The Nice Treaty implemented 3 February 2003- consolidated version on EUobserver.com
London
sees its favored
relationship with
EU
diplomats in
With
attention focused on wall-to-wall coverage of Saddam and Soham, you may have
missed the decision of MEPs to award themselves a nice little Christmas
present in the form of a 30 per cent pay rise. British members see their
salaries jump from £55,000 to £72,000 overnight. The deal is supposed to
be that the huge increase is in return for substantial cuts in, er,
"undocumented" expenses -- in plain English, fiddling. In future, for
instance, MEPs will have to provide genuine receipts for travel expenses. You
might ask why they have been able to get away with it up until now. And why they
should get another £17,000 a year on their wages as an incentive to stop them
-- without putting too fine a point on it -- stealing. That's just the way
Almost
unnoticed last weekend, while all eyes were on the breakdown of talks
on the new European Union constitution, the same heads of government in
The
European Union has ambitions to play a bigger role on the world scene, but where
is the money to back such involvement to come from? A German strategy paper highlights this problem and
warns that financing European Union foreign and security operations could become
problematic. (EUobserver.com
All
European Union law will in future be decided in public,
after foreign ministers agreed reforms to open up
Tony Blair, was elected to Parliament in the constituency of Sedgefield at the General Election on the 9th of June 1983. He had previously stood at the Beaconsfield by-election in 1982. In his Sedgefield Election Address he stated: "We'll negotiate a withdrawal from the E.E.C. which has drained our natural resources and destroyed jobs." SOVEREIGNTY has obtained a copy of Blair's 1983 Sedgefield Election Address and we reproduce the 4 pages in full at (13/8/03)
AS
MUCH as £70 billion is being wasted by the
A
letter sent by one of John Prescott’s Regional Governance White Paper Team (Mr
John Powell) in January this year said 'Proposals for regional assemblies are entirely the
The EU ban on most vitamins and minerals is also aimed to do most harm to Britain as we are the top vitamin-takers in Europe (Telegraph 4/7/03)
At
the first meeting of the Bilderberg
Group, 50 years ago at the Bilderberg Hotel it was resolved to create a strong
united
"
Those in the North- East,
who have so far been the most vocal supporters
of regionalisation, will be dismayed
to discover that the proposed
authorities will not gain even the limited substantive powers that the
existing assemblies enjoy. They will not
be able to scrap tuition fees as in
People
are annoyed about the EU instructions to the Government to change
their policies and do daft things. For example, the winter fuel payment was
introduced to help old people in cold weather. As the Minister will be
aware and he probably approves, being the sort of person that he is the
EU instructed us that we had to make
that payment to people in the overseas territories
of the EU, including those in Guadalupe, Martinique and other
places with year-round sunshine. That costs the taxpayer £10 million a
year on the Government's figures but what can we do about it? (Hansard
Sir T Taylor,House of Commons Debate on the EU Treaty
Referendum
Denis
Macshane,
Following
reports today that
The establishment of state-funded
pan-European parties is something
that federalists desperately want. After all, they say, we are
about to adopt a new constitution, turning the EU into a unitary state.
It would hardly be appropriate to
carry on with hundreds of little parties, each
fighting a self-contained "regional" campaign.
To qualify for recognition, a party would need to secure representation
in at least one quarter of the
member states. It would have to fight elections
on a common and binding manifesto across
Although Ministers deny it, there seems little doubt that the
drive towards regional assemblies is
at least partly motivated by a vision of a more
continental-style settlement in the
A
dangerous idea is gaining ground in Britain, especially among Euro-sceptics.
It goes something like this. The war in
In
an interview with Die Welt, the EU's high representative for Common Foreign and
Security Policy, Javier Solana, offers some suggestions for how the current
crisis in
The cross-party Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB) is calling the EU' s proposed new rules on the funding of pan-European political parties an 'affront to democracy'. Lord Stoddart of Swindon, CIB's Chairman said: "Only those parties which are represented in three member states and achieve a minimum of five per cent of the vote will be entitled to the funding. This is clearly aimed at cementing the position of the major European political parties and making them more reliant on the EU for funding. Smaller political parties, which are much more likely to contain opponents of the EU will be the wiped out. The EU is attempting to destroy its political opponents and bring the rest under its full control. It is an affront to democracy. "Those parties who want to qualify for financial support from EU central funds will have to ensure that they 'respect the basic purposes of the Union with regard to freedom, democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law'. Naturally, this rather vague wording gives the EU carte blanche to decide who does and who does not meet these standards. This would remove the last shred of democratic legitimacy from the European Parliament". (19 Feb 2003 News release from CIB)
Tony Blair s open letter, signed with seven other EU and East European leaders, has annoyed other EU leaders intensely. The unhappiness over the letter goes far deeper than has been made public, according to reports. It is being whispered darkly that José-Maria Aznár, Silvio Berlusconi and Tony Blair might have violated the terms of the EU treaties, which require that no EU state undermine the common external position of the EU, and that no one work against the interests of the Union . Like the other heads of state and government countries which did not sign the letter, the Greek prime minister who is currently president of the Council - was neither asked nor even informed about the preparation of the text. This has caused especial annoyance. The EU foreign ministers had, moreover, agreed a common position on Iraq only two days before the letter was published. This might mean, according to EU legal experts, that the government leaders who signed the letter were clearly in breach of their obligations under the terms of the treaty. The special summit might therefore be turned into a Star Chamber for Tony and the other miscreants. Few EU governments believe that the decision to sign the letter was as sudden as has been claimed: there are signs that it may have been planned around 19th January, just as France and Germany were announcing their Schulterschluß on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Elysée Treaty. [Die Welt, 1st February 2003] (European Foundation Intelligence Digest Issue no. 160 6 Feb 2003)
Summary of responses to the Government's White Paper on Regional Governance
|
Views on elected regional assemblies |
In Favour |
Opposed |
Undecided |
|
Local auth./interest groups/bus.orgs./trade un./academics/public bodies other groups (459 responses) |
28% (128) |
28% (128) |
44% (203) |
|
General Public (712 responses) |
7% (49) |
72% (512) |
21% (151) |
(13 February 2003)
