Irish Advice on Fighting the Constitution

In reading the long, but informative and extremely useful material put out by a Eurorealist organisation in Dublin The National Platform Research and Information Group I was struck by the fact that I had made exactly the point that is the main thrust of their comment in my novel written between 1996 and 1997 titled 'Millennium Blitzkrieg' the plot of which is an EU contrived trade war with the USA, alarm bells for which had already been rung this week, with the mishandled Microsoft fine by Mario Monti.

Before quoting the full details of the Irish call to arms against the 'subjugationist' EU, I quote a brief section from page 131 of my book which makes very much the same point in fewer and far less well-put words. The novel may still be bought for only a fiver, with proceeds helping to fight the EU, from the link on the side-bar of this blog.
-------------------------
One of the main characters a British Cabinet minister is here talking to his American wife about the looming German contrived trade-war and the causes of the EU having become the non-democratic nightmare that is presciently portrayed in the book:-

"We politicians in all parties and all countries, are of course, most to blame. We can meet quietly in various European capitals and dicsuss and decide the important issues of the day and comfortably wait for our decisions to be enforced by Brussels' edict. No parliamentary questions or committees to trouble us on such important matters. It's the heady stuff of smoked-filled rooms, as your party conventions used to be. Trading a favour here for a vote there....addictive for us politicians, and I've been as guilty as the rest, I'm ashamed to say."

He paused and, as if thinking aloud, added, "How much more heady,though, if you have real power! If you provide by far the largest share of the budget, have the most commissioners and so forth. The chancellor of Germany must at times laugh up his sleeve at the limitations imposed on your president and his constant struggle with Congress, while reputedly being the most powerful man in the world. Where does such a man turn when he has control of the entire European continent in his hands and perhaps has already become besotted with power. Why not the U.S.?"
----------------------------

So much for fiction, herewith below is the full, excellent advice and help from Ireland:-

OPEN
The National Platform Research and Information Group
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Ireland


Friday 26 March 2004


Dear British Friends,

Irish Prime Minister(Taoiseach) Bertie Ahern and the euro-fanatics who run the Irish Foreign Affairs Department in Dublin are now aiming to get the Constitution for an EU State agreed at the next EU summit meeting on 17/18 June.

Unfortunately they look like being successful in this. Then the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe", to give it its proper title, will go around the 25 EU Member States for ratification.

It is clearly desirable that the people of every EU member country should have their say on this Constitution in a referendum, just as the people of the Republic of Ireland will have, for a referendum is required under its national Constitution.

Ireland's referendum is likely to be towards the end of the ratification process in the other EU States. But even if Irish voters should vote No to this monstrous erosion of democracy and political independence, as they did in the first Nice Treaty referendum in 2001, and as the people of Denmark did on the Maastricht Treaty in June 1992, the powers-that-be will re-run
the referendum in small countries and use the resources of the other EU Governments-working- together to bludgeon and trick citizens into changing their votes.

Hence it is vital that there are political referendums in as many different EU member countries as possible, on this Constitution for what is effectively an EU State. Hence too the importance of having the Constitution defeated in at least one Big EU Member State, such as Britain,
France or Poland.

My colleagues and I would like to wish you and your fellow democrats in Britain every success in your campaign to obtain a UK referendum on this proposed EU Constitution.

In explaining to people what is involved in it, my colleagues and I have found that the following point seems to strike a chord with the public in this country, and perhaps it may do the same in Britain and elsewhere:

This whole process of passing power in successive EU treaties from national States to supranational EU Institutions in Brussels INCREASES THE PERSONAL POWER of Ministers and Government politicians all over the EU - at the expense of the power of national parliaments and peoples.

For very time a policy area is shifted from the national to the supranational level, Government Ministers, who are EXECUTIVES - i.e. part of the executive arm of government - at national level, and who must have a majority behind them in the national parliament (legislature) to get things
done, are turned into LEGISLATORS for 400 million Europeans at the supranational level of the EU Council of Ministers.

There they make EU laws in an exclusive club of 15 - soon to be 25 - persons, meeting behind closed doors, on the basis of package deals with one another. They are not responsible as a collectivity to any elected body, and of course cannot be collectively dismissed. It can be
seductive,indeed intoxicating, to the individuals concerned, especially if they come from small countries, but it is of course the antithesis of democracy.

EU integration thus means a HUGE ACCRETION OF PERSONAL POWER to Ministers at the expense of their own parliaments and peoples, as national Government executives are turned into European legislators.

This seems to be the key reason why Government Ministers in all countries so much favour the growth of European Union power. For their own PERSONAL power grows with it.

Two things are therefore happening every time there is a new EU Treaty: (1) power passes from the national level to the supranational; and (2) at national level power passes from the legislative arm of government to the executive arm. The latter is a kind of coup in slow motion by senior politicians, Government Ministers - which is often connived in by aspiring Ministers in so-called "opposition" parties - at the expense of the democracy of their own peoples, parliaments and nation States.

While there is no benefit or advantage to the peoples and national parliaments of Europe in the proposed EU Constitution,there are big personal advantages in it for Government Ministers and aspiring Ministers.

If we may take the liberty of suggesting it, it may be that this is a point worth stressing by democrats as they opppose this monstrous EU Treaty-cum-Constitution. It may help to explains to "ordinary voters" why Government politicians want this. In Ireland it explains why Taoiseach
Bertie Ahern and his Foreign Affairs diplomats are far more interested in "keeping in with" and winning the approval of Messrs Chirac, Schröder, Verhofstadt and the rest - who are their fellow members of that exclusive 25-person club of EU legislators, the European Council and the EU Council of Ministers - than defending what is left of the power of their own parliament and people. This point can also appeal to the popular disillusionment and disgust with mainstream political leaders for their subversion of democracy that exists so widely today in most EU countries as well as in this one.

You may find useful also the text below of two Factsheets on the Draft EU Constitution, which my organisation has adapted from material produced by the TEAM network The European Alliance of EU-critical Movements, to which we are affiliated, as are several organisations of the British EU-critical movement.

