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. They concern every British subject, and generations yet unborn. Without this petition it is certainly true that The Queen might have found it difficult in today’s political climate to raise these issues with her ministers. With it, Her Majesty has ample justification. It is the clear wish of the people." (Statement following petition to the Queen by SANITY 28/5/01): tanner.mgt@virgin.net
The US House of Representatives this week struck back out of frustration at the United Nations in reaction to the loss of the American seat on the Human Rights committee. I have to point out that Congress going after the wrong target in this case. It is the European Union, and the political drives behind it, which were the real cause of the debacle at the Human Rights committee. The actual mechanics of the vote illustrate this point. The UN members as a whole do not select the members of these committees; rather, they are divided into blocs which each elect a certain number per bloc. America and the European states vote together. Historically, they have given the US one of the three seats and two European states have taken the other two. This time, three European states ran for seats, and the voting results demonstrate that some number of states voted as a bloc for the three European members, leaving the US out. This move is clearly part of a larger pattern of European states working together to define a common European foreign policy. In this environment, what the House should really do, rather than striking out at the United Nations, is focus attention on the strain of anti-Americanism growing in the European Union. In particular, it should examine the historic bias of the State Department in favor of European unification. The State Department even helps fund a pro-European website, TIESweb, which bills itself as the "first TransAtlantic civil society portal" but is actually a mouthpiece for the anti-American, pro-European-integration views of the entrenched transatlantic media-government elite.. Furthermore, the American Europhiles have consistently supported immersion of Britain into the EU, under the mistaken pretext that it would then carry water for Washington in Brussels. Yet the most likely result of submersion of Britain into a European superstate would be to strip America of one its most genuine allies (THE ANGLOSPHERE BEAT, 14/5/01, bennett@anglosphere.com
BRITISH opposition to the idea of a European government is incomprehensible, a senior European commissioner said yesterday. Gunther Verheugen, a German Social Democrat, accused the Government of burying its head in the sand by resisting proposals from Chancellor Schröder for an overhaul of the European Union's governing machinery. He said the EU already had a federal structure and, in the interests of its citizens, needed the democratic institutions to make it work properly. He told German ARD television: "How, in the land of the mother of parliaments, one can be against more democracy I fail to understand." Of Mr Schröder's plans for further EU integration, he said: "The British think that this is a German federalist concept intended to give the European Union a federal organisation. But what is the EU Council other than a federalist instrument?" Mr Verheugen's off-the-cuff comments show how far apart the British and German political classes are in their visions of how Europe should evolve. Mr Schröder's proposals include the creation of an elected president of the commission and a stronger European Parliament. Harry de Quetteville in Paris writes: In a response to the Schröder proposals, President Chirac will call today for a European constitution to help to create a federal Europe. M Chirac will say in a speech to mark the Day for Europe: "Is it not the moment to grace the European Union with a constitution?" (Daily Telegraph 9/5/01)
Intervening in other people's elections is no longer taboo it seems First everyone attacked the Austrians because they voted the wrong way; then the Hungarians were warned NOT to vote the wrong way; then Robin Cook, and Schroeder, attack Berlusconi, leader of one side in the Italian elections and to cap it all the German Chancellor tells us that we must vote for Blair. Schroeder, calling for a Labour victory so that Britain *could work in Europe for Europe*, said *I hope,in the wake of the elections, our friends in Britain will retain the confidence of voters so that they will be able to work in Europe for Europe* The Tories were predictably angry... *Herr Schroeder is the first significant politician to say what Labour dare not admit - that Tony Blair wants to take Britain into an EU superstate* (Francis Maude) {Times 8/5/01}
In October 1999 the Cabinet Office press release stated that the European dimension was being added to policy-making in all levels of government. (Eurofaq posting 8/5/01)
British Foreign Secretary Mr Robin Cook will become the first Labour minister to chair the Parties of European Socialists (PES). (EUobserver.com 8/5/01)
7 million euro is the amount of money that the head of the Commission, Romano Prodi, wants to give to European Political Parties, each year from now on, according to German newspaper Der Spiegel. The money is to be spent on staff and offices. Till now, only one party, the European Peoples Party, has had an office to co-ordinate the spending of EU-money amongst its members. This office has, however, just last year been criticised by the Court of Justice in Luxemburg for its somewhat shabby accounts. Now, what is a European party? The Commission defines this as a party that deals with European politics and holds five percent of the votes in five countries. Up to 75 per cent of party funding can originate from the EU budget whilst at least 25 per cent must be autonomous financed. This means that if a new statute on political parties is approved by the European Union, members of the European Parliament that are not members of a European party will receive no money from the EU, neither will groups, that split from an existing party or new-founded parties. In reality, this means that members on the extreme right or extreme left, together with single EU-sceptical members, can ether kiss their financial support goodbye or join the big ones. If adopted, the system will work in favour of existing parties. The five political parties who will benefit from the system most will be the Christian Democrats, the Social Democrats, the Liberals, the Leftists and the Greens. The two EU-critical groups in the Parliament are unlikely to benefit from the system because they do not organise on a European level.(EUobserver.com 3/5/01)
RADICAL proposals for European integration, including an economic government" that could levy taxes from Brussels, have been drawn up by France's ruling socialist party. The plans are revealed in a leaked party document that calls for the EU defence force to intervene around the world, stronger workers' rights to fight dismissal, and uniform policies on immigration and asylum. The paper says the European parliament should set corporation taxes and that EU governments should harmonise their spending, even sharing a common budget day. Also proposed are a European police force, an environment authority and an elected EU president. The document, entitled The European Project of Socialists and marked "internal working paper: not for circulation", has emerged only a week after the Social Democrats of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in Germany surprised European leaders with proposals for a fully federal Europe. President Jacques Chirac and Schröder, whose party favours making Brussels the capital of a federation like Germany, have resolved to reach a common position. But Jospin's party rejects a federal Europe modelled on Germany, saying this poses too big a threat to national sovereignty. It wants the EU to take other steps towards integration. The French socialists' programme contains measures to eliminate "harmful competition" on taxation, preventing Britain from luring investment with lower rates. The European parliament should impose an EU corporation tax, the document says, and should be able to expand spending. It adds: "We should harmonise the laws to make it more costly for employers to make their workers redundant." The paper calls for the EU's charter of fundamental rights, including the right to strike, to be made legally binding. The ideas will intensify Britain's general election debate about future EU development. (Sunday Times May 13 2001)
Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has put forward plans for a radical shake-up of the European Union, including the formation of a European government. His ideas, contained in a draft policy document for the Social Democrat party conference in the autumn, were reported in the German news magazine Der Spiegel and have been confirmed by the SPD. The document signals Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's wish to make European policy central to his re-election campaign in 2002. The document calls for the European Commission in Brussels to be turned into a new government, while proposing that the Council of Ministers, which pulls together the leaders of the member states, should become a second chamber similar to Germany's Bundesrat. The European Parliament would gain supervision of the European budget, including massive agricultural spending. The draft drawn up by the Chancellor and a senior working group still has to go before various party committees before being discussed at the autumn conference. But it is a sign that Mr Schroeder wants to have a clear policy on the development of Europe to take into a second term if he is re-elected. . (BBC News On-line Sunday, 29 April, 2001)
ANTI-AMERICANISM is rising at such an alarming rate in Europe that it threatens to "strike at the heart" of the transatlantic relationship, Francis Maude, the shadow foreign secretary, has warned. If this "extremism" is not resisted, Mr Maude told members of the International Republican Institute on Capitol Hill, it could "drive the United States into the chill embrace of isolationism. The push for European integration, he said, was sowing the seeds of a dangerous rivalry with the United States. "We see it in the euro, in the European Defence and Security Policy, in Romano Prodi's vision of the European Commission 'step by step' behaving like a growing government." Mr Maude's visit coincided with a sharp increase in scepticism within the Bush administration about the benefits of the Anglo-French inspired Euro force. (Daily Telegraph 26/4/01)
An article by Samuel Brittan pointed out the essential conflict between the principle of subsidiarity and the acceptance, and the apparent impossibility of changing, the 80,000 pages of EU membership rules that make up the acquis communautaire. The scale of the acquis communautaire and high levels of bureaucracy make it extremely difficult to reverse existing legislation at the European level. (Financial Times26 April 2001)
Civil society urges in an open letter MEP's to vote against the new code of access to documents of the EU institutions expected to pass the European Parliament on Thursday. "We believe this proposal weakens current rights of citizens, it does not fulfil the Amsterdam Treaty commitment to further the cause of open government," states an open letter from European Citizens Action Service (ECAS), European Environmental Bureau (EEB), European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), Standing Committee of Experts on International Immigration, Refugee and Criminal Law, Utrecht (the "Meijers Committee") and Statewatch. On Thursday the European Parliament majority is expected to approve the new rules, when voting for the Cashman Report, which has already been approved by an overwhelming majority in the European Parliament Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs last week. Last week representatives of the 15 EU governments agreed on the proposal, which was accepted by the EU Commission the day after. This method of decision making is unique in European Union history. 200 individuals signed an on-line protest launched by the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ) and Statewatch. The organisations criticise that the new code has been adopted as a result of "trilogue" negotiations with the Council (and the European Commission) which have taken place behind closed doors for over five months. "At no stage has a full, open, debate in the parliament taken place on the various substantive issues proposed," say the protesters. The proposal further undermines democratic standards by seeking to exclude from public access, for example, documents defined as "sensitive documents" covering not just foreign and military policy but also ones concerning public security, immigration, legal measures trade and aid - and any non-classified documents which refers to them. The proposal would give EU member states, and other "third parties" like NATO, a right to "veto" access to documents submitted to EU institutions. (EUobserver.com 2/5/01) On Thursday, the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to adopt the new rules on public access to documents, with 400 votes cast in support and 85 against. Speaking at a press conference, Michael Cashman defended his report on transparency rules. "I accept none of the criticism levelled at this dossier," said Mr Cashman. (EUobserver.com 4/5/01)
Too much information creates confusion: According to Loyola de Palacio, Vice-President of the European Commission "obliging institutions to divulge internal notes, in many cases, would only cause confusion among citizens.. sometimes an increase in misinformation results from an excess of information". Such a derisory approach to freedom of information and civil society is currently typifying the Brussels institutions approach to the drafting of a new code of public access to EU documents. The article examines the latest developments around the new code. (Statewatch report V10 no.6 23/1/01)
The Council and the European Parliament rapporteurs, Michael Cashman (PSE) and Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE), have agreed a "common text" for the new code of access to EU documents. The "deal" was done on 4-5 April when the EP delegation caved in and made three major changes to their report. The "deal" agreed in secret "trilogue" meetings and informal negotiations by officials has been condemned by civil society groups and academic commentators as fundamentally undermining existing rights under the 1993 code on access to documents and as a betrayal of the commitment in the Amsterdam Treaty to "enshrine" the citizens' right of access to EU documents. They have submitted to all the European Parliament rapporteurs a detailed analysis calling for 17 deletions and 6 amendments to the draft report or its complete rejection. In their critique Statewatch, the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), European Citizens Advice Service (ECAS), the European Environmental Burueau (EEB), Professor Deirdre Curtin, Utrecht University and the Standing Committee of Experts (Utrecht) and Ulf Oberg, Stockholm University say: "We consider the "common text" on the table is quite unacceptable It is our view that it is a fundamental role for the European Parliament to protect existing rights of citizens and civil society on this issue and to extend them - the current "common text" does not do this... The Council, in particular, has sought to use the new code to protect its own interests and now it appears the European Parliament accepts this view. Both parts of the legislature effectively agree to throw the baby out with the bath water. (Statewatch news and announcements" 18 Apr 2001) http://www.statewatch.org
COM (2001) 100final - This text requires each Member State to provide the Commission with a simplified set of quarterly revenue and expenditure accounts for the government sector of its economy. These are to be compiled following the definitions used in the European System of Accounts, the primary source of guidance on national income and expenditure accounting and the compilation of gross domestic product estimates within the EU. - This information was a priority requirement identified in a report by the Monetary Committee in 1999 and endorsed by the ECOFIN Council. That report set out the information requirements required for effective surveillance and co-ordination of EU economic policies, in particular the proper functioning of the Economic and Monetary Union and the Single Market. The same information is already provided to the Commission on an annual basis but effective policymaking requires quarterly monitoring. - Data provision will start with the first quarter of 1999. Descriptions of sources and methods must be furnished to the Commission. In producing these quarterly accounts, estimation will be allowed but Member States are required to make the maximum use of direct information from basic sources such as government administrative records. (Commission Decision 18/4/01)
THE European Union is to boost its role as global policeman under plans proposed in Brussels yesterday, using its power as the world's biggest aid donor to shape the international scene. Chris Patten, the European external affairs commissioner, said the EU must develop a "tool kit" to nip conflicts in the bud and to raise its profile around the world. "We should try to ensure that our political influence comes nearer to matching our economic weight," he said. It now plans an "early-warning system" for potential trouble spots, a campaign of anti-drug actions, tough controls on the arms trade, and measures to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The initiative is unrelated to plans already being developed by the European Commission for a Rapid Reaction Force, which would be under the control of EU ambassadors meeting in a separate set of buildings in Brussels. The EU also has access to up to 5,000 police to help to restore order in volatile regions such as the Balkans. Mr Patten's remit is limited to the EU's £7 billion annual aid budget, which he is using to spearhead an activist foreign policy. (Daily Telegraph 12/4/01)
A leaked letter to European Commission Vice-President Neil Kinnock, from his own chief civil servant, has exposed deep divisions within the institution over the reform process, writes European Voice. In a early draft of a speech, Kinnoch planned to tell MEP-s that officials had failed to inform him timely and detailed on developments at the Berlaymont HQ, which was evacuated in 1991 because of asbestos and is currently being rebuilt. According to European Voice, Administration Director-General Horst Reichenbach wrote: "We find this is a serious accusation and would therefore have expected to be informed of it by you or your cabinet directly at an earlier stage and in a different form. Moreover we would hope that you would allow your services time and opportunity to defence instead of first presenting these accusations to the European Parliament." EU has started a security investigation, to find out how the letter could come into hands of a Communist MEP. European Voice has a copy of the document, but Reichenbach and Kinnock are both trying to play down the significance of it. (EUobserver.com 2/4/01)
The European Commission itself has said that "a lack of political will" has prevented Lisbon's rhetoric from materialising. In the last two weeks, both UNICE (European Confederation of Employers) and ERT (European Round Table of Industrialists) have criticised the lack of reform in the Eurozone. "Reforms so far launched fall far short of what is needed... The window of opportunity will soon be closing" (ERT, 19 March 2001).