A broader application of the Gaullist balance of power theory was to create a united Europe that could serve as the balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. For France, this was an incredibly complex issue. On one side, given France's relative weakness, it made geopolitical sense. On the other side, given France's desire to never again lose its sovereignty, it made little sense. From a purely economic standpoint, there was little choice. The result is the current bizarre structure of Europe. On one side, Europe has become a real concept: Much of Europe is integrated into a single economic entity, with a single currency and central bank. Yet at the same time, none of the members, least of all France, has given up sovereignty. The only unified defense force and policy is centered on NATO, which is incongruent with the European Union. In a conceptual sense, the idea of Europe is chaotic, with different aspects on every subject. Yet it matches neatly France's own complexity -- its aspiration to lead a united Europe, its fear of abandoning its national sovereignty to others. More than anything, the conceptual crazy-quilt of Europe resembles the French dilemma. For France, the most important task is to limit unbridled American power. Without that, its worst nightmare, loss of sovereignty, rears its head while its deepest hope -- reaching again for European power -- is blocked. Therefore, the only logical step for France is to try to create a coalition to block the Americans, and try to stand fast as U.S. power erodes that coalition. For France, the time since the end of the Cold War has been a bad dream. The time since Sept. 11, 2001, has been an utter nightmare. France's behavior is inherently contradictory. On one side, it wants to build an anti-American coalition. On the other side, coalition building simply on the basis of national self-interest is hard when dealing with a power the size of the United States. French recourse to multilateralism, ironic in the light of its Gaullist past and national imperatives, points to France's dilemma and its limits. France wants to build a concert of nations in which its own national sovereignty is guaranteed and its right to pursue its national interests is recognized. Therefore, France's operational pattern is to resist anything that impinges on its understanding of its national interest. The problem is that its national interests cannot be achieved alone, and therefore it requires accommodation. Its national interest is torn between resistance and accommodation. This creates a pattern that is unsettling to all concerned. The Iraqis, who thought they could rely on France, will be surprised that France, in the end, ultimately will prove to be an ineffective defender. The United States, which sees France increasingly as an adversary, will be bemused as the country realigns itself and eventually claims -- and indeed will believe -- that it has always been in the last position it occupies. (Stratfor.com Weekly 12/02/03)
Our constitution has a doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy, which means that an Act of Parliament "trumps" (over-rides) any legislation from an inferior source, such as a ministerial order. And this surely has to be so, since the ministers are the servants of Parliament, else otherwise they could be its masters, and if the government became the master of Parliament we would no longer have a Parliamentary democracy. The European Communities Act 72 tried to bind future Parliaments, not directly, but indirectly, by granting powers to inferior instruments to over-ride future Acts of Parliament. This is unconstitutional. In fact in the Metric Martyrs case the lower judge, Morgan, tried to deny the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy quite openly, by saying it was a relic of the past. The higher judge, Laws, tried to slither round the difficulty more subtly, by inventing a new class of Act, the so-called "constitutional Act", and to put the ECA72 into this category, which he then qualified as being "beyond implied repeal" (a rule he had just invented). To do this he completely disregarded the assurances given at the time, back in 1972, that the ECA would have no effect on our constitution or our sovereignty. In both cases these two judges abused their office by taking on powers they did not have, to deny, or to twist the constitution. And they did this in order to submit the country to the will of an alien law-maker located outside the Queen's dominions, in defiance of our Queen-in-Parliament's prerogatives, and in breach of their oaths. They should be removed from the bench forthwith, at the very least. In earlier times they would have been locked in the Tower. (T Dick-Erikson e-mail 31/12/02)
Bishop of Exeter. After a harvest festival service, over which he presided, he was approached by some members of the congregation who asked him why he continued to chair the SW Constitutional Convention when so many people are opposed to elected assemblies. He replied "They are Nazis". Somewhat taken aback, the members asked him if was saying that all those opposed to regional assemblies were Nazis and he said "Yes". (Save Our Sovereignty November 2002)
Declassified American government documents confirm suspicions that the US worked aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. A memo from the European section of the US State Department, dated 11 June, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth. It recommended suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable". (eurorealist@smartgroups.com18/12/02 )
The drive for regional government in Britain began in 1970. Edward Heath put forward the idea of regional funding by Brussels as a way to compensate Britain for the huge financial disadvantage that it would suffer under the Common Agricultural Policy because it imported much more food than other Common Market countries. This led in 1975 to the setting up of Brussels's Regional Development Fund. In the early 1990s Britain was told that, under new rules, it would be difficult for local authorities to apply for these funds unless there were regional bodies in place to receive them. This prompted John Gummer to set up "government offices" in each of England's eight "regions" in 1994. In 1998 these were merged by John Prescott with his new regional development agencies, each with its own non- elected assembly. Mr Prescott had been a champion of regional government since he was leader of the Labour group of MEPs in the European Parliament in the 1970s. His present drive to transform these assemblies into parliaments is merely a final step in the process. Any link between the EU and regional government, however, is conspicuously airbrushed out of the picture. At a recent public meeting in Horsham, Sussex, another academic champion of regional government, Dr Lawrence Silverman, derided a member of the audience who referred to the connection as being "outside the world of reality". This was particularly surprising since Dr Silverman used to work for the politics department at Reading University, run by another Monnet professor; and the chief current task of the South- East Regional Assembly, of which Dr Silverman is vice-chairman, is to draft a "European Strategy for the South-East Region", to cover business strategies, housing and transport, all based on policies originating from Brussels. (Sunday Telegraph - Christopher Booker's Notebook 10/11/2002))
EU voting allotments and procedures will change drastically as a result of the Nice Treaty of 2000. There soon will be a triple-test. First, smaller states -- and most of the applicants are small -- will have proportionally more voting power than larger ones. Post- enlargement, a Poland-led East-10 bloc clearly will have the most voting heft. Second, any policy will have to have the support of a majority of member states in order to be adopted. The East-10 will need only three votes from any of the EU-15 to push through new policies. The final requirement is the kicker: New policies must have the support of states that represent 62 percent of the union's expanded population of 451 million; the East-10 combined contains only 16 percent. So while the East-10 certainly can play a major part in setting -- or blocking -- the agenda, they cannot necessarily force anything through. Neither can anyone else. This puts the union on track for a train wreck so far as quick action is concerned. No bloc -- indeed no two blocs -- will be able to force through any policy, but nearly any single bloc will have the ability to veto any policy. And there is no shortage of topics that will face gritty clashes of interest. The biggest financially will be the Common Agriculture Policy, of which nearly all of the new applicants eventually will be major recipients. The East-10 will be able easily to block any meaningful changes to the system once they attain membership -- thus the existing members' desire to limit its growth now. Poland stands to be the biggest beneficiary of a maintained CAP. Foreign policy will be even more problematic. France and Germany are trying to shift EU policy out from under the United States' shadow, but most of the applicants are stalwartly pro-American and argue for a powerful role for NATO in European security. Again, Poland is the most U.S.