The 1st Factsheet gives 12 arguments against the EU Constitution. The 2nd describes the EU Convention on the Future of Europe from which the Draft Constitution came. (For several other such Factsheets see )

PLEASE USE THESE FACTSHEETS AND E-MAIL THEM TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES who may be concerned at the way Governments and mainstream political leaders throughout the EU re subverting what is left of our national democracy and political independence before our eyes, and working to turn the Nation States of Europe into provinces or regions of a highly centralised EU State, under the political hegemony of Germany and France.

Yours faithfully

Anthony Coughlan

Secretary

___________________

FACTSHEET NO.1: Twelve Arguments Against the EU Constitution

___________________


1. The Draft Constitution is a plan for a more centralised, more unequal and more undemocratic EU, further removed from ordinary citizens and more under the control of the political elites of the Big Member States, especially Germany and France. We say: Yes to Europe, No to an EU State.

2. Up to now the European Union has been based on treaties between its Members. It has been the creation of its Member States and could not exist without them. The proposed Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe sets up what is legally and constitutionally a new EU, founded in effect on its own State Constitution. It makes the EU an international actor in its
own right, with legal personality and an independent corporate existence for the first time, separate from and superior to its Member States, and able to negotiate treaties with foreign States on behalf of its Members.
Citizens want their countries to be politically independent, run by governments that are responsible to them. They do not want their countries to become provinces of a centralised EU State whose policies are decided by supranational committees, the European Commission, Council and Court of Justice, which are run by undemocratic elites that are not elected by
citizens or collectively under their control .

3. The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe repeals all the existing EU/EC treaties from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Nice and incorporates their main elements into an EU State Constitution. This is a good opportunity to re-assess those elements, repatriate powers back from Brussels to the Member States and remedy some of the things that are wrong with the EU - for example the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, Euratom, the endless Brussels rules and regulations. But it does not do this.

4. The peoples of Europe have not sought this EU Constitution. Giscard d'Estaing's Convention that drafted it failed to carry out the terms of reference it was given by the EU Governments in the Laeken Declaration. This called for "more democracy, transparency and efficiency" in the EU,
reforms that would bring the EU "closer to citizens" and the possibility of "restoring tasks to the Member States." The Draft Constitution does not propose restoring a single power from Brussels to the Member States.

5. Article I-10 of the Constitution says: "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." This has never been stated in an EU treaty before. Moreover, it applies to all areas of government, not just the mainly economic areas covered by previous EC/EU treaties. This removes the national democracy and political independence of the Member States. Constitutionally and politically they become like provinces of an EU State, with their national Constitutions and laws subordinate to the EU Constitution and laws.

6. It replaces the system of weighted votes for making EU laws that has existed since the 1957 Treaty of Rome by a new system in which laws would be made by a simple majority of States as long as they contain 60% of the EU's total population. This advantages the Big States with their big populations. It gives greater power to Germany and France, which have nearly 40% of the population of the enlarged EU between them. It would lead to far more EU laws being passed, more centralisation in Brussels and less power for national parliaments and the citizens that elect them. It means less democracy, not more.

7. The Constitution abolishes national control in nearly 30 new policy areas. They include civil and criminal law and procedure, asylum and immigration, Europol and Eurojust, energy, structural funds, commercial treaties dealing with services, culture. People do not want the EU to have more powers, just after the Treaty of Nice and the Treaty of Amsterdam have given it so much more already.

8. It abolishes the rotating six-monthly EU presidencies which give each Member State a role in running the EU and replaces them with a five-year Political President, like an ordinary State. It establishes an EU Foreign Minister and diplomatic service, separate from those of its Member States, as well as an EU Public Prosecutor able to prosecute people across national boundaries.

9. The Constitution forbids Member States to operate an independent foreign policy. Article I-15 says "Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts
adopted by the Union in this area." One can show "loyalty" only to what is superior, in this case the EU. Article I-40 envisages an EU military alliance and common defence, which would cut across the obligations of the EU's NATO members, while ending the neutrality of its non-NATO ones. There has been no demand from citizens for this.

10. The Constitution greatly extends the scope and competence of the EU by giving its Court of Justice in Luxembourg the power to determine the fundamental rights of EU citizens, overriding national Constitutions and Supreme Courts, as well as the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It does this by making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding in EU law. This would bring the EU Court into virtually every area of life and society; for human rights issues arise everywhere - the right the life, family law, property rights, labour law, health and education, religion etc. Human rights standards are not so defective in the EU Member States
that they would be improved by giving final power to decide them to the EU Court. In some sensitive areas there are differences in rights standards among EU countries - e.g. preventive detention, trial by jury, narcotics, abortion, euthanasia. Should the EU Court be empowered to lay down a uniform standard for such matters across Europe? This proposal has more to do with power than rights, for the case-law of the EU Court shows that it seeks continually to extend the EU's power into ever wider areas. The EU should respect human rights. It should not be given power to decide our rights.

11. Article I-24 of the Draft Constitution allows the Presidents and Prime Ministers to move EU policy areas from unanimity to majority voting without the need for new treaties and their ratification by national parliaments or referendums. Article I-17 provides that if the Constitution has not given the EU sufficient powers to attain its very wide objectives, the Council of Ministers can "take appropriate measures" to give themselves those powers. These Articles open the way for ever further expansion of EU powers at the expense of national parliaments and the citizens that elect them, without the need for their prior consent. It is fundamentally anti-democratic.

12. The EU Constitution makes a liberal market economy, maximization of economic competition, laissez-faire, free movement of capital and the privatization of public services into constitutional principles that are immune to legal challenge because of the superiority of EU law over national law. It states that the EU's objectives include "a social market economy", a term used in the German Constitution but not in other countries. National Constitutions do not seek to pre-empt society's social policy and economic choices in the way the EU Constitution does. In normal
democratic societies discussion of such matters and the choice of alternative futures are the stuff of public debate and contention between political parties, and are not laid down as part of the fundamental law of the State, as in the EU Constitution.

_____________________

FACTSHEET NO.2: Why the EU Convention Failed in its Democratic Duty
____________________

In December 2001 the Laeken Declaration of the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers set out ambitious tasks for the Convention it established. One was for "more democracy, transparency and efficiency" in the EU. It mentioned the possibility of "restoring tasks to the Member States," which meant strengthening national Parliaments as one solution.