By replacing unanimity with majority-voting for such a fundamental change, the Treaty of Nice would open a legal path towards a first-class/second-class EU. The Nice Treaty also makes provision for a conference in 2004 to draw up a new Treaty, which one might call at this stage the "Year 2004 Treaty." This further treaty is clearly intended by the States that pushed it, Germany in particular,to be the Constitution of this planned EU Federation of the "avant-garde." This is the most fundamental reason why the Treaty of Nice is bad for the EU, bad for the Applicant States and bad for Ireland. This is why all defenders of the integrity of the original European ideal as a partership of constitutional and legal equals, will be advocating a No vote to Nice in the Republic of Ireland's referendum when it comes. (Eurofaq posting 19 Mar 2001)
Our (Italian) Leftist coalition government hastily passed a Constitutional law only a few hours before Parliament was scheduled to close down in preparation for general elections last week. There are a few lines in this law that have not been made known to the people, either before or after the bill was voted into law. They are the revised version of article 117, which states that: " Legislative power is wielded by the Government and by the Regions of the State, in observance of the Constitution as well as of the restrictions that derive from the Community organization and from international obligations." These three lines sanction Italy's loss of its sovereignty. That's why article 117 has not been discussed openly: the Italian people must not be told. The silence that has accompanied the building of the European Union according to its real purpose, i.e. putting an end to the independence of its member countries, is a silence that has been willfully pursued by our own rulers. They know very well that the people would not accept it if they knew the truth. But although all the European leaders who planned the Union have agreed on it, the manner in which this strategy has been carried out in Italy is unique, and Italians must be allowed to have their say about it. (Ida Magli "Il Giornale", Sunday March 11th 2001) http://www.italianiliberi.it/Editoriali/sovranitaE.htm
By a huge majority, the Swiss have rejected a proposal to begin negotiations to join the European Union. 76.7% of voters, in the biggest turnout for 8 years, voted against the "Yes to Europe!" initiative. Even in the traditionally pro-European French-speaking parts of the country, there was a clear majority in favour of a No. Not one single canton, indeed, voted for Europe. To this extent, the Swiss have once again shown their extraordinary spirit of independence and love of freedom. Their government, however, is a different matter. Even before the voting had finished, the federal government in Bern issued a statement saying that the expected No result would in no way deflect it from it pro-European course. It reaffirmed its desire to seek EU membership in due course. With quite breathtaking cheek, it said that the No vote could in no way be interpreted as meaning a rejection of EU membership as such. Instead, the government said, the result merely indicated that the Swiss did not think the time was right now to start negotiations. Quite how the government has arrived at this conclusion is not clear: it seems more likely to be evidence of the government’s simple contempt for its voters’ settled opinion that the EU is a bad idea. The Foreign Minister and other ministers thus confirmed that they would seek to decide on EU negotiations during the next legislature, i.e. between 2003 and 2007. [Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 5th March 2001]
The General Affairs Council (of foreign ministers) is in principle, responsible for co-ordinating the work of all sectoral Councils. However, an analysis of the agendas of more than 130 General Affairs Council meetings held over the past 10 years shown that the EU's increasingly broad and onerous external policy responsibilities constitute far more than a full-time job for foreign ministers. In practise, the GAC does not, and simply cannot, co-ordinate the work of the other sectoral Councils. 'Internal' EU business is increasingly crowded out of foreign ministers' meeting agendas, with many important decisions nodded through as 'points' because there is simply no time to debate them. If the Council system is seen as a whole, it is impossible to refute Jacques Delors' observation (made nearly three years ago) the "no one is in control". (Prof. J Peterson, European Voice 1/3/01)
If Britain had a Constitutional Court, the ordinary Court in the case of R vs Thoburn would refer the matter to it, the Constitutional Court would look at ECA 72 Section 2 (4), and would look at the Constitutional precept that says "No Parliament can bind its successor", and would decide that in cases where a subsequent Act of Parliament is in conflict with a statutory instrument that derives its force from the ECA 72, then it is the subsequent Act of Parliament that prevails, since to think otherwise would mean attributing to the ECA 72 the power to alter the Constitution, a power which has never even been claimed for it. In a word, granting the same power to statutory instruments (ie Government decisions) "as if they were Acts of Parliament" means to remove the sovereign law-making power from subsequent Parliaments. It allows the Government to overturn the will of Parliament, relying on the authority of a previous, long-dead, Parliament. Dead men would be ruling the living. This would clearly be nonsense, and a negation of the very essence of democracy.(Eurofaq posting D-E 10/3/01)
BRITAIN, we are forever being told, is too small to survive on its own. A country of 59.4 million people apparently needs to be part of a large bloc, such as the EU. And yet Switzerland, with a population of just 6.4 million, has just voted overwhelmingly against closer ties with the EU. Such was the margin of the result - no less than 76.7 per cent voted "no" - that it is difficult to see how the question can be put again.Switzerland exports twice as much per head to the EU from outside as does Britain from inside. As a non-member, Switzerland has been able to negotiate a series of bilateral treaties with the EU. On top of a comprehensive free trade accord dating back to 1972, Switzerland negotiated seven sectoral deals during the mid-1990s, mainly covering the free movement of peoples. All these treaties are based on mutual interest: outside the EU, Switzerland cannot be forced to adopt the Common Agricultural Policy or the Social Chapter. Swiss exporters must, of course, meet EU standards when selling to the EU - as must all exporters - but they are spared the cost of having to impose those same standards on their domestic trade. In saluting the Swiss for their independent spirit, we cannot help observing that Britain is an even more important market for EU exports. Surely we could negotiate a deal at least as favourable as Switzerland's? (Daily Telegraph 6/3/01)
In his keynote speech to the conference in Harrogate, Mr Maude will declare that a Tory government would use the EU summit in Gothenburg in June to call for the renegotiation of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and last December's Nice treaty. He will also pledge to introduce legislation soon after the election to ensure that the European court of justice cannot override the will of parliament. Mr Maude will tell the conference: "Lots of people think it is inevitable that Britain will lose more and more of its sovereign powers. It is only inevitable if Britain lets it happen. It is absolutely clear that Labour would let this happen. A Conservative government will stop the slide to a European superstate." (Guardian 3/3/01)
A manifesto for "new federalism" was outlined by the European Socialists on Tuesday. The manifesto calls for a "Federation of States and People", and insists that there should be greater participation by Europe's citizens in the construction of a European Political Union. The document criticises Nice for being "ununderstandable to a European public". So, according to the document, are the names of the European Institutions. The EU Commission should be called the EU Government, the President of the Commission should be called EU Prime Minister and the President of the Council should be named the EU President. The Labour Party representative has signed the document. (EUobserver.com28/2/01)
The commissar for EU enlargement, Günter Verheugen, has said in Poland that not one single candidate country is yet ready for EU membership. Verheugen said that in no circumstances should "political consideration" be allowed to prevail and cause countries to be admitted to the EU if the practical considerations had not been dealt with first. Among these he mentioned – with quite astonishing cheek – the danger that new EU member states might "export unemployment" into old member states, i.e. that the wages in the new member countries might undercut those in the richer old ones. Yet again, in other words, we see that the purpose of the EU is not to promote the four freedoms and competition but instead to serve the interests of powerful rich states at the centre at the expense of weak poorer ones on the periphery. For form’s sake, he added that there were other criteria which the candidate states did not fulfil, such as environmental protection and legal matters. But it is fairly clear what the real concerns are. [Handelsblatt, 21st February 2001]
As if the Government are not content with wasting £70 million of taxpayers money just to run the Regional Development Agency offices and bureaucracy in the UK now their feelers are extending even further overseas. "The East Midlands, the South East of England, the East of England, and the North West RDA's all now have separate offices in Brussels funded by British and European taxpayers money. The West Midlands RDA office has just expanded into the not insubstantial former Luxembourg Embassy building, increasing its staff from three to ten and with a budget that has increased from around £100,000 to nearly £1 million. (A Norman, questions to Deputy PM, HoC 15/2/01)
New political parties in Europe will face tough times if they want to be recognised and financed by the European Union. Under new regulations proposed by the EU Commission, a party must have elected members in at least five EU countries (or have obtained five percent of the votes in at least five countries at the most recent European election) before it can be labelled a European political party. The draft proposal by the Commission also says that the party’s European objectives must be clear, the party must address questions of European integration and cannot preach restrictions on rights, intolerance or xenophobia. A committee of wise men will be established to judge this. If adopted, the system will work in favour of existing parties. The two EU critical groups in the Parliament are unlikely to benefit from the system because they do not organise on a European level.(EUobserver.com 15/2/01)
After 50 years of exhaustive struggle in moving powers bit-by-bit from the national states to the centre in Brussels, there is not much left to move. The European integration process is about to end and the big question arises: what are the powers taken to Brussels going to be used for? The EU Commission President Romano Prodi used the opportunity to launch this debate as he held the traditional annual "State of the Union" speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Tuesday. "What we need instead is a frank and open discussion about the substance of our Union.", he told the MEP’s. "Are we all clear that we want to build something that can aspire to be a world power? In other words, not just a trading bloc but a political entity?" he asked. (EUobserver.com14/2/01)
On 27 November 2000, Hansard records that, replying to a question from Austin Mitchell MP, Keith Vaz admitted that the Government actually supported a proposal for the Treaty of Nice to introduce an addition to article 191. This has now been introduced. It makes provision for the EU Council to "lay down regulations governing political parties". There will therefore be "approved" political parties (which "contribute to a European awareness", as article 191 says) and those which do not. The full scheme was explained to the European Parliament by Enrique Baron Crespo, leader of the European socialist group, of which Keith Vaz is a member. He said that the proposal is to have a "ring-fenced democracy". Any member state that elected a government that included a party that had failed to meet the criteria laid down under article 191 would then become a candidate for the treatment laid down by article 7. This provides for a member state to have its voting rights removed, while all its treaty obligations are maintained. In other words, it will be reduced to the status of a territory, administered by the others, a virtual colony.(Letter in Electronic Telegraph by TDErikson@bigfoot.com Re: 1 February 2001)
It was announced on Friday on RTE, Ireland's main national broadcasting station, that the Irish Government has accepted in principle that it must hold a referendum on the Treaty of Nice, even though the final legal text of the Treaty will not be officially signed until February 26. The report states that the referendum will most likely be held in May, before the summer Parliamentary (Dail) recess. (EUobserver.com/ 29/1/01)
Flexing his muscles on the international stage, Schröder appears determined to make a new "basic law", setting out the division of powers between the European Union and member states, a centrepiece of his European policy. Critics of "basic law" believe any document that formally spells out the division of powers between Brussels and member states would impose a written constitution on Britain for the first time in its history. German officials admit, however, that it could also provide a legal basis for other powers to be handed over to Brussels, such as the co-ordination of tax policy, environmental controls and immigration. It could also enshrine the European charter of fundamental rights in law, something Britain opposes. Schröder, seen as something of a Eurosceptic before he came to power in 1998, has since become more enthusiastic about Brussels. At a conference in Berlin last weekend he surprised delegates with an impassioned off-the-cuff call for more EU integration. Michael Steiner, the chancellor's chief adviser on Europe, left no doubt as to the interpretation of Schröder's words: Europe needed a constitution, states should give up more sovereignty, and Brussels required greater authority, he said. In a further demonstration of German thinking, however, Ernst Welteke, president of the Bundesbank, predicted at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the single currency would be followed by a "single government". (Sunday Times 23/1/01)
A petition calling on Her Majesty to withhold the Royal Assent from any Bill attempting to ratify the Treaty of Nice was this afternoon presented at Buckingham Palace. The petition was handed over by four peers - the Duke of Rutland, Viscount Massereene & Ferrard, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, and Lord Ashbourne, who initiated the petition and organized it. The peers were using their rights under Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in 1215. Under clause 61, four peers, representing 25 others, can petition the monarch for redress of grievances. This is the first time these rights have needed to be excercised for over 300 years. In a statement afterwards, Lord Ashbourne said that several articles in the Treaty of Nice agreed by Tony Blair in December will destroy fundamental British liberties and imperil the rights and freedoms of the people of these United Kingdom. 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 over Her Majesty's subjects. These are all issues of major constitutional importance. They directly threaten our rights and our 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. They concern every British subject, and generations yet unborn. (SANITY press release 24/3/01) www.SilentMajority.co.UK/EUroRealist/OurMonarch
A GROUP of peers will today use ancient rights granted under Magna Carta to urge the Queen to block further European integration. Their petition, presented under Clause 61 of the ancient charter, asks the Queen to withhold Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty. It has the backing of 65 Euro-sceptic peers led by Lord Ashbourne and has been organised by Sanity (Subjects Against the Nice Treaty). Clause 61 of Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in June 1215, permits the "Sovereign's subjects to present a quorum of 25 barons with a petition which four of their number are then obliged to take to the Monarch who is obliged to accept it. She then has 40 days to respond." The "enforcement powers" granted by King John when he signed the Magna Carta were last used in 1688 at the start of the Glorious Revolution. (Telegraph 7/2/01)