-friendly of the applicants. Not all East-10 activity is likely to be in the blocking role, however. On issues of trade liberalization and labor policy, the applicant states are far more market-friendly than most of the existing members. That schism is sure to annoy a France seeking to protect its energy markets, a Germany wanting to keep its companies out of foreign hands and Scandinavians resolute about maintaining their welfare states. An expanded European Union might have more economic weight than it does now, but members' ability to act in concert is in severe doubt. If past enlargements are any indication, it will be a generation before European politics settle into something resembling functionality. That's great news for the United States, which quietly harbors a concern the EU might someday challenge it internationally, but less great for France, for whom that same possibility is its sublime hope. (Stratfor.com 30 Oct 2002)
As result of its EU membership application, Poland is under great pressure from more sinister direction. In 1998 the German parliament passed a resolution declaring that the expulsion of Germans after the war from Poland, Czechoslovakia and other parts of Eastern Europe was "illegal", and that those expelled must have a right of return to their "historic homelands". These demands are being made in the context of the EU process of "regionalisation", which is having effects not only to the east but also in the west, where Belgium's Germans are demanding autonomy and even secession from the Belgian state. These demands are advanced from within Germany by dozens of pressure groups, which often have provincial or central government funding. One such group, Schiff, from the University of Kiel, demands the introduction of "a trans-national civil society" into the Russian territory of Kaliningrad (formerly Koenigsberg), and there are calls for Nato to support the separatist movement there. The main German political parties are supporting such claims in the run-up to the general election. The first Prince Bismarck was of the opinion that states would demand things in the name of Europe which they would never dare ask for themselves. It appears he was right. (Daily Telegraph 27/8/02 Letter from E Spalton)
Mr Stoiber is certainly no Strauss, but neither is he a German Thatcher despite Euro-sceptic rhetoric, a Stoiber government would pursue a similar course of creeping federalism: Bavaria has nothing to fear from the abolition of the nation state in favour of a "Europe of the regions". Stoiber's Germany would try to halve unemployment (now four million) by his home-grown Bavarian formula, combining subsidies and protectionism with an emphasis on meritocracy and entrepreneurship. He seems keener on the microeconomic reforms that Helmut Kohl and Mr Schröder were too timid to attempt, but Bavarian corporatism may not solve the intractable problems of the former East Germany. Overtaxed, over-regulated, bureaucratic Germany will continue to inhibit European growth. The most striking impact of a Stoiber government might be on the vexed question of EU enlargement. Millions of Germans were expelled by the Czechs and Poles after 1945. Mr Stoiber (who is married to one of these former refugees) has campaigned to have the Benes Decrees, the legal basis for the expropriation of the Sudeten Germans, declared illegal. The Czechs are furious that such a revocation should be made a condition of their EU membership, while the Poles are alarmed that similar demands may be made of them. They point out that the Germans themselves carried out far more drastic ethnic cleansing in eastern Europe, with far less claim to legality than the Benes Decrees. To unpick the entire post-war settlement would, besides creating a lawyers' paradise, conjure up the ghosts of ethnic conflict that Mr Stoiber says he wants to lay to rest. These demands have more to do with postponing the accession of Germany's eastern neighbours, with their reserves of cheap labour, than with the human rights of refugees. No German leader wants enlargement, but none dares say so. Mr Stoiber's impending victory means it is time to get out the maps and remind ourselves of quarrels in far away countries between people of whom many of us still know nothing. (Daily Telegraph Filed: 31/07/2002)
The Times ran an article about Baroness Ludford (Lib-Dim life peeress) complaining that she was not able to give up her life peerage. She wants the law changed so that she can. Her reason? So that she could continue to sit in the EU parliament after 2004. Note the word "continue". The point is this: From that date, no member of a national parliament can be a member of the parliament of the EU. One or the other, but not both. The importance of this story is the clear intention of the EU to ensure that members of national parliaments are in future denied access to any public forum in Brussels. Worse, it also means that no MEP can report back directly to his/her national elected representatives. This decision to ban elected national representatives from the EU parliament is yet another salami slice off what little is now left of our once glorious democracy. (A Mote – SANITY 4/4/02)
Small countries have expressed their hostility to the suggestion by Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair that there should be an elected European president. The idea is that they should be chosen by the European Council and should be a former head of state or government of one of the member states. Many people suspect Mr. Blair of wanting this job for himself. But the plan is being rejected by smaller countries, who see it as a way of consolidating the hegemony of bigger member states. Both the Finnish and Austrian heads of government have now said that what they want is for the President of the European Commission to be elected by the European Parliament. In place of the proposed European President (i.e. elected by the Council) the Finns and the Austrians propose a "presidential team" within the Council, composed of representatives from states of different sizes. Denmark, which assumed the presidency of the Council on 1st July, also supports this approach. [Daniel Vernet, Le Monde, 5th July 2002]
Far more worrying is that Mr Blair has been trying on the crown of the European Superstate. The FT today announces: "Britain on Wednesday joined forces with France to demand the creation of a powerful new president of the European Council who, Tony Blair, UK prime minister, believes will become the public face and driving force of Europe. ......Simon Murphy, leader of the British Labour group of MEPs, said after meeting Mr Hain on Wednesday: "Tony Blair's name has certainly been mentioned in connection with the job, but he is doing a good job running Britain at the moment." In a BBC interview on Wednesday, Mr Blair said he would happily go down in history as the prime minister who took Britain into the euro. Many in Brussels recognise that, if Mr Blair won a referendum campaign on the euro, his position in Europe would be unrivalled. " (Warmwell.com 18/5/02)
A re-run of the Nice Treaty referendum in Ireland, without making any changes in the Treaty, could well be in violation of Ireland's Constitution, former Irish Attorney General Mr John Rogers, Senior Counsel said while speaking at a legal summer school in Co Clare. Mr Rogers said that the reaction of Irish and EU leaders to the rejection of the Treaty by the people has been anti-democratic and has done massive damage in Ireland to the image of the EU as a political entity with a democratic base. The State's leaders were in effect telling the people: "You may not like it (the Treaty), but you will have to lump it." There has been an attempt to "put the frighteners" on citizens, said Mr Rogers, and much talk that people had let themselves down by not voting Yes and that they would be faced with the choice of being in or out of the EU. "This is nonsense. We are in the EU and we will remain in the EU and we cannot be expelled from the EU without every member-state of the EU denouncing the treaties which created it." On previous occasions where there have been repeated referendums on similar constitutional issues in Ireland, the legal content of the proposition before the people has been significantly different each time, or else a lapse of many years had occurred between the first and second referendum. That is not the case with the Treaty of Nice. The treaty which Ireland rejected by referendum 7 June last year has now been ratified by all except two EU Member States, Belgium and Italy. Ireland is the only EU State whose Constitution required that a referendum of the people be held. In every other EU State ratification of Nice is by simple parliamentary majority. (EUobserver.com 8/5/02)