If the Laeken Declaration meant anything, it implied radical reform of the EU. It imposed a duty on the Convention to deal with the EU's deepening crisis of legitimacy and authority in the eyes of Europe's citizens. It meant dealing with the "democratic deficit" in the EU, which everyone
recognises.

The Laeken Declaration said that European citizens do not expect a "European super-state or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life." It referred to the need to "clarify, simplify and adjust the division of competences between the Union and the
Member States ? while constantly bearing in mind the equality of the Member States ..." It invoked the principle of subsidiarity: that Brussels should not take decisions which it would be more democratic and efficient to make nationally or locally. It said the Convention it established should consider "how to bring the citizens ? closer to the European design and the
European institutions ..." It mentioned the possibility of adopting a constitutional text for the EU, but only "in the long run".

But no sooner did the Convention come together under its chairman, former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, than it set out to draw up a Constitution for a more centralised, more unequal, more undemocratic EU, an EU with most of the features of a single unified State. A comparison between five key proposals in the draft Constitution with the Convention's
terms of reference set out in the Laeken Declaration shows this:

1. Member States can only legislate in areas where the EU chooses not to

The Draft Constitution provides (Art.1-14) that the Union shall "coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States." This is a huge extension of the existing Treaties, which state that economic policy is a matter of "common concern" (Art. 99, TEC). There was no discussion about this change in the Convention. None of the Convention working groups proposed it. It came out of Giscard's head and was rubber-stamped by his 14-person Praesidium. This is just one example of the Convention's "top-down" working methods, which were neither transparent nor democratic.

Article I-12 of the Draft Constitution sets out policy areas where the EU has exclusive power and competence to act, such as the customs union and monetary policy for the eurozone. Article 1-13 gives a list of policy areas that are "shared competences" between the EU and Member States. These include social policy, environment, public health, transport and economic and social cohesion. But Article 1-11 lays down that "Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence." So the EU has primacy in deciding what policy is shared. Today, about 50 percent of all national laws originate in Brussels. This percentage is likely to increase with more
"shared competences" in future. Member States can only legislate where the EU chooses not to.

2. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has more to do with power than rights

The Constitution proposes that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, a political document approved by the Presidents and Prime Ministers at the 2001 Nice summit meeting, should be made legally binding. Yet its contents have never been discussed, not to mind approved, by any National Parliament or by the EU Parliament. Fundamental rights are a core element of all
national Constitutions. The EU should of course abide by human rights standards. But with a legally binding Charter the judges of the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) would have the final power to decide what our rights are.

If the Charter is made binding in EU law through the proposed Constitution, all EU legislation and judgements of the ECJ will acquire a new legal dimension, that of human rights as defined in the Charter. This will give the EU and ECJ wide new powers to intervene judicially in the lives of ordinary people and the affairs of the Member States. While there is wide agreement between the EU Member States on core human rights, there is deep disagreement in some socially sensitive areas. Should EU law have primacy over national law in such areas? The EU Charter has more to do with power than rights.

3. A "subsidiarity alarm bell" does not give national Parliaments real powers

The Convention was given the task of proposing a stronger role for national Parliaments in the EU. One idea was to give national Parliaments the right to ring an "alarm bell" if a law proposed by the Commission was regarded as breaching the principle of subsidiarity, in other words if the measure proposed could be better implemented at the national or regional level rather than the supranational EU-level.

The Draft Constitution proposes that if one-third of the national Parliaments consider that a particular Commission proposal for an EU law violates the principle of subsidiarity they can object, in which case the Commission must reconsider its proposal. How can one-third of national
Parliaments, which means at least eight in an enlarged Union of 25 Members, be able to coordinate their objections within six weeks? Even if they do, the Commission does not have to change the proposal as a result of the criticism of the national parliaments. It can re-submit the same proposal to the Council of Ministers and get it passed. The "subsidiarity alarm bell" or "yellow card" looks nice on paper, but it does not give the national parliaments any real powers. Talk of subsidiarity is just window-dressing. The Constitution does not propose the rapatriation of a single EU power from the supranational level back to the national. This is
a democratic paradox, for national parliaments are elected by citizens. The Commission is nominated, not elected. EU Commissioners are government appointees. French President Charles de Gaulle once aptly described the Commission as "a conclave of technocrats without a country, responsible to no one."!

4. Rejection of a "catalogue of competences" ? No limit to EU's growing powers


The Convention rejected the idea of a clear "catalogue of competences" early on. This would have defined exactly the powers of the EU institutions and those of the Member States. That might have been one way of showing that the EU was not on a one-way street to "an ever closer Union", a single European State. The federalist majority of the Convention and its Chairman, Giscard, had no interest in clearly defining the powers of the EU, since a "catalogue of competences" would have only served to limit them.

Article 1-24 allows the Presidents and Prime Ministers to move EU policy areas from unanimity to majority voting without the need for new treaties and having to get them ratified by national parliaments or referendums. Giscard called this way of extending EU powers without the need for new treaties "a central innovation" of the Draft Constitution. Article 1-17 provides that if the Constitution has not given the EU sufficient powers to attain its very wide objectives, the Council of Ministers can "take appropriate measures" to give themselves that power. These Articles open the way for ever further expansion of EU powers at the expense of national
parliaments and the citizens that elect them.

5. The "Two Presidents" idea ends the notion of the EU as a partnership of legal equals

Inspired by France and Germany, the Constitution proposes that the future EU shall have two Presidents, one a permanent political president for the European Council of Presidents and Prime Ministers, instead of the present six-monthly rotating presidencies, and the other the Commission President. In this way they say the EU should be easier to understand and the world would know who is really running it. It would answer Henry Kissinger's question: Who should the US President phone when he wants to speak to "Europe?"

The Council President is to be elected by a "summit" of Presidents and Prime Ministers and be responsible for EU foreign and security policy. The Commission President will be selected by majority vote of the same people and their nominee then ratified by the European Parliament. The new EU system is modelled on the French Constitution, under which France's President supervises foreign policy, while its Prime Minister runs the government and allocates ministers their jobs, as the EU Commission President will do with his Commissioners in future, as if he is running an EU Government, which he will be.