For the first time in 300 years, the ancient rights of the British Magna Carta are to be invoked again, this time in response to the Treaty of Nice. A Euro sceptical movement in England called SANITY, Subjects Against the Nice Treaty, has drawn up a people’s petition asking Her Majesty The Queen of England to withhold the Royal Assent from the Nice Treaty. (EUobserver.com 26/1/01)
The Magna Carta Society has been formed with three objectives - to protect and preserve the sovereignty of the United Kingdom - to uphold the rights, liberties and customs of the subjects of this realm - and to challenge all attempts to subvert, compromise or overthrow the constitution. The Magna Carta Society was formed at the end of last year by a small group of British subjects concerned with reversing the helter-skelter destruction of our birthrights of freedom and self-determination. We seek to restore the constitution of the United Kingdom in accordance with common law, and as laid down in Magna Carta and in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. (7/4/00 www.magnacarta.demon.co.uk )
"The nightmare of British Eurosceptics, the so-called superstate, a new sovereign that would abolish the old nation states along with their democratic governments, is nothing but a synthetic construct that has nothing whatsoever to do with European reality." Despite warnings from the British government, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer Wednesday night ridiculed British Euro-sceptics, when he presented his vision of Europe in London. Mr Fischer lived up to the expectations that he would not tone down his visions on Europe, even though the British government unofficially wanted him to do so in order not to provoke the British Euro-sceptic press. Besides making a passionate call for more European integration the German Minister also used the visit to London to present a joint German-British website aimed at building contacts between the two nations. (EUobserver.com 25/1/01)
A NEW EU subsidy of political parties to be proposed today would benefit both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but exclude William Hague's Euro- sceptic Tories. The plan, a direct consequence of last year's Treaty of Nice, aims to help parties dedicated to building a "European political consciousness". It will be launched this afternoon by Romano Prodi, the European Commission President, and is expected to make £4.6 million of taxpayers' money available for political parties. However, according to a leaked draft of the proposal seen by The Times, parties will qualify for the funds only if they have representation in at least a third of member states. They also have to be part of a political group in the European Parliament that has seats in at least three states. That would mean that Labour, as part of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament, and the Liberal Democrats, who are part of the Liberal Democratic and Reform Group, would be eligible. The Conservatives, as "allied members" of the right-of-centre European People's Party grouping, would be entitled to nothing. (The Times Wednesday January 17 2001) European Commission plans to finance political parties which back the EU's ideals were put on hold this afternoon. Fifteen of the European Union's 20 Commissioners urged President Romano Prodi to re-think his proposals, which could exclude the Tory Party from Brussels handouts, before unveiling them to MEPs in Strasbourg. Revised recommendations are now due be unveiled in a fortnight, according to EU officials. "The majority feeling is that the proposals need more consideration, because they do not fully address concerns expressed last year by the Court Of Auditors about the transparency of European financing of political parties" explained a spokesman. "The majority feeling is that the proposals need more consideration, because they do not fully address concerns expressed last year by the Court of Auditors about the transparency of European financing of political parties" explained an EU spokesman. The postponement is said to be unconnected with Tory fury over the fact that the British Conservative MEPs would not qualify for a share of new EU cash under the recommendations Mr Prodi had intended to put forward this afternoon.(PA 18/1/01)
Some of the 34 extensions of qualified majority voting agreed at the Nice Treaty include: Borders policy. The government stipulated that it would not hand over the veto in this area. Well, it just has. The new article 62.2.(a) will mean Britain loses its capacity to deny access to 'citizens of the EU or nationals of third countries'. 63.1 (a,b,,c,d,) establishes the EU's right to determine the rules governing asylum. Bailing out countries that get into economic difficulties. New article 100 blows apart the claim by the EU-statists that British taxpayers could never be made to pay for the crises experienced by other member states (including, possibly, the pensions liability problems that are looming in France, Italy, Germany, Greece, and elsewhere).Employment law. New article 137 extends the EU's capacity to interfere in the internal labour markets of the member countries. Industrial policy. New article gives the Commission and the Council of Ministers to interfere with the minutiae of economic policy, including research and development. Redistribution of funds between EU regions. New article 159 commits member states to reduce 'disparities between the levels of the various regions.'. The EU will work for what it refers to as greater 'economic and social cohesion' using various funds. Political parties. New article 191 states that 'Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union.' 'The Council . shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding.'(Democracy Movement update 11/12/00)
Russia and Germany are considering converting a large chunk of Russia's $14 billion debt to Germany into equity stakes in Russian companies, which would make Germany a major shareholder in Russian industry. The deal will represent an important move in forging a close geopolitical partnership between Germany and Russia. This may help Russia's revival, and Germany could emerge as the leader of a united Europe with Russia on its side. Such a development would significantly weaken U.S. influence in Europe while dramatically strengthening Germany and Russia and helping them to advance to the front stage of world geopolitics. ( http://www.stratfor.com/1/1/01)
SECRET Cabinet papers reveal that Sir Edward Heath's Government supressed evidence that British membership of the Common Market could lead to political and monetary union. The papers, released under the 30-year rule, show that Tory ministers kept voters in the dark about long-term proposals to scrap the pound because they feared an adverse impact on exchange rates, inflation, and public opinion. A Foreign Office document from November 9, 1970, lays bare the Cabinet debate. It states: "The plan for econmomic and monetary union has revolutionary long-term political implications, both economic and political. It could imply the creation of a European federal state. with a single currency. . . it will arouse strong feelings about sovereignty." The Heath Government took Britain into the Common Market in 1973 and the public voted to stay in when Harold Wilson's Labour Government held a referendum in 1975. The existence of the papers astonished those opposed to joining, who were always assured by the Yes side that they were signing up to a trading bloc, not a political entity. Baroness Castle of Blackburn, who infuriated Wilson by turning fellow Cabinet ministers against the Market in the 1975 referendum, said: "We always knew Heath had been dishonest. He kept patronising us by telling us our fears were misplaced. But now the truth is out. If the British people had known this they would never have voted yes." (The Times 1/1/01)
Much of the European press agreed that Nice has led to the strengthening of German power within Europe. Although Germany retains the same number of votes in the Council as France, Britain and Italy, she now becomes the only country which can block a decision by allying herself with two other big countries, on the basis of a double-majority system based on population. Britain, France and Italy cannot achieve the blocking majority on their own, while Germany can with two of them. [El País, 11th December 2000]. This German pre-eminence was the sine que non for enlargement, which is largely a German-organised operation, taking in as it does the old German satellites of Central Europe. Despite this unilateral increase in German power, which seems to invalidate one of the fundamental states justifications for the European Union (that there can be a "European Germany" and not a German Europe) pro-Europeans continue to insist that Europe binds Germany in, just as they continue to insist that the main raison d’être of the EU is to preserve peace while at the same time giving it the ability to wage aggressive war. (European Foundation 14/2/00)
The Foreign Secretary Robin Cook stated as one of the successes for the UK of the Nice Treaty to be "UK has increased its votes" (Today programme 11 December). The UK will have 29 votes of a total 342 (8.5 per cent) where previously, the UK had 10 votes of a total 87 (11.5 per cent). In the European Parliament, the UK had 87 MEPs of a total 626 (14 per cent) but under the Nice Treaty we will have 74 of a total 738 (10 per cent). Unlike Mr Cook, I see these statistics as a decrease rather than an "increase for the UK" (Letter to Times 14/12/00)
UK vetoes given up at the Nice summit: Article 67 - Justice and Home affairs: 12 different areas have gone to QMV and they are: 62.2.a) checks on persons at external borders, 62.2.b) certain rules related to visas, 62.3) conditions for freedom to travel for nationals of third countries 63.1.a,b,c,d) measures related to asylum, 63.2.a) temporary protection of refugees 63.3.b) illegal immigration and residence, 65.a,b,c) judicial cooperation in civil matters, 66) co-operation between the relevant departments of the administrations. Article 100 § 1 - Financial aid offered to member states by the Community under certain conditions Article 111 § 4 - External representation of the European Monetary Union at for example G7 meetings Article 123 § 4 - Measures regarding the introduction of the euro Article 133 § 5 - Trade, commercial policy on among others intellectual rights Article 137 - Minimum requirements in the field of representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers, including co-determination Article 157 - Industry Article 159 - Social and economic cohesion outside the Structural Funds Article 161 - Structural and Cohesion funds Article 181 - Economic, financial and technical cooperation with third countries Article 187 - Association of the overseas countries and territories Article 190 § 5 - Statute for the members of the European Parliament Article 191 - Statute on political parties on a European level Article 223 - Internal rules of the European Court of Justice Article 224 - Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance Article 228 - Internal rules if the Court of Auditors Article 270 - Financial control Some articles regarding nominations of EU institutions and organs have also been changed and they are: Article 23 - Special representatives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy Article 207 - The secretary general and the secretary general adjoint of the Council Article 214 - The president of the Commission Article 247 § 3 - Members of the Court of Auditors Article 259 - The social and economic committee Article 263 - The regional committee QMV has also been introduced on the clauses G (procedure on how to establish enhanced co-operation), M (the permanent procedure on participation of member states outside enhanced co-operation) and O (permanent procedure on enhanced co-operation on Home and Justice affairs) on enhanced co-operation. (EUobserver.com12/12/00)
GERMANY and Italy delivered a serious blow to Tony Blair on the eve of the Nice summit yesterday by calling for yet another round of negotiations to achieve an even closer European Union. In a confidential joint paper sent to France, which holds the EU’s rotating Presidency, Berlin and Rome said the summit should agree to hold an inter-governmental conference (IGC) in 2004 "with a view to the further development of European integration". The Times has obtained the paper, which shows that even before the Nice treaty is signed leading EU members are looking for ways to increase integration in the next one. It immediately refuelled Eurosceptic claims that the EU is on the road to becoming a "superstate". Francis Maude, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, called the document a "bombshell that shows the true agenda at the heart of Europe". He claimed that the Government was "privately happy with this agenda, but publicly denies it is happening". The paper plays into the hands of Eurosceptics by fuelling the impression that integration is a relentless one-way process. However, many of Germany’s preliminary ideas, including stopping the flow of powers from national governments to Brussels, are strongly welcomed by London, which in recent days has softened its position over a future IGC. The new paper surfaced on the day that Peter Mandelson, the Cabinet’s leading pro-European, said that the EU’s founding fathers’ dream of an ever closer union was now dead. He insisted that the Nice treaty would confirm that Europe was now a "pragmatic venture". The paper gives the Conservatives further ammunition by saying the IGC should consider whether to make the EU’s controversial new Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding — an idea the Government opposes. It says the IGC should consider "a simplification of the treaties with a view to achieving improved legibility and clarity". British Eurosceptics have long regarded "treaty simplification" — which would create a separate document for the EU’s core principles — as a back-door route to a European constitution. (The Times Wednesday December 06 2000)
A clause of the Treaty of Nice which will certainly be met with opposition from the Danes, and should be resisted by the UK, is Article 137 TEC, which allows the EU to interfere in every aspect of employment laws and conditions. This Article limits powers to sack, potentially compels 'positive discrimination' in favour of non-nationals, insists on total equality between the sexes in the workplace and in many ways interferes with the freedoms of employers and vastly increases their obligations. This will hobble business with regulation, increase costs and so discourage inward investment. (Eurofaq posting 5/12/00)
We are already far along the path to Mr Delor’s 80% of essential political and economic decisions being made at community level and not at member state level. (Leolin Price QC 1 December 2000)
The Article of the Treaty of Nice dealing with visas, asylum and immigration, which seeks to open the borders of Member States, (67 TEC) cannot constitutionally be signed by the French. They have therefore adopted an extraordinary ruse. They will make a declaration that they will implement all this Article's provisions. This declaration will not be legally binding. At the same time they will undertake that they will implement this clause - thus violating their Constitution - in 2004. The Danes have wisely won a derogation on this clause. (Eurofaq posting 5/12/00)
Article 13 TEC of the Treaty of Nice is deeply worrying for many minorities. It entitles the European Council again on the basis of QMV, to take "appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation." This provision could see distant and insensitive bureaucrats legislating to the effect that, for example, Catholic boys' prep-schools must employ Presbyterian homosexuals, that Jews must die nursed by Moslems and vice versa. This clause will almost certainly supercede several national laws founded on deep moral beliefs, such as the Irish policy, duly arrived at by referendum, of prohibiting abortion. It could be invoked to ban the insistence that our monarch, or that of the Danes, should be a member of the established church. (Eurofaq posting 5/12/00)
New articles 191 and 7 of the Treaty of Nice to be applied to Italy? Wednesday's Italian papers are full of talk about a remark from the Italian PM about whether the Lega Nord party would fall foul of the criteria on which the "three wise men" named by Prodi went to Vienna to "judge" the Austrian government's "democratic acceptability". These criteria - clearly an anticipation of what will follow once article 191 is approved - have been spelt out, and they include: Respect for the European Treaties (presumably any party that preached repeal, or even modification, of the Treaties, would fall under the hammer). (Eurofaq posting T D-E 23 Nov 2000)
