Another Look at the EU Constitution

Much has been said here on the above topic, and many links provided to explanatory papers and guides, not least the proposed treaty itself. However, this recent article on the Constitution, written by Ashley Mote a UKIP MEP candidate for the South East, gives an up to date and fresh view and has therefore been reproduced below from UKIP web-site.

As mentioned on UKIP Uncovered this morning (where another plea for reform is made), it was something of a surprise to find someone still capable of rational and coherent thought still apparently thriving within that shambles of a party:


Author: Vigilance, A Defence of British Liberty
UKIP Candidate: South-East England
14-04-2004

by Ashley Mote

When the former French president, Valery Giscard d’Estaing accepted the EU’s invitation to head the convention which eventually produced the 350-page document, he was asked to find ways of making the EU ‘more democratic, more transparent and more efficient’.

The convention promptly turned itself into a praesidium - and where have we heard that word before? It then re-wrote its own brief. The words ‘democratic, transparent, efficient’ all disappeared.

Now we have this: ‘…how to bring citizens closer to the European design…how to organise politics in an enlarged Union…how to develop the Union into a model in the new world order.’

d’Estaing told the European parliament that the proposed constitution was a ‘revolution in law’. But revolutions are uprisings of the people against the ruling elite. Such events don’t create law - they usually precede it. So this revolution is unique. It is a revolution by the ruling elite against the people.

By its full title, the proposed ‘Constitution for Europe’ apparently claims authority over the nations of the whole continent, members or not. It shows no modesty of ambition. Nor does it compare with the great elegance, simplicity, clarity and wisdom of Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, or even the American Declaration of Independence.

The proposed EU constitution is deeply flawed. Essentially, it is not a constitution at all. It is little more than an elaborate attempt to legitimise the seizure of power by a ruling elite. If it succeeds, Westminster will become redundant, its powers stripped bare. So the question for the British is very simple. Do we wish to govern ourselves - or not?

There are at least six fundamental defects in the proposed constitution, any one of which should make it utterly unacceptable to the British:

It is vague, grandiose, imprecise, deliberately complex, confusing and extremely long.

It is proscriptive rather than enabling. It makes law, instead of creating a framework for law-making.

It offers no effective checks and balances to control future law-makers.

It consolidates power for a system of government by a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

It puts that elite group above the law to be imposed on everyone else.

It turns the member states from theoretical masters of the house of Brussels into its servants.

The proposed constitution also attempts to include everything and - by implication - it forbids everything else. Of course, that latter failure is the norm in Continental government. They believe the state exists in its own right, and the people answer to it. Here in Britain, the exact opposite is true. We, the people, are sovereign. Here, everything is permitted, until we elect a Parliament that decides otherwise. And, if we dislike a law, we are free to elect another to overturn it.

Under this constitution - we will be faced with a government we cannot remove, nor hold to account. By this constitution, the EU creates power for itself. Worse, it specifically demands unquestioning obedience from the member states. Yet Tony Blair never says anything about that. He claims there will be ‘no fundamental change’.

Why have a new constitution if you don’t want fundamental change? And why pretend otherwise? Is it because Labour failed to ask the British people for a mandate at the last general election? This constitution was not even mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. Or does Blair’s new-found enthusiasm suggest he might become president of the Commission in November, when Prodi steps down? Was that what Schroder and Chirac talked about at their private meeting with Blair in February? And has Gordon Brown been encouraging him to accept?

But let’s just have a brief look at some of the sweeping powers taken by the proposed constitution, which was drafted in French. The EU intends to take what it calls (in English) ‘competence’ over almost every aspect of our life. But the word ‘competence’ - in French – means ‘authority’. ‘Power’ would be a much better translation into English.

So why have the translators kept the French word? Was it because they knew it would confuse the Brits? Did they imagine that the idea of ‘competence’
might somehow be more acceptable to us? Power is power, whatever you call it.
And this power is seized over our civil and criminal laws, over taxation and economic policy, over transport, crime, social services, immigration, the environment, consumer protection, research and technology, public health, security, education, commerce…even cultural activities

It is also made plain that they want control of our defence and foreign policy, our army, and all our assets – oil, gold, foreign reserves, pension funds, and what remains of our fishing and farming industries. And this constitution says ‘the currency of the Union shall be the euro.’ Ratify this constitution and
a referendum on the euro becomes pointless.

The financial provisions in this document also allow the EU to ‘provide the means’ to implement its policies, which can only be code for the introduction of EU taxes.

The Charter of Fundamental Human Rights is incorporated in it as well. It becomes the ‘supreme law’ of the EU, despite Keith Vaz's remark when he was minister for Europe about its being no more important than a copy of the Beano. The charter appears to be based on the cretinous idea that mere unelected officials can grant rights and freedoms to free-born Britons.

The time has come to remind them that our rights and freedoms are not in the gift, nor at the mere discretion of a passing parade of petty bureaucrats, or our elected government. They answer to us, not the other way around! None of which is allowed to stand in the way of Article 52 of the Charter. That purports to allow the EU to withdraw our rights and freedoms, if it is in the interests of the Union.

Can you imagine such power falling into the hands of leaders Europe has known in the past? Yet, under this constitution, one man can hold the presidency of the council and the presidency of the Commission. He can also be the president of the standing committee on internal security. If that happens - and it is clearly the intention that it could - one person would hold all the key positions of power at the same time.

We all remember the men who have seized such awesome power in the past, and the mayhem they caused - Charlemagne, Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin and Stalin.

It is impossible for the EU to guarantee that such powers would not fall into the hands of men such as these. Power attracts those least suitable to hold it. It is naivety - or cunning - of the highest order to create such a risk, and to do so deliberately. This is the road to tyranny.

And so is Article 17 of the constitution itself. That says – in effect – if the ruling elite have forgotten to take a particular power, this catch-all clause gives it to them retrospectively. This article by-passes any need for approval by the member states for any future EU action on any matter. They have merely to be informed. So ratification of the constitution effectively ratifies all future decisions, whatever their merits or demerits, whatever the costs or consequences, however unacceptable or tyrannical or damaging.

The exit clause - Article 59 - is an elephant trap as well. It demands that any member state wishing to secede must first apply for permission. It then gives the EU the right to decide on the terms of withdrawal over a period of up to two years. The state wishing to leave will be excluded from any such discussions. It will be expected to meet all its obligations until it is allowed to leave, and meanwhile tolerate EU interference in its internal affairs. Nothing in this clause restrains the EU from seizing assets and attempting to overthrow the government that made the application in the first place.

The British would be reckless to sign such a blank cheque as the proposed EU constitution. Once ratified, there is no mechanism to stop it later. There is no mechanism to throw the rascals out. There is not even a mechanism to stop the imposition of the constitution in the first place. If one or more member states fail to ratify it within two years but at least 20 others do so, the European Council has taken powers to decide what happens next. Nothing in the constitution prevents them from imposing it on dissenting states, against their will.

Peter Hain, leader of the House of Commons, no less, claims that the proposed constitution is merely ‘tidying up’ previous treaties. That is plainly absurd. Such a claim is an insult to our intelligence.

Not since 1688 have the British addressed the simple question: ‘How, and by whom, do we wish to be governed?’ Those ten crucial words lie at the heart of this issue. After a gap of over 300 years, we have to ask ourselves again.

The views of pre-eminent constitutional lawyers over the centuries, including Halsbury, Erskine May, Blackstone, Sir Edward Coke - even Professor Dicey - all support the contention that the British constitution specifically forbids the ratification of the proposed EU constitution.

As long ago as 1621, Parliament itself said that it could not diminish or give away its own powers. And Dicey told the British people that they are free to withdraw their consent from a Parliament at any time, and have the right to use any means to regain control of their sovereignty. The Bill of Rights, 1689, is still the statute law of this country. The suggestion that it is just an ancient statute and no longer relevant under modern conditions, is invalid. The authority of the Bill of Rights was re-affirmed in a House of Lords judgement in November 2001. Desuetude (repeal by lack of use) is unknown to English law.

On 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to the Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that the Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’ The Bill of Rights is based on a concept of permanence and declares that any actions taken against its principles are null and void. It specifically forbids handing power to foreigners.

The Bill of Rights proclaims what were then taken to be self-evident freedoms, which exist by right, and nothing has changed that situation lawfully over the intervening years. The Bill includes the words: ‘…the said Lords…and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit and…make effectual provision for the settlement of the …laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted. …the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed…and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same, in all time to come.’