In January, the European Commission was the object of an outburst by the coordinator of the Stability Pact for the Balkans, Bodo Hombach. He accused the bureaucratic process of gigantic delays in distributing aid. These were indeed quite stupendous. It took nearly two years for food aid to be delivered and nearly four years for activities connected to human rights to get under way. It took over six and a half years for aid to reach Latin America and over 8 years for aid to reach the Mediterranean. Now the whole aid effort has been centralised in an organisation called EuropeAid, which now disburses nearly 6 million euros per year. Yet despite the alleged improvements, EuropeAid still has some 20 billion euros stuck in the bureaucratic works. This money is the funding for projects that have never come to fruition. For the Balkans, the amount of aid money which remains to be liquidated – i.e. money which has never reached the Balkans - is just under 1 billion euros. There are therefore thousands of projects which have been announced and agreed to but which have simply never been implemented. [Laurent Zecchini, Le Monde, 12th March 2002]
THE time has come for Britain to start pulling out of the European Union, according to Baroness Thatcher. She damns the EU as "fundamentally unreformable". The former Prime Minister says in her new book, serialised in The Times, that most of the problems the world has faced, including Nazism and Marxism, have come from mainland Europe. Enoch Powell had been right when he gave warning in the 1970s that entry to the Common Market involved an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. Lady Thatcher calls for renegotiation of Britains terms of EU membership to enable it to leave the common agricultural and fisheries policies, the common foreign and security policy, and to reassert domestic control over trade policy. She also suggests joining the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, a decision that would be seen as incompatible with EU membership. Although she does not say it in so many words, such moves would mean that Britain was no longer effectively in the EU. In any event the demands, which she urges an incoming Tory government to make as a preliminary step, would be refused by the rest of the EU, leaving Britain no alternative but to quit. She writes in Statecraft: "It is frequently said to be unthinkable that Britain should leave the European Union. But the avoidance of thought about this is a poor substitute for judgment." (The Times March 18, 2002)
UK foreign secretary Jack Straw has come under fire for comments made on Wednesday evening that Britain is prepared to consider dropping its veto on more areas of decision-making in Europe if it is in the national interest, according to the BBC. (EUobserver 14/3/02)
The "Vichy right" is still thriving at the head of the Conservative Party – Ed : Britain should play a "full part" in the European Union, Michael Ancram, shadow foreign secretary, said in a speech last night. Only full cooperation would enable Britain to influence EU policy, he told the Conservative Foreign Affairs Forum. Mr Ancram said that engagement with Europe would mean that Britain could be the 'hinge' between the EU and America. "We should not be afraid to urge the re-opening of the treaties to bring Europe up to date with the modern world, he said. "We should seek constructively to reverse its centralising tendencies." (The Times, 13.3.02)
The Foreign Office has announced its intention to give up Britain's veto over immigration and asylum policy. Peter Hain claimed that the move was required to bring in EU wide standards on the treatment and handling of asylum claims. The move is a complete U-turn on previous policy. Immigration is one of the key areas in which the Government has always maintained it is essential for Britain to retain its veto. Robin Cook said, "the Labour Party has always made clear that it will retain issues such as border controls, asylum and police co-operation." ( "No" Bulletin 7/3/02)
In a speech in Strasbourg this week, Jacques Chirac called for a "Federation of Nation States" in Europe with its own Constitution and President. This Constitution would be voted in by a pan-European referendum. The proposed President would be elected by a Council of EU Heads of State. In terms of economic policy, he called for "genuine fiscal harmonisation in Europe", saying that "in an open, competitive Europe with a common currency, it is damaging for the French to always be taxed more than everyone else" (Le Monde, 7 March). Any harmonisation of taxes within the Eurozone is likely to mean higher taxes for Britain. Other proposals include the establishment of a common police force and a "pioneer group" of European States, centred around the Franco-German "motor", which would forge further ahead with deeper integration in foreign policy and other areas. Chirac also said that he would block any attempt to change the Common Agricultural Policy, which he described as one of the pillars of EU integration. This is a major blow to the UK Government since the Treasury has made reform of the CAP one of its key priorities for the Barcelona Summit. ( "No" Bulletin 7/3/02)
The EU regulatory agencies are to become an increasing feature of EU activity, with their operating statutes set out in EU legislation. They will be responsible to Brussels; member states will have no direct control over their activities, they cannot overturn their decisions and neither can they ignore their rulings. The plan is that the bulk of regulatory affairs will be managed by these organisations. Altogether, this is indeed 'the gradual integration of national systems'. Needless to say, we will see no outward change: we will continue to see British officials working in British offices, using the headed paper of their respective ministries, but they will be working for Brussels. Our own government will be progressively turned into an impotent onlooker, its only role being to pay the bills. And this is the final irony and the cleverness of this 'revolution'. With the 'network' system, the EU gets to increase its control over member states without increasing its own budget or staff, maintaining the fiction that the Commission is a tiny civil service with an establishment of less than a London borough, working on a shoestring, while the agencies, of course, will be self-funding, living off the fees charged from applying Community law. (Letter from Strasburg RAENorth 10/90/01)
The Council of Ministers has failed to agree on the statute for the recognition and funding of "European Political Parties". There was failure to agree on in particular the threshold for recognition and funding. The Austrian and Italian governments, (under pressure respectively from the FPÖ and the Lega Nord), opposed a verification mechanism which could lead to the removal of a European political party from the register because of lack of respect for democratic principles. The Presidency proposal was based on a minimum of five percent electoral support at European, national or regional level in at least three Member States. The Presidency has been unable to come to an agreement regarding the acceptance or non-acceptance of donations and sponsorship for European parties and their activities. This is indeed a complicated operation since national provisions range from a ban to a complete absence of provisions. European Socialist Party (PES) President Robin Cook has distanced himself from the Belgian Presidency for two reasons: Threshold for recognition and funding too low The Presidency proposal would have made it possible for three members of regional parliaments in three member states to constitute a European party and receive EU recognition and funding. The unanimity requirement for agreement has complicated matters considerably. For the statute, the Nice Treaty will bring a radical change since it foresees co-decision on the basis of a single qualified majority. Taking away the unanimity requirement is a good perspective since this would make it possible to reach an agreement among a constructive majority whilst isolating extreme and Eurosceptic forces. (European Socialist Party 12/19/2001) http://www.pes.org/ -