"COME off it, says Tony Blair. This superstate idea is a fantasy: a false creation proceeding from the overheated brains of Euro-sceptics. With respect, Prime Minister, you should have been in Strasbourg last week. Here you would have seen superstatery alive and well. Allow me to list for you some of the measures just passed by the European Parliament. One Bill strengthens Europol, which it helpfully describes as "the embryonic federal European police force". Another establishes a body called Eurojust which will, as a first step, bring together national public prosecution services, but which is intended over time to create a separate EU criminal justice system. A third sets up a European Police College, where officers will be taught to "develop a European approach in the field of crime fighting". A fourth lays down new regulations on the seizure of criminal assets. All this is necessary, we are told, in order to "build a single market in justice". There is a Bill telling us how to treat illegal immigrants, and another regulating the price of pigmeat. There are rules on what may be sold in second-hand shops, and on what health insurers are allowed to ask their clients. There are common standards concerning access to children, the employment of domestic workers and the position of women in the Armed Forces. Mr Blair is following the textbook Eurofederalist strategy. He knows the EU will carry on agglomerating powers anyway; so why rub voters' noses in it?" (Daniel Hannan MEP Sunday Telegraph 19/11/00)
"SHOULD Euro-MPs have longer holidays? Many colleagues feel that we should, pointing out that our recess is far shorter than that of any national parliament. But others - especially those who rely on their parliamentary expenses to supplement their salaries - have strenuously opposed the idea. Now, the Parliament seems to be moving towards a rather singular solution. It is to hold a number of "constituency weeks". These, it is stresses, are not holidays. To underline this, members will be entitled to claim all their allowances, even though there are no meetings for them to attend." (Daniel Hannan MEP Sunday Telegraph 19/11/00)
Germany is once again repeating its proposal of a directly elected president of the Commission. Foreign minister Joschka Fischer told members of the Belgian parliament that an elected president would give Europe a recognisable political figure with real democratic legitimacy, writes BBC News. According to the Times Mr Fischer also demanded an end to the national veto in almost all area of policy. Both statements made by Mr Fischer are undoubtly going to provoke the member states, who are concerned by more politcal integration in the EU. (EUobserver.com 15/11/00)
The European Commission plans to scrap Britain's veto in nearly 50 categories of policy, and the Nice Treaty looks to abolish the veto over direct taxation. (Electronic Telegraph 14/11/00)
Tony Blair said yesterday it may be in Britain's interests to accept some diminution of the country's veto in the European Union. However, the prime minister said the government would not relinquish the veto over taxation policy and EU treaty changes. (Financial Times; Nov 9, 2000)
At its annual congress last weekend, the Danish people's Movement Against the EU presented Irish Green MEP Patricia McKenna with its traditional "Wooden Clogs Award", because she had not let herself be swept off her feet, but had won her lawsuit against the Irish government in 1997, establishing that the government had acted illegally by favouring the Yes-side in the referendum on the Maastricht treaty. "It is an insult to taxpayers to spend their own money on teaching them what to think," McKenna said. "People are quite able to make up their own minds, when a referendum is carried out in a fair manner." The award was presented by MEP for the People's Movement Ole Krarup, professor of law, who is engaged in a parallel lawsuit against the Danish government. (EUObserver.com 6/11/00)
Mr. Prodi has demanded that the member states make concessions, especially in majority voting. "After 2006," he has said, "no more decisions can be taken by unanimity." [La Stampa, 1st November 2000] He said that it was a question of "abolishing as far as possible the right of veto" which was a "ball and chain" on European integration. (Commission press conference Tuesday 31 October, 2000)
FOREIGN OFFICE CULTURE: Today I (PK) will reveal something else to Mr Vaz - an astonishing admission by one of his own Foreign Office diplomats about the secret plot to lock Britain into Europe. Asked what will happen if Mr Blair can't win a referendum to join the euro, he said: "Our strategy now is to get us signed up to so much else - foreign policy, justice, you name it - so that in the end joining the euro won't seem like a big deal. It will seem perfectly natural." The 30-something official confessed: "To me, nationality is an irrelevance." And in a remarkable comment on Foreign Office culture, he added: "To be honest, I feel far more comfortable with the kind of people I negotiate with than I do with 'the people'. " "We all have far more in common with each other than we do with our respective lower classes." The kind of people who read The Sun? "Exactly," he said. "My sister goes out with that sort of scum time after time - very depressing." He was also critical of Mr Blair for offering the referendum that Mr Vaz claimed was the safeguard for the British people. "There should never have been a promise to hold a referendum," he said. "I mean, consulting the public on an issue as important as this is barking." And he confirmed that - despite Mr Vaz's denials - Britain will eventually sign up to a legally-binding Charter of Fundamental Rights. His remarks jar with Mr Blair's repeated pledges to safeguard British interests and increase UK influence in Brussels. But they help explain the bizarre somersault by Robin Cook when he became Foreign Secretary. Overnight, the most avowedly anti-euro member of Mr Blair's Cabinet was transformed into its leading crusader. Politicians are easily seduced by what Europe has to offer - power without accountability. Vaz, Blair, Cook, Straw, Jay and Mandy who's gonna hang first? (Trevor Kavanagh Political Editor The Sun 30/10/00)
The Treaty of Rome in 1957 was never signed by the six founding states of the EEC and could therefore be technically invalid. The Foreign Ministers unwittingly signed blank sheets of paper (doesn't that tell us a lot?), because the German, Dutch, and Italian translations of the French original were not ready. A former Italian official has confessed to the act of legerdemain, according to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. He said it was a well-intentioned ruse concocted by Guilio Andreotti, then a rising young Chancery aide. (EUROFILE by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard D Telegraph 21/10/00)
Guy Verhofstadt, prime minister of Belgium, has called for an increased role for the Council of Ministers and a strengthened European Commission to help the European Union develop into a superpower. (FT October 26 2000)
Tony Blair proposed the creation of a second chamber of the European Parliament and a charter of competencies to define what should be done at the national level and what should be done at a European level. British Prime Minister Tony Blair held his speech of the European future Friday at the Polish Stock exchange in Warsaw. Blair voiced the vision of a European superpower, but not a superstate. (10 October 2000 http://www.democracymovement.org.uk/main/ ) This is a distinction without a difference - Ed!
A change proposed at Nice to Article 217, amending "The Comission may appoint a vice president or two vice president's from amongst its members", to read "The president shall determine the political orientation of the commission". Under these new terms, the president will be able to refuse to accept the appointment of commissioners nominated by member states, and he will be able to hire and fire them at will. (Eurofaq posting A Mote 26/10/00)
VALLETTA, - Thousands of striking workers demonstrated in Malta's capital on Friday against tax increases and major shipyards were hit by the industrial action. Malta Drydocks, Malta Shipbuilding and Malta Freeport were among companies hit by stoppages after the General Workers' Union called on all workers to go on strike. The demonstration was the highlight of a campaign called "Enough is enough" launched following the budget speech last year after the government increased income tax to middle income workers and imposed VAT on fuel and telephones. These and other measures were taken as the government sought to tackle a financial deficit which had been running at around 10 percent of GDP. The government intends reducing the deficit to three percent in three years' time, when it hopes Malta will be in a position to join the European Union. (Reuters Oct 20 2000).
The consequences of a European federalism that drives forward without popular backing are stark. Divisions within the EU would intensify, and popular dissatisfaction with the ruling consensus could threaten instability even within the countries at the driving heart of European integration. That should be of concern to the US for diplomatic and national security reasons, writes columnist Gerhard Baker in the Financial Times 4 October. Americans' doubts about the euro are not, as some Europeans fantasise, because they fear its potential strength. Absurdly inflated claims at the outset that the euro would challenge the dollar as the world's principal reserve currency have proved about as accurate as Nikita Khruschev's promise 40 years ago that communism would "bury" US capitalism. Their concerns are rather that, without radical reforms, the strains put on disparate economies by a single monetary policy will place intolerable pressure on social and political systems. Without firm popular support for the project itself, these changes become much harder to achieve. (Euobserver 20/10/00 http://www.euobserver.com/)
The Nice agenda may be divided under five main headings. First, and of greatest concern, are the plans to create politico-military structures answerable to the EU institutions rather than to the component nations. Second, the EU is to be given a written constitution which - in a brilliant piece of PR - is to be called the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This document, being justiciable before the European Court of Justice, will empower - or, rather, oblige - European judges to strike down any Acts of Parliament that they deem to be incompatible with their interpretation of the document. Third, there are to be changes to the EU institutions, including the near-abolition of the veto and substantial new powers for the European Parliament. Fourth, a fledgling EU criminal code will be established under a European Public Prosecutor. In order to administer this code, Europol - which is intended to become a European police force - will be given substantial new operational powers. Fifth, in a proposal which had gone virtually unnoticed before the publication by the Centre for Policy Studies of Christopher Booker's pamphlet Nice and Beyond, federalist-inclined countries are to be allowed to push ahead with deeper integration without the possibility of a veto from more reluctant members. (Daily Telegraph 23/10/00)
The Runnymede Trust says in the report 'The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain', that "The nation's very history should be rethought and certain aspects "jettisoned, revised or reworked". The word British had "racist connotations" and was no longer an appropriate description of the inhabitants of these multi-cultural islands." The Runnymede Trust is funded, inter alia, by the EU Commission and EU Parliament. (Various sources Electronic Telegraph 25/10/00) Lady Gavron, chairman of the Trust said, "It would be great," she told the London Daily Telegraph, "if Prince Charles had been told to marry someone black." Kate Gavron is the wife of Lord Gavron, who contributed more than a million dollars to the Labor Party in the election that put Tony Blair in as prime minister. (The Washington Times October 23, 2000)
Pierre Moscovici, the French minister for European Affairs, expressed concern that the introduction of qualified majority voting (QMV) on visa and immigration policies would force France to change its constitution. However, France is not the only EU member state who worries about the constitutional consequences of the new Treaty. The introduction of QMV in certain areas of EU's social policy might force Denmark to hold a referendum on the Nice Treaty. At a press conference in Strasbourg Mr Moscovici told reporters that the introduction of QMV on visa and immigration policies would mean that it would be necessary to change the French constitution. And even though a change can be made by a majority in the French Senate the prospect of change concerns the French. When the Amsterdam Treaty was to be ratified in France a political promise was made that France would not commit to any further changes in the visa and immigrations policies of the EU. So Moscovici's concerns are based upon a fear that the French Senate would vote against changes and the new Treaty. In Denmark, the prospect of constitutional changes as a consequence of a new Treaty poses more serious problems. According to the Danish newspaper Poltiken the French proposal on the introduction of QMV on social security of migrant workers is constructed in a way that effects the sovereignty of Denmark. And a constitutional change of that calibre, where Denmark would have to give up some national sovereignty to the EU, cannot be made without a referendum. It is obvious after the Danish euro-vote that the last thing the Danish government wants is a new referendum on the EU. (Politiken EU Observer 25/10/00)
According to a confidential memorandum of the German Foreign Ministry, which a Sunday newspaper has obtained and published, 80 billion euros are to be spent by the European Union and the member states on enlargement to include three new member states in central Europe. A spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry confirmed the existence of the document and that the figures were accurate. Germany is to pay about 25% of the total sum. The spokesman insisted that Germany would profit from enlargement in a very special way because enlargement would "overcome the division of Europe" and allow Germany access to new export markets. The spokesman added that new markets in Central Europe would encourage German companies to re-locate to Berlin and Brandenburg and that enlargement was therefore good for the otherwise depressed Eastern part of Germany. "Either the West stabilises the East or the East will de-stabilise the West," the leaked paper said - in a phrase very reminiscent of the CDU's threat in 1994 that if the hard core was not achieved, then Germany "would be forced to stabilise Eastern Europe on her own and in the traditional manner." The Foreign Ministry has also said that Germany can expect to benefit from immigrants from the new EU member states, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. This, it is claimed, will help pay German pensions. A UN study recently said that Germany needed 500,000 immigrants a year over the medium term in order to balance out its demographic pyramid. The paper also said that there would have to be strengthened "common security" on the new external borders of the EU "with intensive police co-operation". All this is unlikely to be welcome news for German ears. [Welt am Sonntag, 17th September 2000]