Does the Government intend to ignore these words, its obligations to the crown and to the British constitution? If Blair signs and then attempts to ratify the EU constitution, what becomes of the Bill of Rights 1689? Is he planning to repeal it? Has he taken advice on his power - if any - to change the British constitution? What legal advice has the government received?

Unless the British people receive clear and acceptable answers to these questions - which seems increasingly unlikely - what the British government is planning is prima facie unlawful. The proposed EU constitution is grotesque, an abomination. So is the British government’s response to it. Together, they represent the most dangerous and immediate threat to these islands since 1940. Then, it was the Battle of Britain. Now it is a Battle for Britain.

April 2004

posted by Martin at 4/17/2004 09:59:00 AM

Friday, April 16, 2004

 
Giving Away Control of one's Country!

I have just been watching the live press conference from the White House lawn by President Bush and PM Blair. On Iraq the President said something along these lines - No citizen of the United Kingdom or the USA would want control of their country in the hands of others!!!!!!

Little did the US President know, that standing alongside him, the most powerful citizen in the UK, its Prime Minister, is planning to do just that via the EU Constitution, widely assumed to be for reasons of pure personal ambition, as it has proved practically impossible to identify any others.

posted by Martin at 4/16/2004 05:34:00 PM

 
'The Sprout' Withdrawal

An update on this story is on this link to the blog Fainting in coyles

posted by Martin at 4/16/2004 03:55:00 PM

 
One Month for the IGC

Euractiv has reported that the Irish Presidency will only allow one month for the details of the EU Constitutional Treaty (so-called) to be thrashed out. Read here.

Mid-May to Mid-June looks like being an interesting time for Europe. Posting the item on French gold sales yesterday brought to mind the May 1968 French student riots and the near collapse of the government. Troubles grow for the Euroland economies and the problems facing several governments look to me as if the timing to bring such hugely important constitutional matters to a head, combined with the raised political temperature from the pan-European parliamentary election campaign, could hardly have been timed less appropriately!

Wikipedia on the events of May 1968 is linked from here

posted by Martin at 4/16/2004 03:17:00 PM

 
Blair to Cede a 'Red Line' to Justify Plebiscite?

This time yesterday I stated on that I could envision no situation where Blair could avoid granting what he will choose to call a 'referendum'. This recent BBC report and this morning's papers variously agree with this prediction (read from this link).

Here is another prediction: Watch for a 'red line issue' to be ceded during the IGC negotiations!. Not one sufficiently serious to jeopardise the result of the eventual vote, but enough to try to save the Prime Minister's face. Assuming of course that Blair can continue to stone-wall long enough for such a concession to be slightly decently and necessarily made.

posted by Martin at 4/16/2004 01:21:00 PM

 
The Sun's Kavanagh Maintains Blair U-Turn on Referendum

This is the statement the tabloid's politically knowledgeable and influential Political Editor maintains today:-

"But sources admit the PM had abandoned his stand against a poll.

He fears the row over the constitution could cut into Labour support in the June 10 European Parliament elections.

He is under pressure to announce his decision."

The newspaper article is linked from here.

posted by Martin at 4/16/2004 11:37:00 AM

 
EU Puts Nationalists beyond the Pale

Welsh and Scottish papers this morning report on a new threat from the EU. In 'icWales' linked here, the Welsh Nationalist party 'Plaid Cymru' reacted strongly to claims from the Labour Party, apparently backed by Romano Prodi, that independence for Wales would lead to immediate and automatic exclusion from the EU.

In Scotland The Herald carries a similar report on Prodi's statement but emphasises the impact for the Scottish Nationalists. That article may be read from here.
The important lesson for all seems to me however, look how much of our independence and freedom of any self-governance our corrupted and power and money grabbing parties have already grabbed from the people and deposited with unelected foreign bureaucrats in Brussels.

posted by Martin at 4/16/2004 08:31:00 AM

Thursday, April 15, 2004

 
Background to the Sordid Mercosur Deal to Salvage the Scandalous CAP

The FT has published this helpful summary of facts, even available on the web - just click here.

It is nothing less than a National Disgrace that Britain is connected with these negotiations in any way whatsoever, let alone being a party to them through our increasingly shameful ongoing membership of the European Union, which incredibly brings no benefits in its wake, just ever more perks for our politicians and their putrescent political parties

posted by Martin at 4/15/2004 06:36:00 PM

 
France to Sell Gold

The financial disaster that is the Euro looks like it is taking an even heavier toll on one of its main supporters with the announcement of the first gold sales from France since the crisis days of 1968.

This report is from the European Foundation Intelligence Digest Number 190 of 15th April 2004:-

FRANCE TO SELL 500 TONNES OF GOLD

For the first time since May 1968, France is to sell gold held in its central bank reserves. The new Finance Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has said that the proceeds from the sales will go either to investments or to debt reduction, but not to ordinary government spending. The sales could reach 100 tonnes a year from 2004 to 2009, a total of 500 tonnes or one sixth of France’s total stocks of 3,024 tonnes worth 31 billion euros. The figure of 100 tonnes a year is limited by international treaty, the Bank of France being bound by its agreements with the other central banks of the EU within the European System of Central Banks. A part of this agreement obliges the signatory states not to exceed a certain level of gold sales. The Bank of England has promised not to sell any more gold until 2009, having sold 400 tonnes since 1999. 100 tonnes a year will bring in just over 1 billion euros, or one thousandth of the French national debt. Apparently, therefore, the gesture is mainly symbolic: to show that the state is ready to activate all its otherwise dormant assets in order to deal with the gravity of the country’s financial situation. [Le Figaro, 12th April 2004]

posted by Martin at 4/15/2004 05:38:00 PM

 
Blair Backing down over a Referendum?

The Times as well as The Sun (linked earlier) is also speculating on Blair granting a referendum, as reported here by EU Business.

I personally cannot now envision a scenario where Blair could avoid granting what he will choose to call 'a referendum' over the EU in some form or other. Calling an already scheduled election 'a plebiscite' - in this case on the EU Constitution - is an old trick, but one almost certain now to be lost if applied to either the European Elections on 10th June or the next scheduled General Election. Such is the unpopularity of the Government when compounded with that of the EU.

Calling a referendum just on the EU Constitution would also look a certain lost cause and unless Blair is ready to give up his own personal EU leadership ambitions, which seems too much of a volte face in view of his own domestic unpopularity, therefore seems another non-starter.

The nuclear option of a referendum on Britain's very continuation within the EU seems his best chance of winning through on the basis of any public's well known preference for the status quo. Could he announce such a vote to follow a General Election when the full details of the Constitution become finally known, thus spiking the anti-EU forces guns in the main campaign? Or will he go before? Much will depend on the IGC negotiations once they finally resume!

posted by Martin at 4/15/2004 02:26:00 PM

 
'The Sprout' Withdrawn

As I had advised readers on Teetering Tories the satirical Brussels Magazine had been exceptionall courageous in exposing the details of the disgusting Dutroux case in Belgium. This has resulted in the magazine being withdrawn. Read the first-hand account from the writers own blog Fainting in Coyles

posted by Martin at 4/15/2004 11:49:00 AM

 
EU Facts Figures and Phantasies

We have carried a link to this e-mailed newsletter and web-site for some time and have also given it various plugs from time to time. It has recently become first a thinly disguised, now an outright propagandist advertisement for the Tory Party, which stoutly maintains its policy of never withdrawing from the EU.

We maintain all kinds of links from these blogs, but have decided to remove the one mentioned above, as in my considered opinion it seeks to deliver a message that will result in the continuing destruction of both the nation's sovereignty and democracy.

posted by Martin at 4/15/2004 11:39:00 AM

 
The EU is Dangerous for UK Property Values

Casting around for arguments to use to convince people that the EU is not a good thing often relies on macro-economics - the unsustainabilty of a common currency in a non-integrated customs-union, the anti-democratic nature of its institutions and structures etc.etc.