France argued for a strong Council and Germany for a strong Commission. The compromise was to have one President for each. There may well be rivalry between the two Presidents. This scheme and the abandonment of the rotating presidencies that have existed since the 1957 Treaty of Rome, when every Member State has a chance to run the EU for six months, is further
evidence that the EU is no longer a partnership of legal equals. Laeken's call to respect the "equality of the Member States" is shown to be empty rhetoric.

The Convention failed to take the opportunity to make any radical reforms of the EU's institutions and structures to bring the EU closer to its citizens. From the start it was overwhelmingly dominated by Euro-federalists, whose own careers and ambitions were bound up with turning the EU into a single European State. None of the thousands of amendments submitted were voted on. Its autocratic chairman, Giscard d'Estaing, decided there was a consensus on the text he approved, and that was that.

One of the two representatives of the British Parliament on the Convention, Gisela Stuart MP, was scathing about its lack of democracy and how Giscard rammed through his ideas even on the Praesidum of which she was a member. Half-English, half-German, Gisela Stuart was nominated to the Convention as a strong europhile by Labour Prime Minster Tony Blair. She describes in a Fabian Society pamphlet how her experiences turned her into an EU-critic:

"The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is dependent on more and more integration and who see national governments and parliaments as an obstacle. Not once in the
sixteen months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level. None of the existing policies were questioned."

This is likely to lead to a worsening of the Union's crisis of legitimacy and authority. If the EU Constitution is foisted on Europe's peoples it is likely to lead to further decline in public support and participation in such events as European Parliament elections, and bring about greater
public disillusion with the EU as a whole.

The basic objectives of the Convention, as set out in the Laeken Declaration, have not been met. The problems of the EU it was supposed to solve have not been tackled. What the Convention proposes - to wind up all the existing EU treaties from the Treaty of Rome to the Treaty of Nice and replace them with a more centralised, more unequal and more undemocratic
EU, based on this Draft Constitution - would make the Union's "democratic deficit" immeasurably worse. This is why the EU Convention has failed in its democratic duty.
END

posted by Martin at 3/27/2004 07:41:00 AM

 
British Justice already Junked!

The Daily Telegraph linked here, in its report on the Brussels EU meeting reports Blair as gung ho on the constitution, and warned that B-Liar:-

.. skipped over the thorny topic of criminal procedure, which is also listed as a "red line" issue in the Government's White Paper. Downing Street admits that it is willing to whittle down the veto in criminal justice, but not on "key issues".

John Mortimer, creator of Rumpole and son of a noted attorney, (I recall the West End production of 'Voyage Round my Father' with Alec Guinness if I remember rightly) recently wrote this book review of Just Law by Helena Kennedy, which clearly indicates it might already be too late for British Justice, already destroyed by this increasingly despotic government:-

From The Daily Mail
Friday, March 5 2004
Liberty Belle
Critic's choice
JUST LAW
The Changing Face of Justice
by Helena Kennedy
(Chatto & Windus: £20)
Review by John Mortimer

The position of Helena Kennedy is a living demonstration of the meanness and blind authoritarianism of New Labour.

Born in Glasgow with a working-class background, she became a brilliant barrister and QC, head of the British Council and was a natural appointment by the Labour Party to the House of Lords - which has recently proved itself to be a far more intelligent and reasonable body than the House of Commons.

Unhappily for New Labour, Baroness Kennedy, with eloquence and honesty, protested against the Government's frequently demonstrated contempt for civil liberties. For doing this, she has been cold-shouldered, isolated and frequently attacked by the New Labour apparatchiks, many of whom appear to regard "civil liberties" as two particularly dirty words.

On one of the many occasions, she writes, "when I was called to book by a Labour whip for voting against the Government, he said that such concerns as mine were completely out of touch with the voters for whom they were "just law", not serious topics like health or education or the economy".

So Helena Kennedy "with a heart as heavy as stone", had a title for "Just Law", this admirable book. She has drafted a terrifying indictment against the Government, which has demonstrably forgotten Magna Carta (judgement by your equals), torn up the bill of rights (habeas corpus and no imprisonment without trial) and committed other assorted crimes against human rights and the rule of law. The charge includes introducing imprisonment without trial, the forced detention of the mentally ill, plans to abolish juries in a number of cases, restrictions on the right of silence and transferring the burden of proof to the defence in some cases (so goodbye to the presumption of innocence and hello to the assumption of guilt).

But perhaps worst of all is the introduction of the inexcusable European Arrest Warrant, which allows British citizens to be hauled off on flimsy evidence to be tried in foreign lands under foreign laws for offences which may not exist in Britain. For some of these legal crimes, such as imprisonment without trial, the defence is put forward that there are terrorists in the world and everything has changed since the attack on New York.

What the Government has failed to realise is that every move to diminish and ignore our human rights and violate the rule of law is a victory for terrorism.

Helena Kennedy quotes, with effect, the words of Tom Paine: "Those who would make there liberty secure must guard even his enemy against repression." Everyone who has practiced in criminal courts, as Helena Kennedy has long done, knows that no two cases are the same, no two defendants are the same and the only person qualified to decide sentences is the judge who has heard all the evidence and probably seen the guilty person in the witness box.

Our present Home Secretary, David Blunkett, seems determined to remove the powers of sentencing from judges and give them to politicians, who produce mandatory sentences which take no account of particular cases.

Helena Kennedy brilliantly traces the steps taken by politicians to remove decisions from judges and give them to themselves. She also deals with the cack-handed operation of destroying the office of the Lord Chancellor (something which has worked satisfactorily for centuries) in a change which shows every sign of having been worked out on the back of an envelope in a moment of ill-directed irritation with judges who have found that the Government has breached human rights.

The result, as described by Helena Kennedy, is the greatest breach that has ever existed between the judiciary and the politicians. In its extreme moments, this conflict becomes comical.

Mr Justice Popplewell described the present Home Secretary as a "whingeing control freak", whereas Mr Blunkett, speaking at a police conference described himself as a sensible working-class lad, pitted against the judges "in their Surrey homes".

My learned friend Mr Horace Rumpole often said that the great glories of our civilisation were the plays of Shakespeare, the great British breakfast and the presumption of innocence. To these may well be added Helena Kennedy, without whose passionate defence of the rule of law, we might be completely in the hands of an uncaring government.