DECLASSIFIED American government documents show that the US intelligence community ran a campaign in the Fifties and Sixties to build momentum for a united Europe. The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state. One memorandum, dated July 26, 1950, gives instructions for a campaign to promote a fully fledged European parliament. It is signed by Gen William J Donovan, head of the American wartime Office of Strategic Services, precursor of the CIA. The documents were found by Joshua Paul, a researcher at Georgetown University in Washington. They include files released by the US National Archives. Washington's main tool for shaping the European agenda was the American Committee for a United Europe, created in 1948. The chairman was Donovan, ostensibly a private lawyer by then. The vice-chairman was Allen Dulles, the CIA director in the Fifties. The documents show that ACUE financed the European Movement, the most important federalist organisation in the post-war years. In 1958, for example, it provided 53.5 per cent of the movement's funds. The European Youth Campaign, an arm of the European Movement, was wholly funded and controlled by Washington. The Belgian director, Baron Boel, received monthly payments into a special account. The US role was handled as a covert operation. ACUE's funding came from the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as business groups with close ties to the US government. The head of the Ford Foundation, ex-OSS officer Paul Hoffman, doubled as head of ACUE in the late Fifties. The State Department also played a role. A memo from the European section, dated June 11, 1965, advises the vice-president of the European Economic Community, Robert Marjolin, to pursue monetary union by stealth. It recommends suppressing debate until the point at which "adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable".(Daily Telegraph Tuesday 19th September 2000)
Chris Heaton-Harris led Tory Euro-MPs in tabling 400 amendments to trim £787 million from the European Budget. The Gay and Lesbian Educational Equity Project for schools, known as the GLEE Project, was targeted, this was provided for out of a fund for providing schoolchildren with maps. So was funding for the EU's " politically biased and propagandist causes such as the "Our Europe" Association, Associations and federations of European Interest, European think tanks, International Federation of Europe Houses, European Integration in universities, Journalists in Europe (£150,000), and the European Movement (access to £6m) , the Prince programme - all of which provide one-sided information on the Euro and the 'European Project'.". Other special interest groups are: European Trade Unions (£180,000) and the European Women's Lobby (£220,000). Daniel Hannan, MEP, writes, 'several MEPs seem to believe that financial negligence, or even outright fraud, can be justified in the name of "building Europe" (like Helmut Kohl). That is why the European Parliament can never bring itself to withold money from the Commission. The legislature sees itself as an ally of the executive against its own electorate.' ( D Telegraph 17/9/00)
Tony Benn spoke of his experience as a minister in the Council of Ministers. He emphasised that despite the protestations that the Council is the supreme body and that democratic control is thus ensured, in fact no minister is ever able to raise any matter on his own initiative. All that ministers can do is to approve or reject recommendations put forward by the Commission who are undemocratically appointed. He said that he always felt that this process was tending to act against democracy in Europe. He now felt that the process was a deliberate attack on the whole democratic process. (Speech at Politicos 14/9/00)
URBAN regeneration has ground to a halt because of a "disastrous" European Commission ruling that the Government's scheme for funding inner city redevelopment is illegal, MPs said yesterday. An all-party Commons select committee criticised the "perverse and bizarre" decision to stop "gap funding", an innovative investment scheme that has provided £1.1 billion of public funds and attracted £2.5 billion of private money for the redevelopment of run-down parts of cities such as Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. MPs said the EC's decision was a "body blow" to the "urban renaissance" called for by John Prescott, the deputy prime minister. It threatened to prevent the Government reaching its target of building 60 per cent of the 3.8 million new homes needed over the next 20 years on previously developed land, the committee warned. Gap funding uses public money to close the gap between the high costs of regenerating difficult sites and the low value on completion of properties in difficult neighbourhoods. The scheme, run by the government agency English Partnerships, has been in existence for six years. In the past three it is estimated to have created or saved 50,000 jobs. The Competition Commissioner, Mario Monti, an Italian former academic, decided last December to scrap gap funding because, he claimed, it could affect trade between member states. MPs said it was "taken casually" without regard for the consequences. The committee, chaired by the pro-Europe MP Andrew Bennett, said: "Illogical and ill-considered commission decisions such as this bring the European Union into disrepute." (Telegraph 14/9/00)
Our Civil Service College, which had been hived off as a semi-autonomous agency, was quietly taken back into the Civil Service, under the Cabinet Office. Part of the reason was because the college now helps to fund, and is closely linked to, the EU's new Institute for Public Administration, near Maastricht, whose purpose is to train civil servants from across the EU in "managing the integration" of all the EU's national administrations. Last week the European parliament approved the budget for a European Police College, to train the policemen who will be responsible for integrating the EU's national police forces under thecontrol of the European Police Office, Europol. (Sunday Telegraph London 10 September 2000)
Article 217 of the Nice Treaty proposals says: "The President shall determine the political orientation of the Commission". (Eurofaq posting 12/9/00)
GERMANY'S Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, called at the weekend for a revolution in the way his country determines policy towards the European Union, proposing that referendums should be held on future transfers of power to Brussels. Such a change would give the German people - who are far more sceptical about further integration than their politicians - the right to veto the final leap towards political union that Mr Fischer is pioneering. The outspoken minister's latest ideas underline concerns in the Berlin government that the European project could be fatally undermined unless it is based more on democratic principles. A growing number of Germans resent the fact that they were not consulted on the decision to drop the mark for the euro on Jan 1, 1999. The move had the support of only 50 per cent of the population. (Daily Telegraph Monday 11th September 2000)
Romano Prodi also irritated ministers and government officials by currying favour with the European Parliament to an extent that the member states, acting through the council of ministers, warned the Commission it should not become a secretariat for the directly elected assembly. (FT 8/9/00)
THE European Union would create a fully fledged foreign service, with its own embassies around the world and an elite training academy, under plans approved by the European Parliament yesterday. The proposals, which are not binding but reflect the thinking of senior officials, call for the gradual merging of British, French and German embassies as the EU takes prime responsibility for running foreign policy. The parliament also voted for a system of "co-ordinated representation" in international bodies. If this came to pass, this would mean that Britain would lose its individual seat on the United Nations Security Council, as well as its vote on the boards of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Chris Patten, the External Affairs Commissioner, said that the European Commission would pay close attention to the proposals in drawing up its own plans for reform of the EU diplomatic staff, scheduled for release later this year.(Daily Telegraph Wednesday 6 September 2000)
Ge rmany's chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, yesterday hastened to stamp out speculation that his government might be plotting to delay the next round of European Union enlargement. The EU commissioner for enlargement affairs, Günter Verheugen, who is German, appeared to suggest in an interview published at the weekend that his country should hold a referendum on the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. The idea is political and diplomatic dynamite - all the more so coming from a member of Mr Schröder's Social Democratic party who, until last year, was the number two at the foreign ministry. Many Germans fear enlargement could lead to an influx of cheap labour and a loss of jobs. So a vote could well go against the EU's plans and the campaign leading up to it could unleash the ugliest sort of populism from the right. Mr Verheugen's gaffe highlighted the commission's lack of coordination. Most damaging of all was the insistence by the commission president, Romano Prodi, that he knew nothing about the interview. Mr Verheugen caused double discomfort by warning that Germany, the largest and richest member of the EU, must "not repeat the mistake we made with the euro" which, he said, was "introduced behind the backs of the population". (Guardian Tuesday September 5, 2000)
A top-ranking official at the European Commission's antitrust department has resigned, citing lack of willingness by the EU's executive to pursue important reforms to its merger review process. John Temple-Lang, one of the most senior directors in the EU's competition department, said it was clear the Commission had no will to introduce reforms that would ensure companies were given a fairer hearing when deals were scrutinised by the EU. Concern is growing in the US over the increasingly tough European approach to mergers and acquisitions. Hearings, which many companies regard as vital in getting their case across in Brussels, are organised by a hearing officer, a position which Mr Temple-Lang assumed in May. He was appointed to give the post a higher profile and believed the role would be strengthened. Mario Monti, the EU's competition commissioner, said at the time he wanted to explore possibilities for strengthening the role of hearing officer. "Let's not forget that under the EU system, investigations, assessments of the results of investigations and drawing up of remedies are all done by the same officials," said Jacques Bourgeois, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld in Brussels. "There should be some sort of countervailing power within the system. (FT September 3 2000)
Traffic across the English channel was restored on Thursday after French fishermen abandoned a blockade of the Eurotunnel and French ports called in protest at high fuel prices. Union leaders called off the action, which began on Wednesday morning, after Jean Glavany, the French agriculture and fisheries minister, agreed a global fisheries deal including cuts in port charges and social security contributions. Laurent Fabius, French finance minister, is also expected to announce a cut in fuel tax on Thursday as part of a package of measures, although fishermen are likely to benefit only indirectly, as diesel used by fishing boats is not taxed. (FTAugust 31 2000) Lionel Jospin, the French prime minister, on Friday sought to soothe French farmers and taxi-drivers protesting against high fuel costs by saying the government was making every effort to intervene over prices with oil-producing countries. He called for "international discussions" with members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries and indicated that he felt a price of $30 a barrel was not sustainable.(FTSeptember 1 2000) The French government cannot implement the deal offered to the French fishermen until it gets permission from Brussels. (BBC R4 3/9/00)
The political debacle over the failure of the Irish Government's attempt to obtain the #147,000 a year job of Vice-President of the European Investment Bank for a disgraced former judge on the basis of political patronage and cronyism, could not have occurred without the cooperation throughout of the Danish and Greek Governments. The 4 or so votes out of 25 which former Irish Judge Hugh O'Flaherty obtained for his candidature from the 25 members of the EIB's Board of Directors, and which has now led him to withdraw his name, came from the Irish, Danish, and Greek directors of the Bank, and one or two others. EIB's 7 Vice-Presidents are each paid some #143,000 Irish per year, plus unlimited expenses. So these are very valuable pieces of political patronage for governments to dispose of. Not only was Judge O'Flaherty unsuitable because of his enforced resignation a year before, but he had no qualifications in banking, finance or economics, unlike the other holders of the 7 Vice-Presidency positions on the EIB Board of Management. The O'Flaherty scandal in Ireland has drawn attention to the manner in which the EU Member States have arrogated to themselves the function of making "nominations" to these lucrative positions of EIB Vice-Presidents, even though the Statute of the Bank makes clear that the sole and exclusive power of making nominations rests with the Bank's Board of Directors who are required to act independently and be "responsible only to the Bank" as they direct its investment, securities and other functions. The Statute of the European Investment Bank, which is set out in Protocol A of the Treaty of Rome, provides that the Bank is governed and managed by its Board of Goevrnors, its Board of Directors and its Management Commttee. What has happened over the years is that the EU Governments have arrogated the role of allocating these lucrative positions to themselves with the passive compliance of the Board of Directors. The Directors have not even set out any formal qualifications for the job of Bank Vice-President, not to mind setting in place a procedure for ensuring that candidates for nomination as possible Bank Vice-Presidents are chosen in an open and fair manner. (Irish Times Tuesday 29 August 2000)
Letter to a constituent from Chris Davis MEP: "I suspect you fail to appreciate the difference between a single member constituency and a multi-member regional one. In the former, individual constituents have no choice but to go to the one elected representative however much they may despise that person. However, in a multi-member seat with MEPs elected by proportional representation they have the choice to go whichever of the ten North West MEPs they believe most closely reflects their views. Clearly in your case I am not that person, and I advise you to go and find someone who shares your opinions. (Eurofaq posting 21/8/00)
Members of the European Union must consider drafting a constitution for the bloc as a way to ensure its future effectiveness, French President Jacques Chirac said Monday. The French leader said EU member states needed to look beyond current challenges facing the union to the body's future. "After the French presidency, thought must be given to a fundamental text that would become the first European constitution," Chirac told France's ambassadors at their annual meeting in the French capital. (PARIS, Aug 28, 2000 AFP)
Once the (Nice) Treaty is in place, the European Union will claim the power to decide by majority voting amongst themselves to send armed paramilitary Europol "riot-control" detachments to Britain and deploy them however they see fit. They would be a new generation of storm-troopers, and are already being established on the Continent. The new regime would have a full array of repressive legal devices at their disposal, the like of which we have not seen for hundreds of years. These powers are provided for in proposals 53 and 54 of the Resolution of the European Parliament that was passed with a thumping majority on 12th April 2000. Article 54 provides for Europol becoming fully "operational", i.e. getting its guns, equipment and uniforms. Article 53 will subject "all measures" concerning "freedom, security and justice" to majority voting in the European Union and any dispute as to the meaning of the texts will be under the "full jurisdiction" of the European Court of Justice. Following the European Parliament resolution, the Present Prime Minister and his Foreign Secretary stated that they intend to retain our national veto in relation to taxation, defence, and borders. They did NOT include Justice and Home Affairs; nor Economic and Monetary Policy - under which, the Euro could be forced on us by majority voting. (GLW posting 19/8/00)
The Treaty of Nice, currently being drafted, and intended for signature in December 2000 by the EU Heads of Government at the end of the French Presidency, represents a yet further massive move towards the creation of a United States of Europe. Major additional centralising changes are in prospect. These include a further large extension of majority voting; the establishment of a Euro-constitution with judges to enforce it; the creation of a "legal personality" for the EU, thus enabling it to take over its Member States' seats at the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and at other international organisations; more powers giving the EU a direct role in defence policy and the ability to create and control its own police force; and - perhaps most sinister of all - highly undemocratic steps to deprive political parties which do not share this vision of the EU's future with funding, and perhaps the right to exist at all.(Labour EuroSafeguards July 2000) http://www.lesc.org.uk/