The Leading Article in this morning's Daily Telegraph (linked from here) provides one such reason, somewhat more down to earth and certainly closer to home, however. It reports some twenty million Britons are actively considering selling up and moving to the sun. If they all did that house prices would inevitably collapse. It follows therefore that to maintain property prices the freedom to move to the EU must be curtailed, unhappity as a side effect condemning those millions of sun-seekers to continuing to get wet in Blair's Britain. Maybe the EU does have its benefits?....Now if only it were democratic and non-corrupt.......?????

posted by Martin at 4/15/2004 09:51:00 AM

 
Cabinet Revolt over Referendum!

Trevor Kavanagh steals my recent headline from UKIP Uncovered regarding the Magnificent Seven Tory MEP resignations and this time applies it to seven cabinet ministers demanding a referendum:

"Magnificent 7 ... Gordon Brown, John Prescott, David Blunkett, Jack Straw, Margaret Beckett, Helen Liddell and Peter Hain"

Peter Hain!!!!???? Now there's a surprise!

The article, which manages to twist and convolute who is for what and against which in a most extraordinary fashion, is linked from here:-

Big guns back referendum

posted by Martin at 4/15/2004 08:11:00 AM

Wednesday, April 14, 2004

 
Money equals Control equals Power!

No not the Euro for once, though the lesson is the same! This from another smaller article in today's 'FT' on Cuba:-

Quote
"They want to do away with the dual peso and dollar economy and in the process reassert absolute control over us" said the plant manager, who requested anonymity. "That means more regulations, more inspectors, more difficulties and delays making things work."

posted by Martin at 4/14/2004 08:34:00 PM

 
Australians Unfazed by EU Bribe

Such is the report in 'The Age regarding an article from the front pages of this morning's FT (linked here), regarding the despicable EU's attempt to use British taxpayers funds, and British food-purchasing power to continue to sustain the disgusting and shameful Common Agricultural Policy, in the process doing down impoverished third world farmers and those with whom at least we still share some remaining belief in democracy and decency of behaviour in public life.

Concurrently Oxfam returns to its annual complaint againt the totally shameful EU Sugar Regime, one of many reports on which is linked from here.

The EU robbing its own citizens of their economic well-being and centuries-old democratic protections while grinding the faces of the poor even further into the dirt. Nice isn't it?

posted by Martin at 4/14/2004 06:20:00 PM

 
Eight Basic Principles of the Conservatives' Partners in the next European Parliament

The British Conservative Party has decided to continue in partnership with the European Peoples Party in the next session of the European Parliament. On 4th - 5th February 2004 that party adopted a manifesto for those elections which may be read in full from here.

I have extracted eight core beliefs that seem to me in absolute fundamental conflict with everything that I had always understood the British Conservative Party was supposed to espouse and represent:-

The EPP Manifesto Aims for the next European Parliament:-

1. More Integration

"The integration of nation states in the European Union is unique in human history ... Let us continue ........ and improve on it. "

2. Common Foreign Policy

"The EU should speak with one voice on all key foreign and security matters."

3. Defence SEPARATE from NATO

"This includes making European Security and Defence Policy in close cooperation with NATO. "

4. Immigration

"A Europe without frontiers requires joint efforts to master and manage immigration and combat illegal immigration"

5. Europolice

" Europol should be given more competencies..."

6. European Justice

"Eurojust should be developed"

7. European Public Prosecutor

" We support the creation of a European Public Prosecutor."

8. AND FINALLY THE SAME TIRED OLD LIE

"Our common history proves that the European Union is a unique safeguard for political stability and security in Europe. We now need to strengthen our joint forces against new threats to our security. "

I have been trying to get my own Conservative MEP to comment on this Manifesto for more than two months without success. Yesterday evening another Conservative MEP put this statement onto an internet discussion forum:-

The formal terms of our relationship (by which he means the Conservative Party) make quite explicit that we are not bound by and do not subscribe to the EPP manifesto.

Yet they are bound by a binding political pact, just recently agreed by Michael Howard after this manifesto was published, to work together in the next European Parlliament - PRESUMABLY TOWARDS THESE ENDS!

WHAT COMPLETE AND UTTER HYPOCRITES THE PRESENT CONSERVATIVE PARTY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF MICHAEL HOWARD MUST TRULY BE! WHICH SET OF POLICIES DO THEY HOLD TO BE TRUE? THOSE THEY ESPOUSE WHEN IN BRITAIN OR THOSE ABOVE THAT THEY ARE NOW BOUND TO WORK TOWARDS WITH THEIR EPP PARTNERS IN THE NEXT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT?

posted by Martin at 4/14/2004 11:01:00 AM

Tuesday, April 13, 2004

 
'Labour Against a Superstate'

Ian Davidson MP for Glasgow Pollok was on Radio 4 this morning announcing a new movement which will push for a referendum on the EU Constitution from within the Labour Party. We will, when possible, supply a link from here to the Radio 4 interview on the 'Today' programme which took place at just after 07:10 and subsequently links to any web site the new group might develop. (The BBC Radio 4 Player has the interview. Go to 'Today Programme' for 7:00 -8-00 am and advance 15 minutes).

The voting record of this MP against the Labour Party line may be reviewed from this link to The Public Whip.

posted by Martin at 4/13/2004 07:46:00 AM

 
Blair's Plan to Further Consolidate His Control

The House of Lords now stands as the last impediment to Blair's attainment of almost absolute control over the remaining areas of national authority yet to be ceded to the European Union. The Daily Telegraph, this morning, reports on his plans to almost completely neuter that institution, as may be read from here

His determination to impose the EU Constitution upon the people of this country without their assent and by use of his huge docile majority in the House of Commons will already leave few enough powers still in the hands of our nation's Parliament.

Do we really wish this man to be effectively in sole charge of the nation, agreeing to whatever he chooses in his private meetings with Chirac and Schroeder or their replacements, whipping them through the House of Commons where power increasingly rests upon patronage and where subsequent approval in the Lords becomes a mere formality; with the worst of legislation merely being delayed by a few months?

That seems to me the reality behind the suggestions in the newspaper's article!

posted by Martin at 4/13/2004 06:44:00 AM

Sunday, April 11, 2004

 
A Real Anti-EU Communication

Cllr Steve Radford
Chairman of The Liberal Party
41 Sutton Street
Tuebrook
Liverpool
L13 7EG

0151 259 5935

Dear Friends,

As the CIB holds its AGM in the coming week, on behalf of The Liberal Party, may I send an open message of support and thanks.

Whilst The Liberal Party calls for a Commonwealth of Europe and fundamental reform of the current EU, Liberal Party members have genuine differences how this may be best achieved.
Many of us believe, the threat of withdrawal from the EU, would be the only way to bring about real change.

To the CIB we wish to express our thanks for providing an all party and non-partisan platform for people who are critical of the EU.

The CIB Magazine Liberty News has been welcoming to contributors from across the political spectrum.

Here in the West Derby and Tuebrook Constituency, we have now delivered a second round of 15,000 copies of Liberty News. This maximises the public debate, which is critical of the EU, reaching people of all and no political affiliation.

I make no apology in commenting, with extra financial support we would extend this project further afield and reach a broader audience, not just in Liverpool.

To the Officers of CIB may I express my personal thanks for their co-operation and best wishes for future campaigning.

Cllr Steve Radford
Chairman of The Liberal Party

posted by Martin at 4/11/2004 08:05:00 PM

 
Mark Steyn on Fallujah

Happy Easter!

Don't let Iraq's tempest in a teacup rattle you

posted by Martin at 4/11/2004 05:56:00 PM

Saturday, April 10, 2004

 
Was 1975 Common Market Referendum Rigged?

The following letter is circulating on the internet. It suggests that all might not have been what it seemed in the count of the only referendum in this country on what has now become the totalitarian and undemocratic European Union.

While there have been various reports circulating regarding the very close result of the French referendum on the Maastricht Treaty, which was clinched only by votes from the Overseas Departments and was so close there has yet to be another such in France; this is the first suggestion I personally have heard that Wilson's referendum might not have been strictly legitimate.

Quote
From: Arnottl@***
To: letters@dailymail.co.uk
Subject: Dirty deeds?
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 02:42:28 EDT

I refer to this comment recently made in the Letters Column of a leading local newspaper with regard to the Referendum on The Common Market in 1975:
"Each constituency was not allowed to count their own votes under the close scrutiny of all parties concerned, as with all democratically run General Elections. Instead, all the ballot papers were carted off to London for counting.

Due to some unexplained miracle, the result was announced in the same time as if each constituency had counted its own votes."