Unquote

posted by Martin at 3/27/2004 06:47:00 AM

Friday, March 26, 2004

 
Maltese Independence Movement Launched

This declaration shows that some on the George Cross Island still retain their sturdy independence , and can recognise a tyranny when such threatens:

Quote

SOLEMN DECLARATION

BY THE

CAMPAIGN FOR NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE (CNI)

REPUDIATING THE

MALTA - EUROPEAN UNION

ACCESSION TREATY, 2003

On the eve of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Malta's acquisition of full Freedom on March 31, 1979, and one month before the annexation of Malta by the European Union on May 1, 2004, We, the Campaign for National Independence (CNI) in the Republic of Malta, make this solemn and formal Declaration to our fellow citizens of Malta and Gozo, and to the peoples of the United Nations Organization and of all countries everywhere.

The Republic of Malta's formal annexation by the European Union on May 1, 2004, entails the loss of our people's Freedom, Independence, Sovereignty and Neutrality, and lacks the proper, valid, popular democratic consent.

Malta shall be free again. Whatever the costs, whatsoever the sacrifices, We, the Campaign for National Independence, pledge ourselves to spare no efforts to regain full Freedom for our homeland.

Let these facts be known to all.

(a) The European Union's annexation of the Republic of Malta formally takes place on May 1 2004 in virtue of the European Union - Malta Accession Treaty signed in Athens on April 16, 2003.

(b) The Republic of Malta, comprising only 316km2 of land in the centre of the Mediterranean Sea and with a population of only 400,000, professing in the very first Article of its Constitution to be a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations by adhering to a policy of non-alignment and refusing to participate in any military alliance, is subjected by the European Union Accession Treaty, 2003, to follow all the policies, laws, directives and decisions emanating from the European Union Institutions and to adhere to all the Treaties entered into by the European Union, thereby forfeiting our freedom, independence,
sovereignty and neutral status.

(c) In the Referendum on Malta's membership of the European Union held on March 8, 2003, more than 53% of the eligible voters did not vote in favour of membership.

(d) In the said referendum, persons who were not legally entitled to vote in accordance with Malta's electoral laws, were allowed to vote.

(e) The Maltese people's consent to the European Union's membership is vitiated and not validly procured, and the people of Malta have the right to claim not to be bound by the Malta - European Union Accession Treaty of 2003.

(f) It is a basic principle of law that when one's consent is obtained by treachery, blatant untruths, false promises amounting to fraud, moral violence and threats, one's consent is vitiated and one has the right to claim not to be bound by the given consent.

(g) We hold and maintain in the strongest terms that the Maltese people's consent to the European Union membership given in the Referendum of March 8, 2003, and at the General Elections held on April 12, 2003, was vitiated because it was obtained by treachery, lies, false promises amounting to fraud, moral violence and threats, emanating both internally and externally.

(h) The extremely negative effects of Malta's European Union membership were hidden from the Maltese voters by a thick smokescreen of massive propaganda and lack of objective information.

(i) Inuendos were frequently made that Malta would be boycotted and isolated politically and economically and would face disaster and the proverbial darkness and gnashing of teeth if Malta were not to join the European Union.

(j) The European Union Commissioner for Enlargement even threatened that the European Union would see that the Opposition Party would lose the Referendum and the subsequent General Election.

(k) The European Union itself took an inordinately active part in the European Union membership campaign, with massive funding and with innumerable Union personalities, including the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Parliament, and a number of European Commissioners visiting Malta and cajoling the people to vote for European Union membership.

(l) The European Union Delegation in Malta took the unprecedented step of actively participating in the Referendum campaign by mailing to every household in Malta and Gozo propaganda literature in favour of European Union membership.

(m) There was massive illegal foreign interference during the Referendum and General Election's campaigns in flagrant breach of the Foreign Interference Act (Chapter 300 of the Laws of Malta), with a number of Heads of foreign States and Governments and Ministers paying visits to Malta and making public statements to influence the people in favour of membership of
the European Union.

(n) Huge amounts of public funds by local standards were shamelessly allocated to the pro EU membership campaign and inadequate amounts were provided to the contra membership side.

(o) Notwithstanding the statutory provisions enjoining balance of opposite viewpoints on matters of public interest, the State radio and television allocated airtime and broadcasting facilities over a long time prior to the European Union Referendum, to the Government and pro membership side by far in excess to what was allocated to the opposition and contra membership side.

(p) The Maltese people in general were deprived of knowledge of the contents of the Accession Treaty both prior to the referendum and the subsequent General Election. The Treaty was not published in the Maltese language either by the Government of Malta or the European Union. An English version of the EU Accession Treaty was only published by Poland on the Internet a short time prior to the Referendum in Malta on March 8, 2003. All those who were not connected to the Internet or who are not conversant with the English language were unable to have access to the Accession Treaty. The considerable length of the text of the Treaty and the short time it was available on the Internet prior to the Referendum date, made it humanly impracticable for those who are conversant with the English language and were connected to the Internet, to go through and evaluate the implications of the Treaty.

(q) The consent of the Maltese people to the Accession Treaty was not only vitiated, but it was also not procured by proper, valid, democratic, popular means.

(r) In view of the lack of valid consent of the Maltese people, We hold and shall continue to maintain with the strongest terms that the Government of the Republic of Malta's mandate to sign the European Union Accession Treaty on April 16, 2003, was legally defective, and that consequently it should be held to be null and void.

(s) Moreover we hold and shall continue to maintain in the strongest of terms that the Malta - EU Accession Treaty is in breach of entrenched provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Malta and consequently its ratification by the Maltese Parliament on July 14, 2003, should be held to be legally unconstitutional and null and void.

Furthermore, let these facts be known to all.

(i) The entrenched provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Malta which declare that Malta refuses to participate in any military alliance and that no facilities in Malta will be allowed to be used in such manner or extent as will amount to the presence in Malta of a concentration of foreign forces, and that no foreign military personnel, other than those engaged in civil activities, will be allowed on Maltese territory, and that the shipyards in Malta will be denied to the military vessels of the two superpowers, have been violated.

(ii) The Armed Forces of Malta have been committed to participate both in the Partnership for Peace and in the European Union Rapid Reaction Force as part of the Italian military contingent, in breach of the Constitutional impediment referred to above.