The proportion of proposals for new laws coming out of the Commission on the Commission's own initiative is about 50%. It has been calculated that 35% are to implement international agreements; 25-30% are to update or modernise rules; and 10% are routine, such as the annual fixing of farm prices, 10% of proposals come from the Commission's own initiative. 20% of proposals follow a request from the Council, the Parliament or national governments. (A Glossary Of Eurosceptic Beliefs by the cec 12/7/00)
The Tánaiste has come out against further European integration, saying it would be against the interests of Ireland which, she says, is spiritually "a lot closer to Boston than Berlin". As the debate on deepening EU integration continues, Ms Harney said she was against a more centralised Europe "with key political economic decisions being taken at Brussels level . . . I believe in a Europe of independent states, not a United States of Europe". Ms Harney's view, expressed in a speech to a meeting of the American Bar Association yesterday, accords with Fianna Fáil's approach of commitment to full participation in the EU, but lack of enthusiasm for further integration. She laid heavy emphasis on Ireland's relationship with the United States and its attractiveness to American business. "The figures speak for themselves," she said. "It is a remarkable fact that a country with just 1 per cent of Europe's population accounts for 27 per cent of US greenfield investment in Europe." The reason was that American business liked Irish economic values, she suggested, and these values were not shared by some other EU states. "When Americans come here they find a country that believes in the incentive power of low taxation. They find a country that believes in economic liberalisation. They find a country that believes in essential regulation but not overregulation. On looking further afield they find also that not every European country believes in all of these things." (Irish Times 22/7/00)
For the first time, the Eurobarometer surveyed the level of support for a European constitution, which was defined as a "fundamental document combining the various treaties currently in place". Seven out of 10 of those surveyed were in favour, with levels of support ranging from 88% in the Netherlands to 47% in the United Kingdom. (Brussels, 24 July 2000 - Eurobarometer)
A stronger European Union executive led by a directly elected president has been proposed by the man in charge of reform at the European Commission Proposals by Michel Bernier, the commissioner for Institutional Change, include giving the commission the power to dissolve the European Parliament. Mr Bernier writes : "At the heart of the system the European Commission represents the vanguard, driving forward, making proposals and sanctioning. It is the focal point for coherence, synthesis and considering the general interest, while the interests of the member states often run parallel and at times diverge" (Times 10/7/00)
GERMAN Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer repeated his call for a European superstate and claimed that the European single currency was the "first step to a federation." Mr Fischer told the constitutional affairs committee of the European Parliament that discussions on how such a superstate was run must start in the next few years. Mr Fischer, a German Green, sketched a vision of a "hard core" moving together in every area of policy. He repeated his call in May for a European constitution, an elected commission president and the creation of a bicameral parliament with full legislative powers. He suggested an upper chamber, or European senate, comprised of national MPs, with a mandate to safeguard cultures and traditions. "We will have to embark on this discussion very soon after 2002 and take decisions because otherwise Europe is heading for a major crisis in our view," he said. (7/7/00 http://www.poptel.org.uk/against-eurofederalism)
Our (MEPs) demand for access to Commission documents goes into force at the moment where the Commission transmits the document to anybody outside, or it has been leaked. When a suggestion has left the Commission, the Commission should not have the right to restrain it from us. When this happens equality shall apply for everybody, - it does not apply with the Framework Agreement. In particular there are two humiliating situations we should be with out. In the legislative process most suggestions are marked as "restraint", which means that we cannot get access to the documents. During our Committee meetings preparing proposals for new legislation, officials from the permanent representations and their students - stagiaires, sit in the chairs behind us holding the documents we cannot get access to. The lobbyists also have them. It often happens that we read about proposed legislation in the newspapers. When asked about our opinion on the matter we cannot get hold of the proposal. There ought to be a legal claim that we can get access to a document when it has left the Commission. This claim we should have as individual members and rapporteurs, and not by kneeling in front of the President of Parliament. There might come another President that one didn't like to kneel for. (President of the EDD-group of MEPs Jens-Peter Bondes about the Framework Agreement 6/7/00 http://www.euopen.com/ ) The Framework directive was passed by the European Parliament, twenty three Labour MEPs and most of the Tories voted for the agreement. (Eurofaq posting 10/7/00)
The principal element of agreement between France and Germany is on the need for what Mr. Chirac called "a pioneer group" of countries within the EU to drive integration forward. "Pioneer group" is effectively the same as that which the Germans call "the hard core" or what Mr. Fischer called "the centre of gravity". Mr. Chirac said that the "pioneer group" should press ahead with integration outside the treaties if necessary. He has proposed that policy co-ordination between the hard core states should be carried out by an informal structure, albeit with a secretariat, between the national governments and outside the EU treaties... Not surprisingly, the Germans have reacted with delight to Chirac's speech. There was a ten minute standing ovation when he gave it. Above all, Joschka Fischer expressed his satisfaction. "I cannot see any difference between my point of view and Mr. Chirac's," said the German foreign minister. "The direction is clear: we are moving towards the completion of union." The former president of Germany, Richard von Weizsäcker, said, "This is a new start for the Franco-German couple." Even the communists were happy: according to Gregor Gysi, the head of the successor party to the East German communists, Chirac had sufficiently stressed the need for subsidiarity and for a de-centralised Europe. Myr. Gysi evidently took at face value Mr. Chirac's flannel about not wanting a European super-state. [Le Monde, 28th June 2000]
The Commissar for enlargement, Mr. Verheugen has criticised the leader of the Czech opposition, the former prime minister Vaclav Klaus, for his call for a referendum on Czech membership of the EU. He said that it was "strange" that Mr. Klaus should ask for the accession to be submitted to popular vote since he had himself initiated the Czech Republic's application when he was in power. [Radio Free Europe Newsline, 8th June 2000]
THE European Union's Charter on Fundamental Rights was "a major milestone for Europe as a political force", the European Commission said yesterday. The statement contradicts the Government's public claims that it will have no impact on British national life. Antonio Vitorino, the Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, said the 54 articles of the rights bill "will mark a turning point in the integration of Europe, moving it away from the essentially economic logic of its origins to become a real political union." He was speaking after the conclusion on Tuesday of the long-running drafting process. The commission also said the charter should be incorporated in the next EU treaty as a legally binding document, but added that the new social and economic rights would have legal force anyway because they "derived" from clauses in existing European treaties. The Government had hoped to limit the effects of the charter by ensuring that it was a mere declaratory showcase of rights. Mr Vitorino gave explicit support to Article 50, Paragraph One - one of the charter's most controversial clauses that could be used to suppress the rights of EU citizens when "necessary" to "meet objectives of general interest being pursued by the union". The clause has caused alarm among constitutional scholars. Martin Howe QC, an expert on European law, described the wording as "sinister", saying that it could be exploited for authoritarian purposes. (Telegraph 14/9/00)
The Charter of Rights is on the agenda for Nice, and it is at its root incompatible with our British tradition of rights, for their Charter contains a provision whereby the EU "legislative authority" can at any time put "any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter" if it considers this "necessary" for the "general interest being pursued by the Union" (art. 50.1). They say that *they* give us rights, and then they keep for themselves the power to take them away whenever they want! Whereas if the ordinary people try to engage in activities to alter the formulation of the charter (in article 52) they can be accused by the authorities of "sedition against the EU", or "abusing their rights", and so their rights will be taken away. (Eurofaq posting T D-E 11 August 2000) The new Charter of Human Rights codifies rights that we already have within our unwritten constitution. However our current arrangement allows for rights which are not yet apparent but will become so. (Eurofaq posting 18/8/00)
Under the draconian European Charter of Rights, unaccountable judges could suppress free speech, confiscate property and sack democratically-elected governments. They would be entitled to crush any act deemed to be "against the interest of the European Community." Mr Blair is under intense pressure from Germany and France to sign up to the deal - the first step towards a brand new European Constitution - at a special EU summit in December. More ominously, the Charter could be used by those in power to destroy political opponents. If joining the euro means loss of control over our economy, the Charter would sweep away ALL our powers to run Britain as a nation state. Yet in echoes of George Orwell's chilling novel 1984, Denmark's political leaders have begun to denounce critics of Europe as public enemies. When five Danish economists raised doubts about the euro last week, Premier Poul Nyrup Rasmussen attacked them for "acting injuriously to the state." Worryingly, the Charter of Rights would give Brussels the power to put the menace behind those words into action. What would happen if, for instance, a future British government was elected after campaigning to pull out of Europe? Under new proposals, the election of an anti-EU government would be declared ILLEGAL on grounds of "xenophobia." German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer has also warned that no political party should be allowed to campaign on an anti-EU platform. Fantasy? When MEPs in the European Parliament were asked if anti-EU governments should be banned after the Austrian fiasco, dozens of Euro-MPs shouted: "Yes." In a sinister ruling, The European Court said: "Fundamental rights - including free speech and the right of property - are subject to the general interest of the Community." (The Sun, 06 June, 2000)
Here is one paragraph, which shows how the original formulation about the "power to ban political parties" has been redone to make it even more sinister: this is taken off the EP website, where apparently it was not in English, but only in French. I translate: "As for European political parties, the rapporteurs propose that the European Council and the EP lay down, in co-decision, the conditions for their recognition, their statutes [i.e. their inner party constitutions, rules and regulations], and the modalities of their financing (EU financing included). But they ask that European parties "that do not respect democratic principles and fundamental rights" may be subjected to a procedure for the suspension of their financing by the Union before the Court of Justice. So whereas in the earlier draft, a Party that strayed from the "democratic principles and fundamental rights" (nowhere defined, they will make them up as they go along) was to be suspended, in this new version a Party will not even be *recognised* - i.e. will not be legitimate - unless they have already been vetted. So the gist is not just that anybody is free to found a party, although it might be banned if it falls foul of ill-defined "rules", but that all parties are ipso facto illegal, unless they have been "recognised". (Eurofaq posting TD Erikson 24/7/00)
A TOP German politician yesterday sensationally admitted Britain will lose the power to rule itself if the Pound is axed. Joschka Fischer said the EU IS aiming to swallow up countries in a United States of Europe. Fischer - Number Two in Germany's government - declared the sole purpose of the euro was to seize power from countries and hand it to Brussels. And the Foreign Minister called for elections for a European government with a president with "far-reaching" powers. His comments confirm what critics have warned for years. He said: "The introduction of the euro was a profoundly political act. A currency symbolises the power of the sovereign." The remarks blow a hole in Tony Blair's claims the euro is a purely economic issue. Fischer added: "We must put into place the last brick in the building of European integration. There must be a transition from a union of states to a Federation." (The Sun 13 May 2000)
Deja Vue? -The Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark, has dismissed a suggestion that her country should become part of Australia. Former Australian Liberal Party leader John Hewson said it was time to consider incorporating New Zealand into a new independent republic of Australia. Mr Hewson noted that the two countries had made good progress on bringing their economies together, and that interest in a common currency and full financial harmonisation had grown. "Admittedly, there will be a host of symbolic difficulties, like knighthoods and perhaps the need for a new Australian flag," he said of merging the two countries. "But none of these issues is insurmountable. Most importantly, New Zealand would be able to maintain its individualistic and competitive character," Mr Hewson wrote. "How generous of him to say we could keep some of our identity. We intend to keep all of our identity, and more," Ms Clark retorted to Mr Hewson's suggestions. She said the two countries would continue to harmonise their economies and the open labour market between the two would remain. "But that's where it begins and ends," she said. (BBC Asia/Pacific News 15/4/00)
The European Union forced through 287 votes (in the European parliament on the forthcoming IGC) within less than 70 minutes in rushing through measure after measure that will further dismantle the sovereignty of the nations of Europe. Less than 15 seconds for each item! Not only that, but Euro-Department after Department was calling for - and got -more staff, especially the Legal Department of the Commission who want another 70 senior staff immediately - and got them. (Press release UKIP 13/4/00). The European Union forced through 287 votes (in the European parliament on the forthcoming IGC) within less than 70 minutes in rushing through measure after measure that will further dismantle the sovereignty of the nations of Europe. Less than 15 seconds for each item! Not only that, but Euro-Department after Department was calling for - and got -more staff, especially the Legal Department of the Commission who want another 70 senior staff immediately - and got them. (Press release UKIP 13/4/00) First, there is to be no more national veto. With the sole exception of "decisions of a constitutional nature", every-thing is to be decided by a majority vote. Britain, in other words, could find itself forced to pursue common policies in the fields of tax, defence, immigration and just about everything else. The EU is to be given a written constitution, empowering its judges to strike down any parliamentary laws that they deem to contravene our rights as European Citizens (including, inter alia, "the right to social protection"). It is also to acquire legal personality, thus enabling it to take over its members' seats on the United Nations, the IMF and so on. Brussels will gain a direct role in defence policy, which has hitherto been conducted on an inter-governmental basis. It is also to develop its own police force, Europol. Britain will be ordered to drop its border controls and join Schengen. And - this part comes as no surprise - the European Parliament is to be given more power. There are even to be trans-national political parties, contesting elections on pan-European lists. And it is here that the ugliest aspect of the EU can be glimpsed. For it is proposed that "political parties which do not respect democratic principles and fundamental rights may be the subject of suspension proceedings". Under the cover of acting against extremism, the parliament is seeking to outlaw any group that defies the consensus on Europe - an objective made more or less explicit in a letter to Romano Prodi from the leaders of the our main groups in the European Parliament. This was, of course, the technique used by Communist parties in Eastern Europe: they did not ban elections, they simply outlawed "extremist" parties. (Daily Telegraph 13/4/00)