Is there any reader who could perhaps shed light on this? I had never previously heard any suggestion that there might have been 'misconduct'. Certainly, many of us were surprised by the size of the vote in favour but.......
L.G.Arnott, ,..... Sheffield.
Unquote

posted by Martin at 4/10/2004 02:31:00 PM

Friday, April 09, 2004

 
Appeasing Terrorism

As the cries ring out across Japan to fetch home the soldiers bringing humanitarian aid to Iraq, and the terrorist victory in Madrid and the subsequent capitulation by the EU leaders remain fresh in our minds, this item from a Dutch newspaper on the consequences of appeasement, this time Blair's in Northern Ireland, seems relevant:-

The Protestant daily TROUW reminds us that today marks the sixth anniversary of the historic Good Friday agreement that led to a cease-fire in Northern Ireland. TROUW marks the occasion with an in-depth article on Ardoyne, a poor Catholic neighborhood in northern Belfast, where unemployment is still between 60 and 70%, in spite of a growing economy elsewhere in the city.

"There's only one boss on the street in Ardoyne", says TROUW, and it's not the police or the parliament, but the Irish National Liberation Army. The paper says both Catholic and Protestant paramilitary groups have not disbanded since the Good Friday accord but have turned to crime. "Former political prisoners are now pure mafia bosses, who terrorize the poor sections of Belfast" and operate drug trafficking, extortion, prostitution and smuggling rings. "The police estimate that former loyalists and republican terrorists are currently responsible for two-thirds of the organized crime in Northern Ireland.", TROUW reports.

Chris Patten who sold his soul and the RUC to facilitate this situation, soon moves along from the plush rewards of EU Commissioner to that of Chancellor of Oxford University. Let's hope the next generation of students soon begins to regain some political nose, and shows their new Chancellor and 'pompous poser' what principled youth truly thinks of such a past.

posted by Martin at 4/09/2004 05:42:00 PM

 
Letter to The Daily Telegraph

Further to our posting on Charles Kennedy's article in this morning's newspaper we post a pointed response on the real dangers of the EU Constitution:-

Quote
Letter to Daily Telegraph

Sir,

Charles Kennedy has confirmed what many have long suspected. British politicians are all of the Ken Clarke school when it comes to the EU - they simply do not read the treaties. They tell us of an imaginary Europe which, they hope, will be acceptable for long enough to lull us into acceptance .

The EU constitution is not a settlement like the US Consitution. It entrenches no states' rights and has a built-in ratchet mechanism for increasing centralism. It could hardly be the EU without it.

We know by experience that the EU Court of Justice is not a court in the British sense but an unelecteced legislature, devoted to increasing the power of the EU. We also know that opt outs, derogations and "red lines" never last. So the constitution and the whole constitution is what we will eventually get, if Britain remains a member.

Article I-24 allows the Council of Ministers to agree to the removal of remaining national vetos without further ratification by treaty or consent of national parliaments. Article I-17 empowers them "to take appropriate measures" to give themselves any other powers which are not specified in the constitution.

This huge enabling power is being granted to the Council, a legislative body which meets and votes in secret and cannot be collectively dismissed by anybody. This is the most illiberal authoritarian structure imaginable - and it is intended to last forever.

Yours faithfully


Edward Spalton

posted by Martin at 4/09/2004 03:44:00 PM

 
Conservative MEPs Split Over Continuation Within the EPP

In what could be a hugely significant development for the eurosceptic movement within Britain, the upcoming EU elections and the future of the EU Constitution, the Brussels' satirical magazine The Sprout in its April edition reports that seven eurosceptic Conservative MEPs including their Chief Whip Chris Heaton-Harris and six others have resigned. The full item from the magazine (to which we urge you to subscribe by using this link The Sprout) may be read on our sister blog Teetering Tories linked here.

posted by Martin at 4/09/2004 08:31:00 AM

 
Lib Dems Back Referendum

Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats has stated in The Daily Telegraph that his party will back a referendum on the EU Constitution. It will be in the House of Lords that such an amendment would seem to have the best chance of success and it is not clear how the earlier statement by Lib Dem Peers that they will support Blair in opposing such an amendment will be affected by this statement. The column by Kennedy is linked from here, the article discussing the statement from here and the newspaper's Leading Article on the topic from this final link.

posted by Martin at 4/09/2004 07:32:00 AM

Thursday, April 08, 2004

 
100 YEARS AGO TODAY, WE CONDEMNED THE CONTINENT TO WAR.

We, the British, made a fateful decision a century ago today. We chose a new friend, and as in playground politics, which international relations so closely apes, in so doing we also picked a new enemy. No doubt the foreign office mandarins and the then powers that be considered they had the sophistication to forestall the consequences - the French knew otherwise and history proved them the cleverer diplomats.

It did not, of course, have to be so. Professor Carroll Quigley in his book "The Anglo-American Establishment," written in 1949 but only published in 1981, details the background to the politics of that era and makes clear that there were 'good Germans' seeking support at that time who need not necessarily have been so discarded. (In "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time", however, Quigley traced what he called "the German thirst for the coziness of a totalitarian way of life" to the breakup of German tribes in the great migrations fifteen hundred years ago, making clear there can be no certainties on historical events even after a hundred or more years). Rather than again re-hashing all these events, what can we learn from the now known consequences that inevitably flowed from the Entente Cordiale of 8th April 1904?

Britain was then, and in my view is still today, a maritime nation tempermentally ill-equipped for the intricacies of Continental, border-detailed power politics. We look outward to the world to deal with nations who similary set their national bounds by their own coastlines, which they too ever look beyond.

In the light of globalisation and modern information technology, can ever a statement have looked so out of place as that written by the Foreign Office for the Queen to state in the French Senate yesterday: "We have both made the choice of Europe and the European Union as a principal vehicle for our economic and political aspirations"? (What could have been a more inappropriate moment in recent times with British troops under fire in Basra to the clear non-discomfort of the French!)

Britain's Foreign Office has still not yet learned that it cannot ride two horses at the same time, or not, in any event once they start to travel in different directions, as Britain and the EU have now politically and economically so clearly started to do. That this has again started to occur can hardly be denied and decision time as to which horse to choose is rapidly drawing near.

Michael Howard, Britain's Leader of the Opposition has shown himself equally as confused as the British Government. His speech in Cancun to the executives of the Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation was excellent in many ways and may be read from the Conservative Party website linked from here. It is, however, totally incompatible with his stated views and party policy on the European Union, and particularly conflicts with his plans to remain a part of the EPP following the European Parliamentary elections in June,whose 4th/5th February 2004 Manifesto linked here would be anathema to anyone truly believing in the sovereignty of the Nation State. In fact the objectives Howard set out at Cancun, regarding the role of the Nation State, are TOTALLY incompatible with membership of the European Union as it is envisaged by almost every other country within the EU!

Michael Howard is particularly mistaken in his views as I understand them, over the possible referendum raised in The Sun this week (See posting below). A referendum in Britain on the Constitution is not what is best for Britain or the EU. It would almost certainly result in a NO vote leaving the whole of Europe wishing to proceed with some form of Constitution and Britain set resolutely against the very idea.

The only proper course is for Britain to hold a referendum on our continuance within the present EU, after all that is the issue at stake and it is a question that has been at the core of our nation's dilemma for the past one hundred years. We have fought two world wars and squandered the wealth of an empire on our Continental Dalliance. Do we continue or accept that we are not truly at home in the Continent's embrace and re-build our neglected friendships with those in the world who share our core values and maritime heritage?

Such a referendum would be a close run thing - for huge issues of major consequence would be in play. But ignoring them and pretending that a schizophrenic foreign policy is a viable option, as we tried between 1904 to 1914, would be to have learnt nothing from what could be history's most expensive but then also most valuable history lesson - the Entente Cordiale.

posted by Martin at 4/08/2004 07:28:00 AM

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

 
A Fitting Anniversary for the Entente Cordiale

The disastrous financial enterprise to link Britain and France by train under the Channel provides the most fitting tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Entente Cordiale with the entire board of the company being fired this very afternoon by angry and disillusioned shareholders.

The French and British people are united as never before in the contempt they hold for those who govern and exploit them, through the structures of both the European Union and its ill-regulated corporations and financial institutions.

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 06:15:00 PM

 
EU Economic Forecasts - Comments from Cloud Cuckoo Land!