(iii) Innumerable times, also in time of war, warships of the European Union Member States as well as of the United States of America have been allowed in the ports of Malta at the same time or at different times, in flagrant violation of the Constitutional status of neutrality of Malta.

Warships of the United States of America have undergone repair works at Maltese dockyards, notwithstanding the express Constitutional prohibition, and dockyard workers were threatened with loss of employment if they refused to carry out the repair work.

(iv) A further major violation of entrenched Constitutional provisions is being committed by the Malta - European Union Accession Treaty according to which all European Union Laws, Regulations, Directives and Decisions, as well as the Constitution which is being drafted, override the Constitution and the Laws of Malta in flagrant breach of the entrenched Constitutional provisions which establish the Constitution of Malta as the Supreme Law and the Maltese Parliament as the Supreme Legislative Organ for Malta.

(v) The ratification of the Malta - European Union Accession Treaty which was effected by a simple majority of the Members of the Parliament of Malta, cannot prevail over the Constitutional requirement of a concurrent positive vote of two-thirds of the Members of the Parliament of Malta in order to amend the entrenched provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Malta, and voting at General Elections or Referendums does not sanction amendments to the Constitution of Malta.

Let it be known to all that the provisions of the Malta - European Union Accession Treaty are in contravention of the following Declarations,Resolutions, Treaties, Agreements and Conventions of the United Nations Organization.

(1) Malta's membership of the European Union entails the loss of permanent sovereignty by the people of Malta over a considerable amount of the natural wealth and resources of Malta which according to the General Assembly Resolution of 14 December 1962 on Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources must be exercised in the interest of the national development and of the well-being of the people of Malta.

(2) The interference, coercion and threats by the European Union on the people of Malta to vote in favour of membership of the European Union constitutes a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December1966.

(3) The constraints and restraints imposed on Malta by the European Union severely curtail Malta?s rights to regulate foreign activities within Malta?s jurisdiction and to choose freely the economic and social systems in conformity with national priorities, thereby violating the
provisions of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 12 December 1974.

(4) Moreover, the membership Agreement negotiated by Malta withthe European Union prejudice the security of the people of Malta by impairing the status of neutrality and damages the well-being of the people of Malta by depriving the Government of Malta of the means to protect and enhance employment in Malta.

In view of all the above-mentioned facts and reasons, We, the Campaign for National Independence, solemnly declare:

That the people of Malta have the right to strive for the repudiation of the Malta - EU Accession Treaty; and

That the people of Malta have the right to regain full Freedom, Independence
and National Sovereignty; and

That the people of Malta have the right to pursue again a policy of active neutrality and peaceful cooperation with all peoples who profess and put into practice the same aims; and

That we shall not flinch from struggling undeterred to urge the people of Malta and Gozo to achieve these sacred national goals.

As evidence of our strong resolve, We are submitting this Solemn Declaration to the United Nations Organization, and are respectfully requesting the Secretary General to archive it as well as to communicate it to all Member States.

We are also submitting this Solemn Declaration to all Member States of the European Union and all Members of the European Parliament in the hope that it will elicit from them a sense of remorse for the harm which the annexation of Malta by the European Union is inflicting on the people of Malta and Gozo.

FREE NEUTRAL MALTA SHALL OVERCOME

Unquote

Good to see that some people seeing the EU acting completely as it usually does still have enough spirit of independence to actively protest. How is it that in reading through each point, one can be almost positive that the EU is guilty as charged.

Well done Dr Bonnici and Dom Mintoff (now there is a name from the past, let's hope he retains the fighting spirit the British came to know so well!)

posted by Martin at 3/26/2004 09:23:00 PM

 
EU Summit Ends with Nothing Achieved on Economic Slump

'Smug and self-satisfied' is the impression gained of Europe's leaders from the widely televised post summit group photographs, while 'completely and utterly useless' has to be the verdict on what the 'Spring' EU summit had to offer the EU as far as its dire economy is concerned.

Following the meeting's closure gold returned to its January peaks while the price of silver hit a six year high! Are the markets finally beginning to become aware that Europe lacks leadership? Probably not, when the penny finally drops on that fact I imagine there will be far larger and more instant exchange rate shifts.

As on terror their only real action was to appoint another tired old politician into another comfortable and no doubt completely useless post. This time it was Dutchman Wim Kok ex-PM of that country (who has been on the jobs for the boys list for what seems an age) who unbelievably will be charged with injecting 'Dynamism' into the moribund trading block. Bring back Giscard d'Estaing why not, most obviously as EU Supremo for the promotion of EU Youth Culture!

Blair left stating it was all a great success and that there was a 'fantastic feeling of unity' in the EU at the moment. Quite breathtakingly unbelievable! Schroeder who one would imagine would be most concerned about his country's ailing economy, instead announced yet another 'Big Three' meeting of France, Germany and Britain this time in London.

And the Lisbon Process - the EU was to overtake the USA for economic growth and diversity by 2010 remember, that was to have been the main agenda item for this meeting....well strangely nobody seems to have been found who was prepared to discuss that. The EUobserver report on the 'new economic dynamism supremo' is linked from here.

Remember when trailing economies were tagged as the 'Sick Man of Europe' well the EU has managed it for the entire Continent. Europe is THE Sick Man! Their 25 leaders meet and apparently, as recently pointed out by Jose Marie Aznar in Le Monde, do not even discuss the economic problems.

posted by Martin at 3/26/2004 04:24:00 PM

 
EU Leaders Call for Increased UN Role in Iraq

Heads still firmly buried beneath the sands, the EU leaders having briefly considered their euro-crippled economies (the pound moved by more than five cents against the dollar within a 24 hour period, a good sign of the real underlying crisis) turned to something they find less troublesome, as it is an area where they have zero responsibility whatsoever: calling for a return of the UN to Iraq.

As the UN pulled out when it came under attack, reportedly as a result of years of frustration and anger amongst some Iraqis over alleged corruption and payoffs to Hussein's regime during the UN administered oil for food and medecines programme, and considering that organisation has shown little inclination so to do; this once again looks like pointless and non-productive anti-Americanism.

If Germany, France and now also Spain were to offer to send troops to protect the UN personnel so dispatched, maybe there would be some purpose to such a call, but we all know that is the last thing those nations will do, seemingly wishing instead that the forces for chaos should prevail. And Blair put his name to this? With British troops he dispatched to Basra still with their lives on the line? Can any of this be real? Yes, unhappily, I pinched myself and I truly am awake.