The Commission proposes for IGC 2000 that as a general rule, the Parliament would be consulted on the conclusion of international economic treaties, whereas assent of the EP would be needed for "the conclusion of agreements with important economic and commercial implications worldwide." It is left unclear who decides when that is the case. Also it is not clear if the assent right for the Parliament would extend to the negotiating mandate of the European Commission, which until now was decided upon by the Council of Ministers and (theoretically) assented to by national parliaments. Thus, the Commission proposal would mean removing controlling power from national parliaments while handing back only limited controlling power to the European Parliament. (Corporate Europe Observer April 2000)
POLITICIANS can reveal more about themselves in a throwaway remark than in 100 speeches and interviews. Tony Blair has pretty much perfected his "straight kinda guy", caring, sharing, everyman routine. Only very occasionally are we granted a peek behind his painted smile. A rare glimpse of the real Blair, a vindictive, intolerant man, full of contempt for those who dare to disagree with him. He is a cynical politician who has carefully cultivated his image both at home and abroad. But once in a while, the true character of the Prime Minister breaks out like a blackhead through the greasepaint. Which is why I was fascinated to read an interview with Blair in an American news magazine published this week. It is a broadly sympathetic piece written by Robert Harris, a close friend of the Prime Minister. I shan't bore you with too many of the details. But there was one paragraph which made me sit up and take notice. Harris recalls that during the last election campaign, Blair feared the Tories might still win by playing the "xenophobic card". Now what the dictionary means by xenophobic and what Blair means are two different things. The dictionary defines xenophobia as an irrational hatred and fear of all things foreign. To the Prime Minister, like the Mad Hatter, words mean whatever he wants them to mean. In Blair's book, a xenophobe is someone who wants Britain to remain an independent nation, with its own laws, own parliament and own currency. And, Harris reports, Blair said with a shrug: "If that's the sort of country people want to live in, then f*** them." But it started me thinking. And what we have in those few words is not so much a throwaway remark as Blair's entire political philosophy. This is the F*** You government. (Littlejohn - The Sun Tuesday, 04 April, 2000)
The Commission President, Romano Prodi, and Michel Barnier, the Commissioner with special responsibility for the Intergovernmental Conference, have presented a paper on extending qualified-majority voting in the fields of taxation and social security. The paper supplements the Commission opinion of 26 January on the reform of the institutions.It encourages use of a more effective decision-making process so as to guarantee the smooth functioning of the single market ahead of enlargement. Article 137 provides for the adoption of minimum requirements in the social policy field. Such requirements are designed to permit free movement and to avoid distortions of competition attributable to differing standards of social protection. (CEC 14/3/00) http://europa.eu.int/igc2000
The collapse of the Soviet Union posed mortal threat to France. Without the counterweight of the Soviet Union, France was in danger of being completely overwhelmed by the Americans. The French response was logical. First, it intensified its drive for European integration, extending it from the purely economic, to the political and military. Second, it intensified its drive to maintain influence in its former colonies. For this strategy to work, European integration must work. More precisely, Germany must be willing to throw its economic weight behind French political maneuvers. In addition, Great Britain must be kept out of as many European institutions as possible, or induced to decline membership, since London waters down French influence while, at the same time representing U.S. interests. For the full report see: http://www.stratfor.com/ (6/3/00)
The Official Contributions to the IGC by the European Commission called: "Adapting the institutions......." of 26th January 2000, is on the Internet at: http://europa.eu.int/igc2000/index_en.html. The document is a 65 page .pdf file - but it gives the full story on what the Commission wants for the treaty - including a European Public Prosecutor, QMV on VAT, corporate taxes and social security, EU armed forces, a constitution and "legal identity" for the EU, pan-European political parties, etc. (Eurofaq posting 5/3/00)
The European Parliament proposes to assume the power to ban political parties it disapproves of. This is a qualitatively new step by the EU along the road not just to the creation of a single EU State but of an EU dictatorship. The outlawing, banning, or as they put it "suspending" political parties means squads of riot police bursting into a Party's office, arresting all those present, confiscating all the files and membership lists, and burning all their publications. Just like in 1920's Italy and Russia, 1930's Germany. Re: European Parliament. Constitutional Affairs Document for the IGC and for the new Treaty of Paris/Nice. (Eurofaq posting 8/3/00). The European Parliament proposes to assume the power to ban political parties it disapproves of. This is a qualitatively new step by the EU along the road not just to the creation of a single EU State but of an EU dictatorship. The outlawing, banning, or as they put it "suspending" political parties means squads of riot police bursting into a Party's office, arresting all those present, confiscating all the files and membership lists, and burning all their publications. Just like in 1920's Italy and Russia, 1930's Germany. Re: European Parliament. Constitutional Affairs Document for the IGC and for the new Treaty of Paris/Nice. (Eurofaq posting 8/3/00). The "power to ban political parties" has been redone to make it even more sinister: " As for European political parties, the rapporteurs propose that the European Council and the EP lay down, in co-decision, the conditions for their recognition, their statutes [i.e. their inner party constitutions, rules and regulations], and the modalities of their financing (EU financing included). But they ask that European parties "that do not respect democratic principles and fundamental rights" may be subjected to a procedure for the suspension of their financing by the Union before the Court of Justice." So the gist is not just that anybody is free to found a party, although it might be banned if it falls foul of ill-defined "rules", but that all parties are ipso facto illegal, unless they have been "recognised". (Eurofaq posting T D-E 15/4/00)
The European Parliament proposes that there should be no restrictions whatsoever placed on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. It is just very simply and obviously treasonable as far as Britain is concerned. So to grant unrestricted jurisdiction over us to a foreign court is clearly and unmistakably treason. For our Parliament to ratify a Treaty containing this measure would mean that it was signing its own act of self-dissolution. From that moment on, the ECJ could rule, say, that the Parliament of Westminster was illegal, and order it to be dissolved. Maybe after a proceeding had been opened against the UK under article 7 of the Treaty. (Eurofaq posting 8/3/00 re: Treaty of Paris)
Monnet argued forcefully and presciently in the period of preparation for the 1956 treaties that these functional transfers of power, implying as they would the gradual unification of functional bureaucratic elites across Europe, would create an unstoppable momentum for full-scale political union, provided two main conditions were met. The transfers of power would have to start with relatively non-controversial economic functions, such as agriculture and steelmaking, so as to minimise concerns about the erosion of national sovereignty. And the functional transfers must be made irreversible, a condition guaranteed by the treaty doctrine of acquis communautaire, which asserts that all powers transferred to community institutions are permanently subject to European law and are therefore taken out of the ambit of national legislation. (A Kaletsky, The Times 11/2/99)
COST OF E.U. MEMBERSHIP The most widely accepted figure for the annual cost of Britain's membership of the E.U. was given in a Commons written reply by Treasury Minister Melanie Johnson in January 2000. She said the gross figure was currently £10,265 million. This is the lowest of three separate figures on the cost of our E.U. membership which Government figures have produced - the highest being £10.9 billion. She said that we get back a smidgeon over £5 billion of that, all on the E.U.'s terms and only after applications of various kinds are made by various bodies for it. So we get back 49p. in the £. (eurofaq Posting from UKIP 24/2/00)
WILLIAM HAGUE promised yesterday that the Conservative Party would never pull Britain out of the European Union (The Times 22/2/00)
The next
clash of civilizations will be not between the West and the rest but between
the United States and Europe--and Americans remain largely oblivious. The
German justice minister in September compared George Bush to Adolf Hitler.
While the comments soon led to her resignation, they nonetheless show the
hardening of many Europeans' attitudes toward the United States and its
leadership. Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called 'for a more integrated
and enlarged Europe' to offset U.S. hegemony. According to Romano Prodi, the
President of the European Commission, the EU's executive body, one of the chief goals
of the union is to create 'a superpower on the European continent that
stands equal to the United States.' Goran Persson, the Prime Minister of Sweden,
a country that long ago renounced power politics, recently remarked that the EU
is 'one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to U.S. world
domination' (Atlantic Monthly November 2002)
The French Prime Minister paid an official visit to Japan in mid-December. He said the enemy is the USA, and, for France, Japan is potentially an ally against "American imperialism". (Figaro 17/12/99)
A BOMB death at McDonald's, a rash of anti-Yankee bestsellers, and media gloating over the woes of Wall Street have intensified transatlantic worries over a new spasm of anti-American feeling in France. Bashing America has returned with a vehemence not seen since the Vietnam War era of the 1960s. The choice of a McDonald's restaurant for a fatal bomb attack in Brittany on Wednesday rang alarm bells at the American Embassy in Paris after a month which has seen the US reacting with wounded indignation to a rising chorus of criticism. As America's "Anglo-Saxon" ally, Britain is also affected by anti- American rhetoric. On Wednesday Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Minister for Professional Training, criticised Tony Blair for kowtowing to President Putin of Russia in the interests of money. French ministers have been doing little to calm the anti-US mood, preferring the standard posture in which France holds itself to be a bulwark against American power. (Times April 21 2000)
There are 10,000 professional lobbyists in Brussels trying to influence the Commission. (BBC Radio 5, 7/2/00)
MPs were accused yesterday of "laziness" in scrutinising laws made in Brussels as a study revealed that the House of Commons "hardly ever" asked questions about the work of the European Union. Research showed that only 79 questions were asked last year about the work of the powerful EU Council of Ministers, out of a total of 41,000 questions tabled in the House. Ministers from EU member states voted through 244 new rules that are legally binding on Britain, but the research showed that Westminster MPs failed to ask what the EU ministers were voting on. Chris Davies, a Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament, said his research showed that about 95 per cent of the questions tabled on the work of the council may have been "planted" by government whips. "It is astonishing that virtually no one in the House of Commons ever bothers to questions what British ministers are doing in the Council of Ministers," Mr Davies said. The Council of Ministers met 87 times last year. It is made up of ministers on areas such as agriculture and the environment who pass EU-wide laws in their subject areas. Mr Davies said the Council of Ministers was one of the few legislative bodies in the world that met in secret. (Independent 1/5/01)
The role assigned to national parliaments is set out in the Amsterdam Treaty. The primary role is to scrutinise their own governments in relation to the activities of the Union. The role of national parliaments is to respond to the initiatives of the Union by expressing an opinion, which can of course be overruled by the Union. The Parliamentary Scrutiny Committees examine the 900 documents which arrive each year are from the various EU institutions. About 12 documents year are found to be of sufficient importance to warrant a debate on the Floor of the House. As a sop to our sensibilities, Parliament is allowed to use the obsolete machinery of government to criticise its masters. (Eurofacts 4/2/00)
There are 3 European Standing Committees in Westminster to consider such documents as are referred to them by the European Legislation Committee, Committee A, B and C. Each has 13 members which are appointed by the Committee of Selection for the whole session of Parliament. The Government then moves a Motion in the House. This is not debatable, and amendments may be tabled and, if selected by the Speaker, voted on. Out of 39 members of the 3 Committees 28 are Labour or sympathisers of Labour. (GLW posting 18/8/00)
Directives should in principle be implemented through national legislation. However, if member states fail to implement them or implement them properly, the directive can acquire "direct effect" - ie it can be relied upon by EU citizens in their national courts. This was decreed by the European Court of Justice. (Eurofaq posting, WC 30/7/00)
Romano Prodi, the European Commission president, said yesterday that Europe was forging its own government and army, and challenged the EU's big states to join together or "disappear from the history books". In a strong challenge to British Eurosceptics, Mr Prodi argued that the European Commission was gradually evolving into a fledgling government. Those who disputed that a European military force was being created were splitting hairs, he suggested in an interview with The Independent. "You need time, but step by step - as in the Austrian case - the European Commission takes a political decision and behaves like a growing government," he said. "When I was talking about the European army I was not joking. (The Independent - 4th February 2000)