This link will take gullible readers to the EU's Spring Economic Forecasts - Latest EU Macro Economic Forecast. The full report in pdf format is available here. (Useful for later reference when things go wrong) A short summary is provided in this report from EUBusiness.

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 06:12:00 PM

 
EU's Europe Ministers to step-up Propaganda Campaign

EUPolitix linked here reports on the latest attempts to be mounted to sell the dreadful EU project to its increasingly dismayed victims:-

“The level of cynicism is growing; the level of hostility is growing,” warns Irish Europe minister Dick Roche.

Turnout in the coming Europaean Parliamentary elections is now predicted at less than one third. Abstention might be the only weapon they hear!

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 04:54:00 PM

 
Eve of Entente Cordiale Anniversary Jottings

This totally false view from the left-wing London Guardian was quoted in today's IHT:-

LONDON:The Entente Cordiale embodied two principles that are essential to 21st-century Europe. The first - for which the Entente was much criticised by nationalists in both countries - is that the treaty was a lasting victory for the principle that disputes between states are better settled by diplomacy than by war. The second lesson is that Britain and France are nations with shared problems, interests and values. The problems that face modern France are very close to the problems that face modern Britain. The countries occupy comparable places in the global order. Our peoples have a common inheritance of ideas and culture. We mislead ourselves if we think that modern Britain has more to learn from America than from France. - The Guardian (Britain)

Arguing against such simplistic denial of recent events and centuries of historical experience comes this report from Expatica France rejects claim its army aided Rwanda genocide and this from the business section of the same newspaper France won't give up control of 2 major utilities . Proving in just one normal day that the two countries total colonial experience was entirely different as are their ideas regarding the running of a free market economy.

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 04:28:00 PM

 
44,000 More Jobless Germans in March and Eurotunnel Corruption!

More evidence of the disastrous failure that is the present EU in the latest unemployment figures from Germany. The IHT carries a detailed report in today's edition linked here.

Also in that paper comes more news of how all in Europe seems doomed to failure in this item regarding the ousting of the management of the loss-making Euro Tunnel Company. Significantly, this occurred on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Entenet Cordiale, which supposedly symbolises the links between England and France. The article linked from here, quotes the leader of the shareholder's group in revolt as follows:-

Miguet, the founder of the French Taxpayers Party, said by telephone before the company conceded defeat that he expected to win.
.
"We are morality," he said. "They are vice and crime. And morality will win. Democracy will prevail. I am very confident in the democratic system."

If only such sentiments could be applied and acted upon across the entire EU, and the whole corrupt and incompetent management removed!

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 02:35:00 PM

 
The Tory Duplicity Behind the Queen's Statement

Posted below are the words of Britain's Head of State, spoken in a foreign Parliament, signalling the end of the nation's independence of action in matters of what would once have been considered sovereign power and defence.

What is remarkable is not that the the Foreign Office, under this government in general and Jack Straw in particular would have sought to put such words in Her Majesty's mouth in such a place, nor especially at such a time. Rather the truly startling realisation from this statement is the depth of deceit and retreat from previously held convictions this must represent within the opposition Conservatives.

Such a sweeping statement could not possibly have been made, in my opinion, without the prior concurrence of the main opposition party. Michael Howard's adherence to the principle of a European Defence separate from Nato was signalled in his commitment to the EPP group the day after it published its manifesto proclaiming such a goal. Repeated attempts by myself to learn the truth on this matter, detailed on the blog 'Teetering Tories' have been met with silence.

Is there one honest conservative MP now left in Westminster who will speak out for the mass of people within Britain who still believe in Britain? It appears not.

There is opposition within the country, it merely has no political voice!

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 11:14:00 AM

 
Queen Puts Seal of Approval on European Defence?

The following is a quotation from a speech by the Queen to the French Senate:-

"We have both made the choice of Europe and the European Union as a principal vehicle for our economic and political aspirations," she said. "For both of us this does not, nor should not, in any way weaken our strong ties of friendship with the United States. These are complementary relationships.

"More than ever we are working to make Europe's voice in the world count, and to ensure that Europe's diplomacy can be backed up by military credibility where necessary and where Nato are not engaged."

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 10:08:00 AM

 
More Comment and Speculation on Blair's Referendum

The Scotsman examines the angles in this item from today's paper, linked from here.

posted by Martin at 4/07/2004 10:03:00 AM

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

 
EU Irrelevance and Waste - Read Today's EU Press Report

I have made it my frequent and wearisome duty to regularly check the daily press briefings of those who waste our time and money in the EU Press Office, issuing non-news of non-events but more often non-achievements. Today's however almost surpasses the surreal, and I recommend a direct visit from this link. A small flavour:-

Stravros Dimas discusses gender equality with European and national parliamentarians

Stavros Dimas, European Commissioner for Employment and Social Affairs, will today participate in a meeting with the European Parliament's Women's Rights Committee and the network of parliamentary Committees dealing with equality issues in the Member States. The meeting with also be addressed by Willie O'Dea, Irish minister with special responsibility for Equality Issues. Major themes for the meeting include women in the European Parliament elections, gender equality in the draft constitutional treaty and gender equality legislation outside the labour market.

I wonder what 'Gender Equality Legislation outside the labour market' might involve!

posted by Martin at 4/06/2004 07:54:00 PM

 
Murdoch's News Corp moving to the USA

This report comes from Bloomberg News Corp. to Reincorporate in U.S. to Boost Shares

posted by Martin at 4/06/2004 06:10:00 PM

 
The Sun Speculates on a Referendum.

This from this morning's best selling tabloid (linked here):-

Quote
Sun Editorial:
THE BIG ONE
IS Tony Blair about to take the biggest gamble of his political life?
We sincerely hope so.
Unquote

The newspaper's political editor Trevor Kavanagh in another piece is more positive of its theory, under the title: Blair 'set to stage EU referendum' he says:-

Quote
TONY Blair is plotting a bombshell referendum to decide if Britain is IN or OUT of Europe, it emerged last night.

The Prime Minister wants to tackle the Tories head on over the issue he believes will define his premiership.

The timing ­ and the referendum question itself ­ has yet to be fixed.

He has to decide whether to stage a free-standing vote this autumn ­ or turn the next general election into a referendum.

The move would be a victory for The Sun, which has campaigned for voters to be given a say.

Senior ministers including Foreign Secretary Jack Straw support a public vote.

But it would be a massive gamble for a PM beset on all sides by questions of trust.

Unquote

posted by Martin at 4/06/2004 09:24:00 AM

Monday, April 05, 2004

 
The Cost of European Erosion of our System of Justice

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Council of europe and ECHR

Thursday, 1 April 2004.
Council of Europe and ECHR: UK Contribution to Budget

Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:

For each of the financial years from 1980-81 to 2003-04, what was:

1 Apr 2004 : Column WA176

(a) the total amount of the United Kingdom's contributions to the budget of the Council of Europe;

(b) the percentage of this contribution which is attributable to the budget of the European Court of Human Rights; and

(c) the amount of the United Kingdom's contribution to the budget of the Court.[HL2029]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): The total amount of the United Kingdom's contributions to the budget of the Council of Europe from 1999 and the percentage and amount of this contribution which is attributable to the budget of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is as follows:

1 Apr 2004 : Column WA175

Year Total amount of UK contributions to budget of the Council of Europe Percentage of this contribution attributable to the ECtHR Total UK contribution to the budget of the ECtHR
1999 Euros 23,110,012.00 = Ls15,389,233.53 13.87% Euros 3,206,360.00 = Ls2,135,153.49
2000 Euros 24,281,623.77 = Ls14,535,542.51 13.33% Euros 3,236,980.00 = Ls1,937,731.22
2001 Euros 24,668,115.43 = Ls15,348,503.87 13.34% Euros 3,290,980.00 = Ls2,047,648.08
2002 Euros 26,094,258.29 = Ls16,026,445.33 13.37% Euros 3,488,130.00 = Ls2,142,322.81
2003 Euros 27,228,627.05 = Ls18,783,545.15 13.18% Euros 3,589,920.00 = Ls2,476,490.07
2004 Euros 28,495,592.29 = Ls19,239,478.96 12.86% Euros 3,664,330.00 = Ls2,474,059.82

posted by Martin at 4/05/2004 09:27:00 PM

 
Weekend Finance Ministers Discussed Cuts

Reality creeps up on no growth EU (see post below). This report from EUobserver at last shows some sign of realism creeping up on the nascent evil empire. The finance ministers at their weekend Irish racecourse meeting did at least seemed prepared to start discussing budget cuts. A visit to today's Midday Express news releases from the Commission, make clear that such sense is a long way from reaching that body.

posted by Martin at 4/05/2004 08:47:00 PM

 
Euroland's Real Agony

Below is one table from a very interesting set of statistics issued by the EU Commission's Press Office today, others are available from this link.