Pierre Moscovici, the French Europe Minister and one of the French representatives to the Laeken Convention on the Future of Europe, this week called for a "United States of Europe" in an interview with Le Monde. Moscovici said, "we need to rebuild the institutional triangle - Commission, Council, Parliament, keep the excellent institutions that were built by the founding fathers and, at the same time, renew them in a very profound way, adapt them to a new century and head towards a United States of Europe. We need to federalise ourselves." Another French politician, Michel Barnier, the Commission representative on the Convention, called for a European Constitution so that Europe could become more independent from America. He asserted, "the choice is between an independent Europe and a Europe under American influence." These latest calls show that there is a clear agenda within the EU to create what is effectively a single state, despite Government claims to the contrary. The only people who want a United States of Europe are the people who think they are going to run it. ("No" bulletin 28/2/02)
European commissioners Günter Verheugen and Pascal Lamy on Monday debated the idea of a Franco-German confederation, as a core of deeper European integration. Speaking at the Goethe Institut on the Franco-German relations and the future of Europe, the two commissioners discussed the principles of a Franco-German confederation, with a common army, common embassies in third countries, and a common seat at the United Nations Organisation as core elements. (EUobserver.com 22-01-2002)
Britain is considering a plan of setting up a Super Council to run the EU, reports the Financial Times. According to the plan, the three biggest powers in the Union - France, Germany and the UK - should become permanent members of this EU super council, similar to the United Nations Security Council. UK officials insist that decision-making of the EU is already close to unworkable, and could be paralysed when up to 10 extra nations from southern and eastern Europe join in 2004. The plan includes having a permanent secretary general to chair council meetings, rather than the national leader who holds the EU's six-monthly rotating presidency. However, the idea is likely to upset smaller member states, plus Spain and Italy. (Financial Times 21 2002 09)
At the Laeken summit Tony Blair signed the declaration suggesting that the EU's four treaties could "in the long run" form a constitution. (Including the Charter of Fundamental Rights-Ed) Financial Times 17/12/01)
Tony Blaire's "minister for patriotism" has given the Government's first definition of Britishness, saying the core values of tolerance and fair play were defined by the European Convention on Human Rights. (Daily Telegraph 15/12/01)
The Laeken Summit called for a Convention to "provide a starting point for discussion" on the next EU treaties to replace the Amsterdam and Nice Treaties. The Convention starts work 1 March 2002 and ends 1 March 2003 under the Greek EU Presidency. The Convention will in total have 105 members from 28 countries, however members from the 13 applicant countries will not be "able to prevent any consensus, which may emerge among Member States," which means they will not be able to vote. There is no fixed mandate for the work of the Convention, which will comprise "either different options, indicating the degree of support which they received, or recommendations if consensus is achieved," according to the Laeken Declaration adopted by the EU heads of states on Saturday 15 December. This means, the Convention can produce more than one proposal, which is not what the federalists had wanted. They demanded that only one proposal should be prepared by the Convention in order force the governments to accept this proposal in the end. A presidium of 12 members will lead the discussion, headed by former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, while former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato and former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene were named vice-presidents of the Convention. The other nine members of the Presidium will be two national MP’s, two members of the European Parliament, two representatives of the Commission and one representative from Spain, Denmark and Greece, as these three countries hold the EU presidency under rotations for each half a year while the Convention is working. Each of the 28 countries will appoint three representatives in the Convention (two national MPs and one representative of the government), the European Parliament will appoint 16 members in the Convention and the Commission will send two. A seperate Forum will be opened for organisations representing civil society to debate the future of the EU, while an Intergovernmental Conference will take the final decisions on revision of the EU treaties, where the EU member states decide by unanimity what is to change. Mr Leinen MEP told reporters in Laeken: "The Laeken declaration is a milestone, it is the first time since the creation of the Union 50 years ago that the creation of a European Constitution has been accepted by all member states, whereas before the future of Europe was always laid out in EU treaties." (EUobserver.com 17/12/01)
For the first time in the history of the EU at the Laeken European summit the 15 announced they would study "the conditions for creating a mechanism or common services for controlling the external borders of the EU." They will also examine the possibility of setting up common consular services of the EU in third countries. (EUobserver.com 17/12/01)
THE European Union set a clear course to create a directly-elected president in a significant step towards a European superstate. Tony Blair failed to block the move by other EU countries to create the new post, whose occupant would have a greater democratic mandate than any national leader. The proposal will be fleshed out by a convention to be headed by the veteran former French president, Valerie Giscard d'Estaing, it was decided at a summit in Laeken, Brussels. The final draft also argues for a new EU constitution and suggests that it could enshrine the controversial Charter of Fundamental Rights which Britain has so far refused to incorporate into UK law. The declaration also includes proposals for new "European electoral constituencies" which would encourage Europe-wide political parties rather than merely groupings of national parties. The concept of an elected president is the greatest challenge to Mr Blair's claims to be winning the argument against European federalists. The proposal has been championed by the Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, with the backing of Germany. The German Chancellor, Gerhard Schroder, said that he hoped the convention would draft a formal EU constitution. It was "the ideal outcome", he said last night. The 100-strong convention will include four British parliamentarians led by David Miliband, the former head of the Prime Minister's policy unit. (Sunday Telegraph 16/12/2001)