Here is the press report from EU Business - EU leaders press for larger UN role in Iraq This bit is particularly surreal:-

They warned "the security situation in Iraq remains a major impediment to successful political and reconstruction processes."

But they said the EU "is determined to assist the Iraqi people as they enter a new era in the history of their country."

They WARNED....did none of them see the pictures of the British Serviceman set on fire there this very week. Do they not understand that the people out there trying to make life better for the Iraqi people in general are not aware that "the security situation remains a major impediment ...... What kind of people are these and what can Blair and Straw be thinking of spending any further time sitting down alongside them. It is complete farce.

posted by Martin at 3/26/2004 12:59:00 PM

 
Polish Government Splits

Even as Prime Minister Miller capitulates in Brussels, his own party is falling apart back home. A Polish election during the planned resumed IGC on top of the difficulties being caused by the Spanish transition look set to throw yet more difficulties in the path of the subjugationists. EUobserver carries the report linked here

posted by Martin at 3/26/2004 11:52:00 AM

 
European Parallel Universes, in which one are you?

What a morning of contrasts. In Italy reports of the country grinding to a halt during a four hour stoppage of workers protesting at changes to their pension entitlements; from Germany the fear of a triple dip recession is voiced as consumer demand and business confidence tumble once again (read here from RTE Business) while in Brussels more hot air and ostrich postures from the summiteers and the EU's supposed rulers. Real events clearly prove that there is nobody really in charge.

The International Herald Tribune has reproduced part of an excellent editorial on the EU Constitution from The Times earlier this week which we can now thus link hereand quote:-

The draft European constitution must seem an impossible document to anyone who believes in liberal democracy; it is a real monster, like a Gillray cartoon of Napoleon. It transfers a wide range of powers through "exclusive competencies" or "shared competencies" to the European institutions, which are unelected and bureaucratic. It establishes the EU as a single state, with the European nations as subordinate, and makes European law supreme over national law. If it were adopted, it would destroy the British constitution of parliamentary democracy, remove the power of the elected House of Commons, and place power in the hands of European bureaucrats who could never be removed by a British general election. Behind the bureaucrats, the effective authority would be the Franco-German alliance. ... The centralizing, non-democratic, constitution drafted by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing does not accord with our traditions of independence and democracy.

Yet Blair maintains it is mere tidying up, and that he can get it through Parliament without the authority of a referendum - and the Leader of the main opposition party merely promises to seek to renegotiate it, were it already to be law on his party gaining office!

The Warsaw Business Journal announces and accepts the inevitable defeat and the Polish capitulation to the Franco/German steamroller which is now seemingly bent on the complete destruction of what it had been supposed to have been constructing. Read the link here.

German officials are reported as now pressurising the ECB for an urgent rate cut, in clear contradiction of the guiding principles of price stability, which as for the defunct Growth and Stability pact, they were largely responsible for framing.

posted by Martin at 3/26/2004 11:18:00 AM

 
Summit Dinner Press Conference

The journalists covering last evening's press conference by Ahern and Prodi must have seen something entirely different to what I watched on TV. Almost without exception they hail a constitutional breakthrough and seem to assume all will now be accomplished by end June. Mr Ahern, however, was very circumspect and cautious in his remarks regarding the possibility for progress and only time will tell which of them is the more realistic. In any event the IGC resumes next week and the EU must continue to cope with the monstrous convention document which I am increasingly convinced will in one way or another, become the death knell of the present EU.

The Reuters report linked here, states:

They also invoked a solidarity clause that commits all EU states to assist any member hit by terrorism.

That dreadful word again, the excuse by all to do nothing individually, thus achieving nought. It should be the EU's most fitting epithet - 'Slaves to 'Solidarity'; they destroyed that they desired' perhaps.

Other reports make much of the appointment of a terrorism 'Tsar' in only six days as if that were a positve rather than negaive matter for all our security. Instead of overseeing the sealing of our borders and the tracking down of the enemies within, our security supremos will now be in Brussels meetings discussing on which computer operating system the data banks on those about to blow us up should be stored, or other such multilateralist pursuits of pointlessness.

The Scotsman, article, filed in the early hours gives one of the best overviews and is linked here. The EU Business report on British reactions read here gives an account of the reactions of Blair and Straw, claiming they will stick to their 'red lines' even over criminal justice, which is rumoured to already having been largely conceded, in apparent confirmation of which they are now only pledging to stand firm on "key areas of criminal procedural law" Bye, bye our remaining Common Law rights then!

I mainly include the latter link for the amusement of seeing Michael Howard's new EU Constitutional policy being quoted in all its forlorn and pathetic evasion of any commitment whatever, that last paragraph is quoted here:-

Michael Howard, euroceptic leader of the main opposition Conservative party, said earlier this week that he would seek to re-negotiate the constitution if he were to come to power.


Howard promises to seek to re-negotiate the mind boggles, such a commitment! What a totally shameless statement of spin and clearly intended non-action.

posted by Martin at 3/26/2004 08:05:00 AM

Thursday, March 25, 2004

 
US Congressmen Warn Monti

Five democratic and five republican congressmaen from the House of Representatives have warned the EU that the the "potential of a regulatory impediment to the continued vibrancy of American and European industries is the utmost concern to us".

In this report carried by The Inquirer' linked here the very point we were stressing earlier is most clearly stated:-

The US Department of Justice, they claimed, had investigated and resolved the same matters that the EU had investigated after a lengthy investigation.

They said that the EU should not have investigated the inclusion of audio and video functionality in the Windows operating system because "this exact issue was raised and resolved during the US settlement".

In effect, the open letter tells the EU to get off its turf. "This case involves a US company, the complaining parties in the EU were primarily US companies and... all of the relevant design decisions occurred in the United States".

It looks as though the EU has yet again created a major and unnecessary problem for almost all of Europe.

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 05:59:00 PM

 
EU Summit Opens

The small-minded men who lead the member states of the European Union have just commenced their latest meeting, with terror apparently being the only item on the agenda for this evening. More spurious appointments and much talk of cross-border co-operation all leading to less accountability and far less security for the peoples of the EU, no doubt. As in everything that the EU has done since Britain joined, things put at at a European level will inevitably mean things done either worse or not at all. How could anybody believe otherwise?