Deflated Turnover for Total Retail Trade seasonally adjusted

(Base year 2000)

02/03 03/03 04/03 05/03 06/03 07/03 08/03 09/03 10/03 11/03 12/03 01/04 02/04
Euro-zone 102.4 101.0 102.9 101.8 101.6 102.4 101.6 102.1 103.0 101.0 101.3 103.6 102.8
EU15 104.9 104.1 105.7 104.8 105.2 105.5 105.0 105.6 106.4 105.3 105.6 107.2 106.9
BE 99.0 98.3 99.0 100.2 97.9 100.0 98.4 97.0 100.9 97.7 97.1 101.2 :
DK 107.4 106.5 107.2 107.0 108.4 107.9 109.1 107.1 109.6 108.9 108.4 106.1 :
DE 99.7 97.3 99.9 98.1 99.2 98.4 96.9 97.9 98.8 96.1 96.0 97.4 98.0
EL 112.3 113.7 112.3 112.8 112.9 113.3 117.2 115.8 115.0 116.7 115.2 : :
ES 107.2 106.2 108.2 108.4 108.7 108.7 107.9 108.9 109.9 109.4 110.3 111.1 111.7
FR 105.3 104.4 105.6 104.4 104.8 105.0 105.5 104.5 105.8 104.9 105.7 107.4 106.7
IE 110.4 110.7 113.4 109.2 113.6 108.3 110.6 113.4 114.8 113.7 114.7 c c
IT 99.1 98.7 99.1 99.0 97.9 98.4 97.7 98.3 98.1 97.6 97.8 97.8 c
LU 113.3 110.9 112.8 111.4 114.7 111.4 111.7 110.0 117.2 114.6 : : :
NL 103.3 98.8 99.0 97.9 98.4 97.8 98.3 97.4 98.6 97.5 97.5 99.1 98.2
AT 100.4 97.4 102.0 99.4 98.7 97.4 96.6 97.1 100.4 94.9 97.5 100.5 :
PT 101.6 97.2 100.2 100.6 97.4 104.2 102.1 103.4 103.4 102.0 99.7 103.0 103.5
FI 111.3 109.7 110.0 110.7 111.3 112.0 113.3 112.3 114.4 113.8 112.0 116.1 c
SE 109.0 109.6 111.3 110.5 114.3 112.8 112.9 113.8 114.5 113.8 114.2 114.4 117.4
UK 113.1 113.7 114.8 114.1 116.3 115.9 116.0 117.6 118.3 118.8 118.1 120.2 120.3


: Data not available c: Confidential

posted by Martin at 4/05/2004 08:35:00 PM

 
The Entente Cordiale

On 25th January I posted an item on Anglo/German relations which discussed and linked to the above Treaty, the one hundredth anniversary of which will be marked this week by a visit of the Queen to France. The implications of that Treaty were grave for the entire world and we live with the consequences even today. I have decided to open the week by repeating that post:-

Quote
Anglo/German Relations

BBC World Television is screening several times this weekend a well produced documentary tracing the background to present day relations between Britain and Germany.

My work of fiction Millennium Blitzkrieg, mostly written in the year 1997, was set in the year 2014 to mark the defining one hundredth year anniversary of the outbreak of The Great War. Almost co-incidentally I recently finished reading Barbara W. Tuchman's Pullitzer Prize-Winning history of the World War I's first month, 'The Guns of August', published by Ballentine Books New York (April 1994 edition) ISBN 0 - 345 -38623- X.

On page 310 Tuchman quotes Emile Verharen, a Belgian poet, writing on his country's invasion, who: before 1914, had a flaming dedication to socialist and humanitarian ideals that were then believed to erase national lines. He prefaced his account with this dedication: "He who writes this book in which hate is not hidden was formerly a pacifist?.For him no disillusionment was ever greater or more sudden. It struck him with such violence that he thought himself no longer the same man. And yet, as it seems to him that in this state of hatred his conscience becomes diminished, he dedicates these pages, with emotion, to the man he used to be."

The Great War was the defining event of the last century and consequently, to some extent surely has affected the lives of all those who have lived within the continent of Europe or its off-lying islands ever since. The curtain-raiser to that bloody tragedy was the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France, whose one hundredth anniversary we celebrate this spring and summer.

The agreement itself (linked from here) seems an unremarkable historical document mainly concerning the assignment of interests in Morocco to the French and those of Egypt to the British. For this reader the main item of peculiar interest being the opening assertion that the head of Antiquities in Cairo should continue to be a 'savant' of French nationality. The defining reality of a huge British shift of support in favour of the French on mainland Europe seems absent from its almost mundane terms.

Germany had been preparing for war for many years as Tuchman's book and other historical records prove. On pp 311/312 she quotes a German Scientist saying to the US journalist Irwin Cobb: "We Germans are the most industrious, the most earnest, the most educated race in Europe. Russia stands for reaction, England for selfishness and perfidy, France for decadence, Germany for progress German Kultur will enlighten the world and after this war there will never be another."

That statement was made during August 1914, when the pre-planned and meticulously executed atrocities against the Belgian population were being effected by the invading German army. (see pages 173-4 and 225-70 and 313-322).

A German businessman sitting with them had more specific aims. Russia was to be so humbled that never again could the Slav peril threaten Europe; Great Britain was to be utterly crushed and deprived of her navy, India, and Egypt; France was to pay an indemnity from which she would never recover; Belgium was to yield her seacoast because Germany needed ports on the English Channel; Japan was to be punished in due time. An alliance of 'all the Teutonic and Scandinavian races in Europe, including Bulgaria, will hold absolute dominion from the North Sea to the Black. Europe will have a new map and Germany will be at the centre of it.'

"The gains Germany expected to gain were restated by Mathias Erzberger, Leader of the Catholic Centrum party, they were, to utilize victory to gain control of the European continent for 'all time.' All demands at the peace table were to be based on this premise for which three conditions were necessary: abolition of neutral states at Germany's borders, the end of England's 'intolerable hegemony' in world affairs, and the breaking up of the Russian colossus. Erzberger envisioned a Confederation of European States analogous to the later Mandates system under the League of Nations. Some states would be under German 'guidance'; others, such as Poland and Baltic group annexed from Russia, would be under German sovereignty for 'all time', with possible representation but no voting power in the Reichstag. Erzberger was not sure which category Belgium would fit into, but in either case Germany was to retain military control over the entire country and over the French coast from Dunkirk down to and including Boulogne and Calais. Germany would also acquire the Briey-Longwy iron basin and Belfort in Upper Alsace which she had filed to take in 1870. She would also take the French and Belgian colonies in Africa. Morocco, curiously enough, was excepted as likely to be too much of a drain on Germany's strength. No mention was made of England's colonies, which suggests that Erzberger may have been considering a negotiated settlement with England. In reparations the vanquished nations were to pay at least 10 billion marks for direct war costs, plus enough more to provide veterans' funds, public housing, gifts to generals and statesmen, and pay off Germany's entire national debt, thus obviating taxes on the German people for years to come." (quoted from pages 322/323).

Such was the vision of the future carried by the invading German armies as they ruthlessly breached Belgian neutrality and began the massacres of innocent civilians that later almost seemed to become the hallmark of the twentieth century.

How did these militaristic forces take hold in Germany? Was their inevitability as apparently recognised by the Entente Cordiale the only realistic course for France and Britain?

More importantly which tradition is the father to the dream of today's European Union? The pre-1914 idealistic internationalism of those such as the Belgian poet Emile Verheren or the drive for German hegemony as detailed by Erzberger? The BBC television documentary, showing this weekend, although excellent in many respects, unhappily makes the answer to that question no clearer.

We shall, of course, regularly return to these questions on Ironies until some kind of answer can be teased forth. We believe the next few months will be crucial and that the centenary of the Entente Cordiale and its celebration could well provide some further clues!