TONY BLAIR is being urged by other European leaders, including Gerhard Schröder and Jacques Chirac, to stand down as Prime Minister before the general election to become President of the European Commission. The German Chancellor and the French President are said to have reached an "understanding" with Mr Blair that the job will be his if he successfully takes Britain into the European single currency. The Prime Minister has given them the impression that he would be keen to take over from Romano Prodi, who stands down in January 2005. If he agreed to the move, he would have to leave No 10 in the autumn of 2004, clearing the way for Gordon Brown to make a pitch for the Labour leadership. He would also have to call a referendum on the single currency next year. However, some senior figures in the Labour Party are sceptical that Mr Blair would be willing to stand down before the election, which is expected to be held in 2005 or 2006. At the last election he made it clear that he was planning to stay on for the whole Parliament and he is fully involved in the Government's proposals for improving the NHS. ( Daily Telegraph 06/12/2001)
co-decision process. Critics regard this proposal as an attempt by the Commission to regain influence in the inter-institutional decision-making process. The "co-decision procedure", as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, is the result of a delicate political and institutional balance. The procedure provides that the European Parliament delivers its opinion on the Commission proposal before the Council adopts it. The two bodies, the Council and the European Parliament, then negotiate the proposed text with minimal involvement by the Commission. In its White Paper, the European Commission insists that the co-decision procedure is unnecessarily complex and often results in legislation that contains far too much detail, which means that adapting the rules to technical or market changes can be complex and time-consuming. All this damages effectiveness, according to the Commission, and ultimately results in a poor appreciation of the EU institutions and legislative process by EU citizens. In a move to limit the co-decision process, the European Commission proposes substantial simplification of the EU regulatory mechanism. For example, the Commission proposes using co-regulation in certain circumstances, where "framework" legislation is created and the technical details left to be filled in by the member states. Another policy tool proposed by the White Paper is the "open policy of co-ordination", under which a policy of co-operation between member states is implemented. The Commission recommends that both tools are employed only in specific circumstances. In her report, MEP Ms Kaufmann said that any move to redefine the co-decision process could lead to a reduction in the influence that the European Parliament has over EU legislation, and this may mean that MEPs are reluctant to support the paper. Ms Kaufmann told the EUobserver.com that the European Commission has promised consultation with the European Parliament before it proceeds with any of the changes that are proposed in the White Paper. (EUobserver.com 28/11/01)
The leaders of France and Germany on Friday called for a European federation of nation states and for an EU constitution, in a common declaration on the future of Europe. They also urged the creation, at longer term, of a European Border Police, the reinforcing of Europol, the setting up of an integrated police force to fight against terrorism, and for strengthening the judicial cooperation with a view to creating a European prosecutor. They also believe that the European military force should have the mandate to fight against international terrorism. French President Jacques Chirac, French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said in their joint declaration that a European constitution would be "an essential step in the historical process of European integration." Moreover, they call for the Charter of Fundamental Rights declared at the Nice summit to be integrated into the future constitution. Apart from the four themes indicated in the Nice Declaration, which can be interpreted in a broad way, they also propose that a clarification of legislative and executive competences and the extension of majority voting should be talked by the Convention. The Declaration also calls for an EU-wide arrest warrant and a common definition of terrorism to be adopted within the deadline set up by the heads of state, on 6-7 December. The leaders of France and Germany point out that with the euro the need for economic solidarity in Europe is increasing, and the 15 should improve the economic co-ordination between member states, fiscal harmonisation, and setting up a true European financial market. (EUobserver.com 25/11/01)
ROMANO PRODI, the president of the European Commission, wants Brussels to take far-reaching new powers over government spending, foreign policy, defence and police to try to transform the European Union into a global superpower. In a speech in Bruges yesterday, Mr Prodi said the commission was planning to tighten its grip over the tax and spending policy of Britain and other member states. Controls imposed by the union's growth and stability pact did not go far enough to safeguard the euro for the long term, he said. Mr Prodi described the new instrument as a "mechanism for managing the economy", a clear indication that the plans go far beyond anything existing in union law. He said it would serve as fiscal a counterpart to the European Central Bank, which has sole control over monetary policy in the euro zone. Commission officials said yesterday the mechanism would apply to all union states, whether or not they were members of the euro. Critics said the proposal was an attempt to strip governments of control over their budgets. (Daily Telegraph 13/11/2001)
In a vote of censure of the Commission in the European Parliament, the votes of absent MEPs absent MEPs are DEEMED to be voting for the Commission. This is because there not only has to be a 2/3rds majority, but the votes against the commission must be at least 50% of ALL MEPs, including those not there. (E-mail JY 10/10/01) Go to http://www.europarl.eu.int/home/default_en.htm and select the link "Rules of Procedure of the EP" - it's rule 34, para 7:
In May 1997 about 40% of the legislation that affects Britain was initiated and authored in Brussels and Strasbourg. This has increased under the Labour Government to around 55%. If we join the single currency the proportion will increase to 70%. If judicial co-operation and Home Office policies are submerged into European co-operation the proportion will increase to 80%. That would leave only health and education as areas of exclusive policy making for the UK government and parliament. (Who Really Governs Britain? by Nirj Deva MEP ISBN 0-86129-167-0, 19/10/01)
The European Union's desire to appear pro-active in the fight against terrorism has led the Commission to invoke a rarely used article to fast track its list of terrorist organisation assets to be frozen. This has sparked criticism that it is in breach of both national constitutions and the laws of the European Union itself. Article 308 states: "If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures." The Commission is using article 308 so that the list of terrorist organisations it published can be approved by the parliament on Thursday and finally adopted by the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg on Monday. One of the people voicing concern over the constitutional and legal ramifications of the Commission's decision is Danish Member of the European Parliament Pernille Frahm, who represents the Danish Socialist Peoples party. She told EUobserver.com: "I don’t believe there is legal basis for the Commission's decision to invoke article 308 and furthermore I feel that the drawing up of such a list shows complete disregard for the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary." Article 308 Problems Damian Chalmers, senior lecturer in European Law at the London School of Economics, believes the European Commission "is on dodgy ground" by turning to article 308 to force through such a matter. He adds that "I believe that national member states have a good legal basis for challenging the Commission decision to invoke article 308 on this matter, and I question why they feel justified in moving the matter from an issue of justice and home affairs on pillar three to an EC matter under pillar one as they have done by turning to article 308." Mr Chalmers furthermore believes that, even though national governments and the European Parliament might not object to the list, individuals on the list if they so desire might have a case to put to the European Court of Justice. This same view is echoed by Pernille Frahm who said even though she had no sympathy for these terrorist organisation she found it dangerous that the Commission was acting both as judge and jury. "That one institution takes on the role of both legislator and judge is in breach of the Danish constitution." The Danish anti-discrimination society (IDFAD) agrees that the basis for the list is un-democratic and in clear breach of democratic precedence. (EUobserver.com 04.10.2001)
