two months, but the time period could be shorter.
"Could be a day, could be two months", Mr Solbes' spokesman told the EUobserver.
When this next deadline runs out, the Commission then recommends fines to the Council, who then vote on whether to impose sanctions on France.
All this will, of course, trigger a huge crisis within the EU, as Germany will almost certainly side with France in resisting the fines, as both these countries view the EU as existing mainly for their benefit, 'gloire' and convenience.
Blair, having become Schroeder's dachsund following the tripartite Berlin summit, will fall in alongside, as will almost certainly Italy, itself heading towards a breach of the Maastricht and G & S Pact terms. As in the coming IGC, it appears that the peoples of Europe can now only look to Spain and Poland, among the larger countries to act with any sense of responsibility, let alone within the terms of the original Treaty obligations.
Meantime the gravity of the French economic situation has been further re-inforced by publication of the latest unemployment figures, which show a rise in August of 0.5 per cent in category 1 figures or 11,400 people to a total of 2,410,400 according to Le Figaro.
Overall the figures remain unchanged at 9,6% of the working population. Unemployed numbers were nevertheless up some 5.4% compared to August 2002.
In the first paragraph of this posting there is a link to 'Maastricht'. By clicking it, access may be also be gained to a photograph of the Treaty's signatories, who are responsible for this ludicrous situation.
This, according to the Opinion Polls in today's Daily Telegraph,Battered Schroeder stakes all on reforms . Schroeder, one of the two men responsible for frogmarching through the EU constitution, which will mark the end of British individual liberties and common law rights, is increasingly unpopular at home and there is -
'renewed speculation that the SPD-Green coalition may break up to make way for a grand coalition of Left and Right which might be more capable of pushing through reforms. But Mr Schroeder was yesterday keen to dampen the rumours.'
It is a sad day when we are once again forced to look for changes of foreign leaders to protect our own freedoms and liberties....Tony Blair, of course, could change matters by reversing position and conceding a referendum. Objects lacking reverse gears, such as jet planes, need pushing!
France and Germany, having taken out Britain and Italy as opponents to the steamrollering of the Constitution, now callously ride roughshod over the wishes of the smaller countries, according to this report from EU Business:-
France and Austria Tuesday remained at odds over a controversial blueprint for the future of the European Union, but were pinning their hopes on a weekend meeting in Rome to nail out a compromise accord...................
At a meeting of ministers from the 15 current and 10 future EU countries in Brussels on Monday, Finland, Austria, and Lithuania called for a working group to be set up to prepare for the Rome meeting, but Germany and France refused this, a European source said.
Meanwhile the Czech Republic Parliament, following the strong blast against the Constitution delivered by the country's President, is now demanding details of the government's negotiating stance, according to this item from MSNBC/Reuters:-
A day after President Vaclav Klaus blasted the draft, he said would marginalise smaller nations, the Civic Democrats demanded the cabinet unveil its strategy for talks on the EU's first-ever constitution, which start in Rome on Saturday.
''We consider it impossible for the government to take part in this conference unless parliament knows its position,'' Civic Democrat lower house Vice-Chairman Ivan Langer told Reuters
Use eBay's PayPal service if you appreciate this blog - to make fast, easy and secure donations to help towards our broadband and other costs! martin.cole@gmail.com Many thanks!.