Unquote

posted by Martin at 4/05/2004 08:23:00 AM

 
The Entente Cordiale

On 25th January I posted an item on Anglo/German relations which discuseed and linked to the above Treaty the one hundredth anniversary of which will be marked this week by a visit of the Queen to France. The implications of that Treaty were grave for the entire world and we live with the consequences even today. I have decided to open the week by repeating that post:-

Quote
Anglo/German Relations

BBC World Television is screening several times this weekend a well produced documentary tracing the background to present day relations between Britain and Germany.

My work of fiction Millennium Blitzkrieg, mostly written in the year 1997, was set in the year 2014 to mark the defining one hundredth year anniversary of the outbreak of The Great War. Almost co-incidentally I recently finished reading Barbara W. Tuchman’s Pullitzer Prize-Winning history of the World War I's first month, ‘The Guns of August’, published by Ballentine Books New York (April 1994 edition) ISBN 0 - 345 -38623- X.

On page 310 Tuchman quotes Emile Verharen, a Belgian poet, writing on his country's invasion, who: before 1914, had a flaming dedication to socialist and humanitarian ideals that were then believed to erase national lines. He prefaced his account with this dedication: “He who writes this book in which hate is not hidden was formerly a pacifist….For him no disillusionment was ever greater or more sudden. It struck him with such violence that he thought himself no longer the same man. And yet, as it seems to him that in this state of hatred his conscience becomes diminished, he dedicates these pages, with emotion, to the man he used to be.”

The Great War was the defining event of the last century and consequently, to some extent surely has affected the lives of all those who have lived within the continent of Europe or its off-lying islands ever since. The curtain-raiser to that bloody tragedy was the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France whose one hundredth anniversary we celebrate this spring and summer.

The agreement itself (linked from here) seems an unremarkable historical document mainly concerning the assignment of interests in Morocco to the French and those of Egypt to the British. For this reader the main item of peculiar interest being the opening assertion that the head of Antiquities in Cairo should continue to be a 'savant’ of French nationality. The defining reality of a huge British shift of support in favour of the French on mainland Europe seems absent from its almost mundane terms.

Germany had been preparing for war for many years as Tuchman’s book and other historical records prove. On pp 311/312 she quotes a German Scientist saying to the US journalist Irwin Cobb: “We Germans are the most industrious, the most earnest, the most educated race in Europe. Russia stands for reaction, England for selfishness and perfidy, France for decadence, Germany for progress German Kultur will enlighten the world and after this war there will never be another.”

That statement was made during August 1914, when the pre-planned and meticulously executed atrocities against the Belgian population were being effected by the invading German army. (see pages 173-4 and 225-70 and 313-322).

A German businessman sitting with them had more specific aims. Russia was to be so humbled that never again could the Slav peril threaten Europe; Great Britain was to be utterly crushed and deprived of her navy, India, and Egypt; France was to pay an indemnity from which she would never recover; Belgium was to yield her seacoast because Germany needed ports on the English Channel; Japan was to be punished in due time. An alliance of “all the Teutonic and Scandinavian races in Europe, including Bulgaria, will hold absolute dominion from the North Sea to the Black. Europe will have a new map and Germany will be at the centre of it.”

“The gains Germany expected to gain were restated by Mathias Erzberger, Leader of the Catholic Centrum party, they were, to utilize victory to gain control of the European continent for “all time.” All demands at the peace table were to be based on this premise for which three conditions were necessary: abolition of neutral states at Germany’s borders, the end of England’s “intolerable hegemony” in world affairs, and the breaking up of the Russian colossus. Erzberger envisioned a Confederation of European States analogous to the later Mandates system under the League of Nations. Some states would be under German “guidance”; others, such as Poland and Baltic group annexed from Russia, would be under German sovereignty for “all time,” with possible representation but no voting power in the Reichstag. Erzberger was not sure which category Belgium would fit into, but in either case Germany was to retain military control over the entire country and over the French coast from Dunkirk down to and including Boulogne and Calais. Germany would also acquire the Briey-Longwy iron basin and Belfort in Upper Alsace which she had filed to take in 1870. She would also take the French and Belgian colonies in Africa. Morocco, curiously enough, was excepted as likely to be too much of a drain on Germany’s strength. No mention was made of England’s colonies, which suggests that Erzberger may have been considering a negotiated settlement with England. In reparations the vanquished nations were to pay at least 10 billion marks for direct war costs, plus enough more to provide veterans’ funds, public housing, gifts to generals and statesmen, and pay off Germany’s entire national debt, thus obviating taxes on the German people for years to come.” (quoted from pages 322/323).

Such was the vision of the future carried by the invading German armies as they ruthlessly breached Belgian neutrality and began the massacres of innocent civilians that later almost seemed to become the hallmark of the twentieth century.

How did these militaristic forces take hold in Germany? Was their inevitability as apparently recognised by the Entente Cordiale the only realistic course for France and Britain?

More importantly which tradition is the father to the dream of today’s European Union? The pre-1914 idealistic internationalism of those such as the Belgian poet Emile Verheren or the drive for German hegemony as detailed by Erzberger? The BBC television documentary, showing this weekend, although excellent in many respects, unhappily makes the answer to that question no clearer.

We shall, of course, regularly return to these questions on Ironies until some kind of answer can be teased forth. We believe the next few months will be crucial and that the centenary of the Entente Cordiale and its celebration could well provide some further clues!

Unquote

posted by Martin at 4/05/2004 08:22:00 AM

Sunday, April 04, 2004

 
Buddhist Monk Block Needed for European Parliament!

Reuters News Alert just in and linked here indicates the balance of power in Sri Lanka after the elections could be held by an unusual independent grouping!

posted by Martin at 4/04/2004 09:54:00 AM

Saturday, April 03, 2004

 
Lib-Dem in Lords Scotch Hopes of Constitutional Block

The ragingly eurofederalist newspaper, totally inappropriately calling itself - The Independent headlines this item by Marie Woolf "Lib-Dem peers offer hope of constitution breakthrough" but the effect is clear New Labour and Kennedy's peers will between them destroy the last remaining independence of the country, we quote:-

"Government hopes of pushing the European Union constitution through Parliament received a boost yesterday after Liberal Democrat peers decided to allow a free vote on the issue in the House of Lords.

The decision of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords not to oppose the Bill contradicts the party's position in the Commons, where Lib Dem MPs plan to vote against Tony Blair because he does not support a referendum on the EU constitution. Lib Dem peers in the Lords are expected to vote according to their conscience, and this could deliver enough votes to push the constitution through.

posted by Martin at 4/03/2004 10:21:00 AM

Friday, April 02, 2004

 
EU Fails in All it Attempts

With Europe's economies generally in a state of dire crisis and the mechanism of the Stability Pact, designed to protect the growth destroying Euro currency, in terminal collapse through neglect, the EU's Finance Ministers meet in Dublin this weekend to apparently argue over which European will get the plum job of next Head of the International Monetary Fund. The future budget of the corrupted commission is also supposed to be on the agenda, but will it even be discussed? This report is from EU Business a brief quote:-

'Diplomats say that in a quid pro quo deal, Germany would get French backing for a German to be given a proposed new job of "super commissioner" responsible for the European Union's economic, industrial and trade policy'.

posted by Martin at 4/02/2004 05:46:00 PM

 
Journalist's Declare Brussels Unfit to Protect Press Freedoms

Following the Brussels 'freedom of press sources' meeting mentioned in the posting beneath this, startling facts regarding the restrictions on Press Freedom in Belgium have emerged. A full description of the meeting may be read from EUobserver linked here, but the following are relevant quotes:-

'Belgium's poor legal protection for journalists makes it "quite inappropriate" for it to host the EU institutions'.....

'According to the IFJ, more attacks on journalistic confidentiality have occurred in Belgium in recent years than in any other Western European country'........

'The situation in Belgium has been highlighted recently by fears of political pressure on journalists after a Brussels-based reporter was arrested by Belgian police'......