The Technical Group of Independent Members (TDI) in the European Parliament must be dissolved according to a decision reached on Tuesday by the EU Court in Luxembourg. The group was formed after the 1999 election of 19 members - mainly right-wing MEPs such as French Front National and Vlaams Blok from Belgium, but also Italian left-wings, including the former EU commissioner Emma Bonino, belong to the group. By forming a group, the Parliament provides members with economical resources, staff, speaking time, committee reporting and other facilities that not available at the same level to "non-attached" members of the Parliament, a status shared currently by 15 MEPs. The rules of the constitution of the Groupe Technique des Députés Indépendants (TDI) provided that its Members affirmed their total political independence of one another, which is exactly what the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg did not accept in its ruling on Tuesday. The Court stated, that members who declare that they are forming a political group "must be presumed to share political affinities, however slight, and the Parliament has the power to examine whether such a declaration is properly founded." However, this does not "preclude the members from expressing different political opinions on occasion," the Court said while underlining that the rules do not conflict with the "principle of freedom of association" as laid down in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a principle protected by Community law. Speaking for the TDI, Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TI) said this morning in Plenary Session that the group will continue the fight to stop disparities in the European Parliament. The group intends to appeal to the European Court of Justice, which can theoretically rule over the ruling of the Court of First Instance. Mr Richard Corbett, Socialist (UK) said he was delighted of the victory. EDD Chairman Jens-Peter Bonde (DK) stressed that Parliament's legal service would have to look at the rules to determine whether or not they discriminated against smaller groups. Mr Bonde asked the President of the Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, to go through the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament to see whether they needed to be changed, in order to avoid discrimination against smaller groups. He also called on the Conference of Presidents to hold a debate on the ruling of the Court of First Instance. Ms Fontaine said she would look into it with the legal service of the Parliament. (EUobserver.com Oct 3, 2001)
Despite the passing of a blocking amendment by Eurosceptic MEPs, the European Parliament passed a Bill allowing for EU funding of political parties. The blocking amendment, overturned the next day, stated that the legislation was illegal under existing treaties. It would be permitted by the Nice Treaty but this had not yet been ratified, thanks to the Irish voters. If an East European country behaved like this, its application for membership of the EU would be turned down on the ground that it refused to apply the rule of law. (Daniel Hannan MEP Daily Telegraph July 2001)
Portugal has been forced to cut public spending by €750 million this year in order to maintain its budget deficit commitments under the eurozone stability pact, and to avoid the threat of a formal reprimand and fines from the European Commission, according to Financial Times. The cuts are necessary to compensate for the impact of slower economic growth on tax revenue, and are a political embarrassment for Prime Minister Antonio Guterres. (EUobserver.com 22.06.2001)
UK Contribution to the EU budget in 1999 from: ‘UK Balance of Payments: The Pink Book 2000 Edition’ produced by the ONS August 2000. - Gross contribution: £11.44 billion; -Net contribution: £4.64 billion (£6.8 billion was handed back to the UK mainly in agricultural subsidies); ; -Average compound rate of increase 1992-1999 was 6.23% per year. More than double the average inflation for that period (2.6% pa) & rate of growth of the British economy (2.8% pa); -UK receipts over the same period increased at an average compound rate of 4.76% pa. (Democracy Movement 27/7/01)
Last October, the Prime Minister made a speech in Warsaw about trying to achieve democratic accountability; at the heart of it was a proposal for a second chamber. It almost defies belief that that is the UK's main and substantial contribution to the comprehensive and lively debate about the future of the EU. Perhaps the Prime Minister was inspired by the fabled and huge success of his reform of the House of Lords. That is almost incredible, as he himself told us last week in the Chamber that he wanted no rival second Chamber to the Commons. He wants, however, to foist such a body on Europe; that is monumental irrelevance, and must be set against the genuine need for enhanced powers for national parliaments themselves. (Mr Spring MP, Hansard Treaty of Nice Debate 04/07/2001)
Britain is slipping behind other EU countries in the number of European laws it passes on its statute books. In its six-monthly "naming and shaming " exercise, the European Commission singled out the UK and Austria criticism. The Commission's criticism of the UK contrasts with public statements from British government ministers that its record for implementing EU legislation was better than other countries. The UK now ranks joint third with Ireland on the list of countries with the worst implementation record after Greece and France. To achieve the target UK would have to implement 68 pieces of legislation compared with 74 for France and 92 for Greece. The areas where legislation is slowest in passing into national law include transport and procurement. (Financial Times 29/5/01)
Labour has rejected Conservative calls for a referendum on the European Union's Nice treaty, which prepares the EU for enlargement. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, told MPs it would be "absurd to break with our tradition that Parliament decides whether and if so how to amend the EU treaties ". (Financial Times 5/7/01)
Europe has radically altered. No longer a quaint collection of historical enemies, Western Europe in its new guise as the European Community is a crypto-fascist state. The new class of international bureaucrats and lawyers who govern the new European state through regulations are no more politically accountable than was Adolf Hitler, and they enjoy media just as fawning. Questioning the New Europe is a sign of moral turpitude. The ideology of the European Union is anti-American. It champions a "third way," a form of redistributive communism without the political terror and economic irrationality that characterized the former Soviet Union. Many EU leaders are lifelong apologists for the Soviet Union. This hostility is finding expression in actions as well as words. During the last week of June, the World Trade Organization ruled for the EU against the U.S. in a case that will hurt Microsoft, General Electric and Boeing. On July 3 the EU blocked General Electric's purchase of Honeywell. Recently, Europeans helped countries notorious for human rights abuses to kick the U.S. off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. EU leaders will certainly use U.N. forums to campaign against the U.S., thus altering the balance of power in that institution. Faced with a hostile European superstate, it would make sense for the U.S. to break out of its foreign policy rut and forge an alliance with Russia. Economically and politically weak, Russia remains a formidable presence because of its enormous collection of nuclear megatonnage. A successful American-Russian alliance would mute EU anti-Americanism and discourage the global regulation that is aimed at American economic success. An American-Russian alliance would help to maintain peace in Europe. Sooner or later a former sovereign nationality is going to rebel against EU dictatorship. It is only a matter of time before there is a European civil war over secession. An American-Russian alliance could contain, if not forestall, such a war. (Paul Craig Roberts, Washington Times 10/7/01)