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 05:39:00 PM

 
Europe's constitution turns into nightmare

Such is the headline from the usually frighteningly federalist Financial Times which tales a rare realistic look at the dreadful European Union ands its horrendous proposed constitution. A few quotes:-

The European debate will suddenly shift from antiseptic conference rooms in Brussels to the floors of national parliaments and out on to the streets. For many EU leaders, it is not an appealing thought.

Since the Laeken summit the EU's popularity has sunk to new lows. The distance between the Brussels elite and the people is expected to be reflected in dismal voter turnout figures in the European parliament elections in June.

The number of Europeans who thought the EU was "a good thing", in a Eurobarometer poll in December, fell below 50 per cent for the first time to 48 per cent. Britain managed 28 per cent.


The entire column may be read from this link.

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 05:12:00 PM

 
US Department of Justice slams Monti's Microsoft Decision

As forecast on this blog, the Microsoft matter looks likely to cause a storm. I suspected that there had been no co-ordination with US anti-trust authorities and this Press Release clearly shows that to have been the case. The report linked here states:

The European Commission's order for Microsoft Corp. to ship a version of Windows without the Windows Media Player could stifle innovation and help Microsoft's rivals instead of promoting fair competition, the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust chief said Wednesday.

Assistant Attorney General Hewitt Pate in a statement also said the record €497.2 million ($613 million) fine levied on Microsoft by the European Commission (EC) is "unfortunate." It surpasses fines the Commission has imposed on price-fixing cartels and that may send the wrong message about antitrust enforcement priorities, Pate said

It is extremely dangerous and completely foolhardy to use anti-monopolistic fines against a major company domiciled within the jurisdiction of a main trading competitor, unless you have intentions beyond those of curbing anti-competitive behaviour or monopolistic practises. Monti has been one of the more disastrous Commissioners of even this particularly dud bunch, to exit on such a disastrous note could reap dire consequences indeed.

It would appear that the Europeans are prepared to stop at nothing in trying to needle the Bush Administration, see the immediately following posting bar one, for an instance of riduculous posturing and cheap point scoring.

Britain being within this group brings ever greater shame upon the nation. Economic consequences too for sure, although thankfully being outside the Eurozone, we are somewhat buffered from the full likely eventual fallout! USA fourth quarter growth at 4.1 per cent, just confirmed, shows the euroland block as being the economically sick and sorry grouping it truly is.

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 02:37:00 PM

 
EU Press Release from Irish Presidency on the IGC

Linked from here, it contains nothing new and concludes as follows:-

The President of the European Council will expand on this report directly to his colleagues, focusing on the prospects for progress. He will not be asking his colleagues at this meeting of the European Council to enter into the detail of the substantive negotiations or to agree conclusions in that regard. However, he intends to ask them to confirm that there is a shared political will to move to an early overall agreement.

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 02:18:00 PM

 
Spain Snubs the USA for Chirac

The following is a quote from the front page of today's International Herald Tribune:-

Zapatero's meeting with President Jacques Chirac of France, in which the two men, agreed on the need for a greater role for international law and multilateral decision-making in a clear snub to U.S. foreign policy, took so long that Powell had to wait 45 minutes. According to one member of the team travelling withe the Secretary of State, he wasn't happy.

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 02:05:00 PM

 
Irish Examiner lists likely Compromises

This morning's Dublin paper carries its estimate of the likely constitutional compromises:-

QMV - The size of this majority still has to be agreed though current thinking favours 55% of both.

Other sticking points and likely solutions include:

Number of commissioners: likely to be set at 18 with every five years a third of member states losing their commissioner for that term.

Veto issues: Ireland and Britain likely to retain their veto on tax issues, but to lose it on judicial issues which will be decided by majority decision.

An Irish diplomat said the government believes there will be sufficient safeguards to protect Ireland?s common law system, which is different to that operated in most other EU member states.

European Parliament seats: an increase of four seats per member state.

Last night work was continuing on a declaration to be agreed by the leaders on terrorism that will commit all countries to closer cooperation and to implementing agreed laws.

As reported by the FT (linked below) Blair has conceded already conceded the terrorism Red Line and reporst widely circulating in the UK media indicate he is set to abandon his Red Line on Justice as well. Details will be posted when firm news is available. The Irish Examiner article may be read here.

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 01:55:00 PM

 
Electoral Commission/Hansard Reveal the UK's Political Disconnect

MORI have conducted a survey on behalf of the two bodies above, which is available for downloading from the Electoral Commission site linked.

The following is a short extract which shows that only 27 per cent of the sample are satisfied with politicians generally. This vividly highlights the scope that exists for a hugely successful independent campaign in the country for the Euro Elections on 10th June when domestic policy considerations need act as no hindrance to casting a well deserved protest vote and a huge financial kick in the teeth to all the established parties!

Quote

For four in five of the attitudinal measures, the proportions with positive attitudes fall within a
five-point band (36% – 41%). But trust in politicians generally is considerably lower than this, at
only 27%.

Efficacy and satisfaction

‘Getting involved works’ 36%

Trust politicians generally 27%

Satisfied with Parliament 36%

Think present system of governing works well 41%

Satisfied with their own MP 36%

Unquote

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 11:48:00 AM

 
New Zealand Herald

A first rate explanation on the British political situation and various dilemmas over the EU Constitution is provided from the still Sovereign Nation of New Zealand, where Her Majesty remains the acknowledged and presently unchallenged Head of State and Parliament in Wellington makes all the laws. Who would have once thought that Britain would have thrown all that away, and to Continental Europeans to boot, not many Antipodeans I'll be bound? The full summary of pre-summit matters may be read from this link. We quote just the last paragraph:-

Mr Blair faces a dilemma over how to handle the negotiations. If he were to obstruct progress, it would put his strategy of "positive engagement" in Europe at risk. But if he signs up to the constitution, it could cost him the support of some voters and newspapers, such as The Sun and The Times, both owned by Rupert Murdoch, at the general election.

posted by Martin at 3/25/2004 08:34:00 AM

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!.
go to the top of the page