'He was questioned for ten hours without legal representation but was eventually released without charge'.......

posted by Martin at 4/02/2004 05:30:00 PM

 
European Press Representatives to Discuss Source Protection

EUobserver reports that there will finally be some action by journalists representative's to consider the grave threats to free speech represented by recent EU actions. This is a quote from a report on today's events:-

Protection of sources
The International Federation of Journalists, the European Federation of Journalists, AGJPB/AVBB (Belgian Journalists Union), the International Press Association, the European Journalism Centre and the Brussels branch of the NUJ will hold a debate to discuss in an open forum serious questions concerning protection of sources sparked by the recent case of the Stern magazine journalist, Hans-Martin Tillack.

posted by Martin at 4/02/2004 08:29:00 AM

 
Blair's Cards to Consolidate his Control

The suppression of civil liberties in Britain under Blair's increasingly dictatorial regime advanced a step further yesterday, it was announced that the PM had overruled a compromise previously agreed and had authorised the Home Office to proceed with his much desired compulsory ID Card scheme. The Daily Telegraph report is linked from here.

posted by Martin at 4/02/2004 08:22:00 AM

Thursday, April 01, 2004

 
Europe's voters opt for paralysis and stagnation

by Anatole Kaletsky

We post the concluding paragraphs of today's Opinion column by the regular columnist of The Times who suddenly appears considerably more realistic about the EU.

It is a pity the governing council of the ECB have not also taken a glimpse at reality without their rose-tinted eye-glasses.

Quote

The questionable legitimacy of so many European leaders makes it harder to pursue economic reforms that might temporarily hurt important sectors of the electorate, especially the protected workers of the public sector. But behind the crisis of legitimacy in much of Europe, there seem to be two deeper forces.

The first is the growing tension between national and pan-European institutions. The sense among European voters that unelected officials in Brussels have more power over their lives than their national politicians, has naturally produced a toxic combination of disillusionment, frustration and political confusion. The growing power of the European Commission and the European Central Bank has also created a sense of paralysis among national politicians and encouraged them to shrug off their responsibilities.

The second force for Europe¹s paralysis in economic policy is even more fundamental. Most voters in Europe see no urgent reason to reform their economies, reduce their social safety-nets or even question the wisdom of the bureaucratic elites who have been running the EU with such apparent success for the past 50 years.

The quality of life remains pretty good in most of Europe, especially in Germany and France and especially for the older people who, because of the collapse in birth rates, now dominate politics. In Germany and Italy over-60s account for 30 per cent of the voting-age populations and a much higher proportion of the people who actually vote. The comparable figures in America and Britain are only 20 and 25 per cent.

Older Europeans are understandably more interested in preserving their comfortable lifestyles and living off the fat accumulated in the golden years of postwar growth, rather than creating the conditions for dynamic economies in the future. They are not too bothered if young people remain unemployed, especially as many of the jobless are not their grandchildren but young people from minority ethnic groups. Voters who are either retired or approaching retirement naturally elect politicians who promise to guarantee over-generous pensions, even if this means saddling future generations of taxpayers with unsupportable debts.

The economic stagnation and political paralysis now settling on Europe will last not for years but for decades or even a whole generation. After all, a neat arrangement of deckchairs was the least that the elderly passengers on the Titanic had the right to expect.

Unquote

posted by Martin at 4/01/2004 06:25:00 PM

 
The Netherlands Set to Breach Stability Pact as Hearings Date Set

Oral arguments will be heard on 28th April as to whether France and Germany should be zapped with the huge fines the Maastricht Treaty and the G & S Pact clearly intend they should, for clearly and repeatedly breaking the deficit limits. Holland seemingly tiring of getting the two largest euroland members to play by the rules, have now also decided to apparently ignore the limits. The linked report is from Deutsche Welle.

The dollar weakened again following the no-change ECB interest rate decision and in light of the looming US deficit. Wait till Europe's literal beggar-my-neighbour economic policies really turn to leapfrog in determining which ex-nation can outspend the other the fastest and thus get more spend for their depreciating euro.

posted by Martin at 4/01/2004 03:30:00 PM

 
QUESTION: IS THE BBC BIASED IN ITS EU REPORTING AND COMMENT?

ANSWER - FROM THE HORSES MOUTH:

"The media is extremely effective .. The UK media approach is broadly sceptical [presumably the press].... we try in Brussels to break that cycle of scepticism. The BBC's job is to reflect the European perspective .. And make news less sceptical. That is why the BBC has such a big bureau in Brussels."

Jonathon Chapman,
BBC, "Senior World News Reporter",
(previously "Senior Europe Producer" in Brussels)
in a speech to a media seminar at the Malta Press Club in March 2004.

posted by Martin at 4/01/2004 02:10:00 PM

 
Littlejohn in The Sun

A DICTATOR NOT A DEMOCRAT

EXPLAIN this.

Why is the proper response to a terrorist outrage in Madrid handing over the running of Britain to an unelected, unaccountable bunch of foreigners?

In which respect will tearing up 1,000 years of history and surrendering this country's independence help prevent a homicide bomber blowing himself up on the London Underground?

Correct. It isn't and it won't.

You know that, I know that, Tony Blair knows that.

But that hasn't prevented him using the Spanish slaughter to foist upon us an alien constitution which will change fundamentally and forever the way we are governed.

Labour's latest mantra is parroting "opportunism" every time Michael Howard has the audacity to challenge them.

But what could be more opportunist than using the murder of Spanish men, women and children to force an unwanted, unnecessary, undemocratic political straightjacket on the unwilling people of Britain?

Blair should be ashamed of himself.

He is proposing to rush this through without a referendum. It is the act of a dictator not a democrat.

Only three months ago he said there was no need for the new European constitution.

Now it is a matter of urgency.

He insists it is a "tidying-up" exercise, nothing that we should worry our silly heads about.

Anyone who argues otherwise is "dumb", he adds contemptuously.

In that case the leaders of every other country in Europe must be pretty dumb.

They all acknowledge that the constitution is about creating a single political entity and ceding to central European control powers over everything from immigration to law enforcement.

Blair is lying. Not spinning, not economical with the truth.

Lying.

When the Poles and the Spanish scuppered the constitution first time round, Blair pretended to be relieved.

He was nothing of the sort. He was secretly devastated.

From day one his ambition has been the destruction of the United Kingdom as we know it.

The aim has always been to carve us up and shackle us in a socialist superstate, from which there is no escape.

Devolution was stage one.

Splitting up England into pointless regional parliaments is next.

Blair has already neutered Westminster.

He treats the Commons with disdain and packs the Lords with his cronies and placemen.

All this has been working towards a single goal ­ the end of Britain as it has existed for a millennium.

Blair is determined to strip us of our powers of self-government.

He wants to ensure that never again will a Conservative government be able to reverse his reforms or impose independent, free-market solutions.

Since he arrived in Downing Street in 1997, every effort has been towards that end.

Constituency boundaries have been shifted so that even if the two main parties finish with identical shares of the national vote, Labour will end up with a majority of more than 50.

Now he's trying to scrap the ballot box and replace it with easily riggable Internet and postal voting, so that Labour activists can "help" people fill in their ballot papers.

He has heaped "human rights" law upon us and replaced parliamentary democracy with judicial activism.

Elected politicians have had their freedom to act constrained by appointed judges.

And who appoints the judges? Blair's old flatmate Charlie Falconer, who succeeded Blair's old boss Derry Irvine.

It has always been a principle of our political system that no government can introduce legislation which a future administration cannot repeal.

Under Blair, that has gone out of the window.

If he gets away with signing the constitution, all our laws will be made abroad and will not require the consent of the British people.

They will be almost impossible to overturn.

All this is being railroaded through in the name of fighting terrorism.

After the Madrid bombing, the Spanish people vented their fury by turfing out their government.

Once the European constitution is adopted it won't make the slightest bit of difference.

They will not get the government they voted for. They, like us, will get the government they are given.

Madrid's dead deserve a better memorial.

Richard Littlejohn linked from here.

posted by Martin at 4/01/2004 11:21:00 AM

 
Deckchairs on the Titanic

The Daily Telgraph adequately summarises Jaques Chirac's Government reshuffle, following the electoral stebacks of the past two weekends, in the phrase of our headline.
While Britain's political situation seems dire indeed, looking over the Channel, amazingly enough, only seems to show that matters could be even worse.

The paper's Leading Article may be read from here. It is titled Chirac governs on behalf of soi-même, not France now that is something both countries have exactly in common, totally self-interested and self-obsessed Heads of Government!!

posted by Martin at 4/01/2004 09:46:00 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!.