French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine, wrote that the "ultraliberal market economy, rejection of the state, nonrepublican individualism, strengthening of the universal and ‘indispensable’ role of the United States, common law, anglophone, and Protestant rather than Catholic concepts" were the essence of "un-European" attitudes. (bennett@anglosphere.com 29/6/01)
There is no obligation on ministers participating in the Council of Ministers to seek prior approval from their parliaments for how they would vote. No one knows how they do vote because the meeting are held in secret. But even if we did know how they voted we would not be party to the back room deals that bring about Council decisions. It is the Council as a whole that takes decisions, and it, as a whole, is accountable to nobody. That is excepting where a veto operates and then a minister who fails to exercise a veto can be held responsible to his or her own parliament. A problem with the Nice treaty is that it curtailed the areas where the veto prevails and therefore diminishes the small area in which democratic accountability can operate. (V Browne Irish Times 20/6/01)
ROMANO PRODI, the European Commission's president, demanded greater economic powers for Brussels yesterday, and gave warning that the euro could fail unless the tax and spending policies of member states were brought under tighter European Union control. Speaking in Paris the day after the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, called for a European "economic government", Mr Prodi said the single currency would remain vulnerable as long as each country was able to run a separate budget policy in its own national interest. He said: "Without continuous integration, the single market will disintegrate and the euro won't be able play the global role for which we created it." The comments will be seized on by opponents of the euro, who have long said that abolishing the pound would entail an end to Britain's control over fiscal policy as well. Mr Prodi said the time had come for Europe to move beyond the single market and construct a fully-fledged "political union", with the diplomatic and military reach of a world power, capable of asking its citizens what they are "willing to die for together". He called for the creation of a "Mr or Ms Euro" to speak for the single currency abroad alongside the union's High Representative for foreign policy, saying the union was failing to punch according to its weight because of its ramshackle way of doing things. In contrast to Mr Jospin, he said both jobs should be brought under the roof of the European Commission, the only body that can represent the collective interest. In a move that is likely to inflame the election campaign in Britain, Mr Prodi also proposed a special union tax earmarked for the European Commission's £62 billion annual budget. He said that this would establish a clear democratic link between taxing and spending in Brussels, and would counter the "irrational" belief that the union gobbles up money. (Daily Telegraph 30/5/01)
EU ministers of justice decided to toughen the legislation to fight international networks of illegal immigration, but could not agree on harmonising penalties on human traffickers who smuggle refugees into the European Union. This is the first time that binding measures on asylum and immigration are adopted, but the sensitivity of the issue in the member states has made progress very slow. The fifteen ministers agreed upon a definition of trafficking of human beings, as distinct from genuine humanitarian effort to help refugees reach a secure territory. They fell short of agreeing on the proposal to introduce an 8-year prison automatic penalty for trafficking of human beings. Human right groups say the new measures might criminalize people that help genuine refugees reach the EU territory because the difference between helping real refugees and smuggling people is blurred, reports BBC. The ministers will also have to look at measures on family reunification to decide how many members of the family can join a refugee in EU once it is established the person can enjoy legal refugee status. The fifteen want to fix penalties against airline companies that allow people to reach the territory of EU without the proper documentation. The agreement reached yesterday is the first step towards achieving a common EU asylum and immigration policy by 2004. (EUobserver.com 29.05.2001)
Mr Jospin called for Europe to create an "economic government" with a fund to help euro zone economies in trouble. Mr Jospin backed the notion of a European "federation of nation states" originally put forward by fellow French Socialist and former European Commission chief Jacques Delors. Other proposals included: common rules for business taxes and workers' rights a common police force to defend the EU's borders, harmonisation of criminal law; the creation of a European public prosecutor's office, granting more power to the European Parliament and to the Council of Ministers the European Commission to be made more democratically accountable by drawing the commission president from the political group holding a parliamentary majority a European constitution, based on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, endorsed by EU leaders at last year's Nice summit greater consultation with trades unions a consumer protection network to ensure transparency about the origin of products, in response to the BSE crisis a long-term, co-ordinated defence policy for Europe, in view of the United States' "controversial" plans for a missile defence programme. British Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected the call by Mr Jospin for tax harmonisation during campaigning for Britain's June 7 election. "Unfair tax competition is another matter, however. That prevents the single market working properly," Mr Blair added. (BBC 28 May, 2001)
A Capital for Europe. President Prodi says, "I want to see an imaginative debate, drawing on a wide range of talent and expertise, because I want Brussels to become a place that all citizens of the Union can relate to. A capital in this sense clearly has different characteristics to a national capital. This project will investigate what those characteristics should be. It is particularly appropriate that our discussions will close during the Belgian Presidency. The Commission is happy to help spark discussions, but it will be for the Belgian government and the Brussels region to take concrete decisions about how they want to proceed thereafter." The first session will consider questions such as: What needs could a capital for Europe fulfil? How should it relate to other European centres? How should it represent common values, and celebrate Europe's diversity? The participants will be asked to contribute ideas on how the European capital can be symbolised. (Commission Press Release DN: IP/01/756 2001-05-29)
"The European Union is threatening to set up a military force which will place British service personnel under its direct command, restrict the free expression of political opinion, and permit the introduction of an alien system of criminal justice which will abolish the ancient British rights of habeas corpus and trial by jury, and allow onto British soil men-at-arms from other countries with powers of enforcement. "These are all issues of major constitutional importance. They directly threaten our rights and freedoms and destroy the oaths of loyalty to the Crown sworn by Privy Counsellors, British armed forces, and the police. "Such fundamental matters cannot be considered merely the stuff of day-to-day politics. T