The European Commission published a document entitled 'Adapting the institutions to make a success of enlargement' earlier this week. It essentially represents the Commission's view on what form the IGC agenda should take. It states on page 8: 'The Commission believes that the Union would greatly benefit from having a number of members of the European Parliament elected on European lists, presented to all European voters throughout the Union..Organising the European elections in this way would encourage the development of Europe-wide political parties and produce members who could claim to represent a European constituency rather than a purely national one.' In other words, the Commission want to pave the way for the development of Europe-wide political parties, the scope of which goes far beyond the current inter-country groupings which exist between national political parties in the European Parliament. Similarly, massive 'super constituencies' would be set up which transcend national borders: 'Europe North East', and so on. The only conclusion one can draw from this latest item on the Commission's wish list is that their desire to undermine national parliamentary sovereignty and lead member states down the road towards a single European superstate is clearer than ever before. (Eurofaq posting based of a Conservative press release 29/1/00)
The president of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, has set out plans for "reforming" the decision-making procedures of the European Union. Faced with the prospect of admitting 35 member states, the Brussels machine needs to be made even more dictatorial in order to overrule any states which fall out of line. It is proposed to put a ceiling on the number of Commissioners, which would mean some countries not having a Commissioner at all. It is also proposed to give more weight in the Council to the populous countries, rectifying the current imbalance against large states (especially Germany). It is also, of course, planned to remove the national veto completely, so that the EU will be able to march onwards towards fully-fledged statehood with full tax-raising and military powers. [Le Monde, 27th January 2000] In this vein, the Portuguese premier, Antonio Guterres, has expressed his support for the Charter of Rights which was agreed in principle last year. He also wants to increase the military powers of the EU and to entrench them more deeply into the treaty structures. He wants reforms at the next IGC to be radical and not just to deal with what was left after Amsterdam. Finally, the Commissioner for Reform, Michel Barnier, has said that the national veto could be maintained for treaty changes but that it should be maintained for fiscal policy only insofar as the smooth functioning of the single market is not affected (i.e. the veto would be abandoned). Unanimity would also be required for the conclusion of international treaties, he said - a convenient weasel way of saying that the EU should be able to sign such treaties as a subject in international law. (European Foundation Intelligence Digest Issue No. 86 14th - 27th January 2000)
The financial scandals currently engulfing the German Christian Democrats allow the last piece of the jigsaw to fall into place in the systematic pattern of corruption which led to the creation of the single European currency in the early 1990s. They show that many of the major players who sat around the table at Maastricht in 1992, to force the euro on to the statute book, were crooks. And they underline how the political structures and ideology which gave birth to the project of federalist European integration, and which British pro-Europeans continue to regard as superior to British ones, in fact enable a closed political class to feed like a parasite off the body politic. Since 1992, we have known that the Italian politicians at the centre of the Maastricht process presided over a system of organised political corruption. Mitterrand's Socialists were similarly ejected from power in 1993 because it was revealed how the party was largely funded by a systematic structure of bribe-taking. And we now know that the German political system, which has served as a model for the European construct, falls substantially into the same clientilist category as the French, the Italian and the Belgian. , British pro-Europeans have been arguing that the British political system is too adversarial and that instead we need a cosier, more consensual system like Germany's, whose centrepieces are proportional representation and coalition government. Yet, as Germans are now realising to their dismay, it was precisely the foundation stone of PR, the party list system, which enabled Kohl to create the system which made corruption possible. (The Times January 25 2000 )
THE grand projects of creating the European Union and launching a single currency justified the methods employed by Helmut Kohl, François Mitterrand and Bettino Craxi, according to the son and political heir of the disgraced Italian Prime Minister who died last week in exile in Tunisia. Vittorio "Bobo" Craxi said that the "Three Patriarchs of Europe" accused of being united in their use of corruption to stay in power should be judged not by "petty" allegations of illegal political slush funds, but by their "huge achievement" in building the foundations of a peaceful and stable continent towards the end of a century scarred by the "bloodshed and inhumanity" of fascism and communism. Signor Bettino Craxi, who held power from 1983 to 1987 and presided over Italy's economic boom, was one of the main targets of the "Clean Hands" (Mani Pulite) anti-corruption drive in the early 1990s. Condemned to nearly ten years in jail for bribery, corruption and illegal party financing through the maintenance of slush funds, Craxi fled to Tunisia in 1994. (The Times 26/1/00)
The government was told that it could be forced pay the University tuition fees for all students from other EU countries studying in Britain. The requirement, triggered by the impending abolition of fees for Scottish students, would mean that the only Europeans paying for tuition here point would be the English, Welsh and Northern Irish students. Under European law, one Member State cannot discriminate against another and any Europeans studying in Britain could claim fees against Britain because Scottish students are being helped. There are 98,000 EU students in Britain. English, Welsh and Northern Irish students will not qualify because they are in the same member state has Scotland. (Daily Telegraph to 21/1/00)
Romano Prodi is learning how hard it is to lead the European Commission. When the 60-year-old former Italian prime minister took over as president of the European Union's central bureaucracy last September, he promised a "new era of change" under a "world class public administration". Yet Mr Prodi is starting to look like a man under siege. The latest setback came when the European Parliament forced him to delay an address planned to spell out Commission strategy for the next five years. His Christmas invitation to Muammer Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, to visit Brussels caused upset in several EU foreign ministries. A number of Prodi initiatives announced with a fanfare in recent months have either failed to materialise or been heavily diluted following opposition from member states. By Christmas, his honeymoon was over. An even more disturbing case was an initiative taken before he had even been confirmed as president. He decided to set up a three-strong group of "wise men", headed by Jean-Luc Dehaene, the former prime minister of Belgium. The trouble surfaced when Mr Prodi outlined the report at October's special EU summit in Tampere. José Maria Aznar, the Spanish prime minister, said the Commission president could have as many wise men as he liked, but they were superfluous because EU government leaders were responsible for the IGC. "We are the wise men". In an interview with Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Mr Juncker, Luxembourg's prime minister, commented that the gap between Mr Prodi's aspirations and achievements could prompt the European Parliament to conclude that the Commission president was a failure. Tony Blair, the British prime minister, is a fan despite an unwelcome call by Mr Prodi for the establishment of a European army last May. (Financial Times January 18 2000) Although Prodi started his mandate with considerable élan, various policy failures and above all his (retracted) invitation to Colonel Gaddafi have been perceived as blunders. His enlargement plans and his plans for a Europe-wide food authority have run into the sand. Unlike Santer Prodi is a man who takes risks. But then he fails to find support for them. Even high-profile national initiatives, like the Franco-British defence agreement signed in St. Malo, do not seem to be followed through. [Handelsblatt, 9th February 2000]
The actual contribution to the EU by UK taxpayers in 1998 was £10,265 million, and what came back in one form or another was £5,076 million. In other words, for every £1 we paid in, we got 49p back. The 'net' cost of membership for the year was £5,189 million. £10,265 million is the total budget available for purposes which should be decided upon by an elected UK government (and which should be accountable to the voters via Parliament). It is right to say, then, that £10,265 million is therefore unavailable to our Government to spend as it would choose. As a broad rule-of-thumb guide, a penny on the basic rate of tax brings in about £1.9 billion. Therefore the saving of £10 billion, if passed back to voters in the form of a tax cut, would reduce the basic rate by some 5p in the pound. Alternatively, on the basis of figures supplied in the Treasury Pre Budget Report in November 1999 (the basis for the March 2000 budget) £10 billion could be used to finance the abolition of Capital Gains Tax (yield £2.4 billion), Inheritance Tax (£2 billion), Insurance Premium Tax (£1.4 billion), Air Passenger Duty (£0.9 billion), Landfill Tax (£0.3 billion), take Vehicle Excise Duty Back to 1997-98 level (reducing the tax yield by £0.6 billion) and still have enough left over to take a penny off the basic rate of tax (£1.9 billion). £10 billion is equivalent to twice all the expected growth in government spending on the National Health Service between 1997/8 and 2001/02 (November 1999 Pre Budget Report Table B.17 p162). (Bill Jamieson Economics Editor Sunday Telegraph Jan 2000)
ROMANO PRODI challenged Britain to make up its mind on the euro and its future role in Europe or pay the price of exclusion. He used his first interview with a British newspaper since becoming the European Commission President to warn Britain that it would have to make tough decisions if it wanted to become an enthusiastic partner in his "great mission" to unify Europe, but the penalties of going it alone would be greater. (The Times 14/12/99)
..Popular support for the EU is now fading, even in the countries whose politicians are most avid to join. Jacek Kucharczyk, the Polish political scientist, says his soundings show that support in the population has dropped to below 50 per cent for the first time in the 1990s. An opinion poll last month showed support of some 30 per cent in Lithuania. "The EU displays a kind of take-it-or-leave-it attitude. It gives the impression that enlargement is just a technical process. I like the idea of an enlarged political Europe: I would say that the candidate countries should be involved more closely as partners in the construction of a new Europe," he says. Nations must feel they own their constitutions and laws before they change them, excise them or allow them to be superseded by the laws of a greater entity. Borders must be secure and unquestioned before they can become more porous. This does not mean that the east's expansion west or the west's expansion east is doomed. But if one listens to the voices from the region, it is clear that the easterners are no longer humble applicants who will jump through any hoops the EU puts in their path. If they are to become members in the sense of feeling equal to those they are joining, a real debate must be joined... (FT January 11 2000)
The lesson of history since the end of World War II is that composite states are no longer viable. The advances of technology make political frontiers increasingly transparent, but the racial and social frontiers remain. The bright vision of a free and prosperous European Federation from the Arctic to the Mediterranean and from the Atlantic to the Urals captivated the founders of the European movement. But the world of today is another place, and as the last of the empires are dying it would be absurd to attempt to set up a new one of monstrous size and infinite diversity. (30/12/99 Times letter by Peter Smithers, Secretary-General, Council of Europe, 1964-69)
Mosley's British Union Of Fascists was the first political party in Britain in 1949 to call for a European Union. The fascist dream was and remains a "comprehensive policy for the new Europe"- "the complete Union of Europe with an European Government is now a necessity...an entirely free system, in a large and viable area such as Europe-Africa, could solve the recurrent crises of the present European countries..." Mosley edited a magazine, "The European", between 1953 and 1959, which called for a "Union of Europe", proclaiming himself leader of the Union Movement which campaigned for "Europe a Nation". Sir Oswald continued to promote the Nazi vision of a world divided up into self-sufficient, autarkic, blocs which would be corporatist in character, which would deny the existence of class struggle. As such, there are many similarities with Euro-fascist visions and those of ardent Euro-federalists. Interestingly, the French Commissioner, Yves Thibault de Siluy, has even stated the need of insulating "Europe" from the "chaos of world markets". Mosley's paranoid European ideology also called for the creation of a Euro-African "great living space" (Lebensraum in Nazi terms) while excluding imports from third world countries, a concept which remains intact within the Common Agricultural Policy. The inheritors of the Mosley tradition in Britain exist within groups like the League of St George who carry the slogan "Forward into Europe" on their publications. Such right wing Mosleyite sympathisers operate mostly within the Conservative Party and continue to promote the "European idea".(The Democrat - On Line 24/12/99)
Since German reunification in 1989, the fundamental question in Europe has been whether Germany will represent a challenge to European stability, as Germany did in 1871, 1914 and 1939. The basic assumption has been that the existence of the European Union has changed the dynamics of German nationalism, by abolishing Germany's sense of geopolitical insecurity while creating an economic framework too valuable for Germany to abandon. Two tests face Europe. The first is whether the European Union's monetary union can survive de-synchronization, in which some regions of Europe are booming, while others are in recession. The European Monetary Union will be tested as the de-synchronized European economies go their own way and as new, wholly unsynchronized economies are included. Given the divergences in Europe's economic cycles, it is difficult to imagine how a single, European-wide monetary policy can be sustained. We expect withdrawals from the European Monetary Union as the decade progresses. Both politically and economically, European institutions will come under heavy stress and will fray. The second test will be whether the rest of Europe is prepared to join Germany in defending the eastern frontiers of Poland in the face of resurgent Russian power. We remain pessimistic about the long-term prospects of a united Europe. (Stratfor's Decade Forecast 2000-2010, December 20, 1999 http://www.stratfor.com/)
Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission, has said that the principle by which some areas of policy-making are subject to unanimity (and thus to a national veto) is handicapping the EU. He called for this issue to be addressed at the EU summit which is to be held in Helsinki on 10th and 11th December. He said that unanimity was especially harmful in the matter of tax harmonisation, where "progress" was being hindered by Britain. He said that tax harmonisation was not only a very important measure in the fight against unfair tax competition but that it was also an essential instrument in the EU's employment policy. Prodi also said that external economic policy should no longer be subject to unanimity, as well as internal security matters and judicial affairs. In all these areas, he said, the EU was being hindered by the national veto. He said that he also wanted to see initiatives on the new European "foreign and security policy" and said that the Commission would use all the means at its disposal - single market legislation, competition and trade policy - to develop a European defence industry. [Handelsblatt, 2nd December 1999]
BERLIN - Europe must act more like a single country if it wants to challenge U.S. economic and political dominance, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Tuesday. (December 28, 1999 Nando times)
Commenting on the news that Pauline Green MEP, former leader of the Party of European Socialists and current Labour MEP for London, will step down at the end of this year to take up the £64,000 per year post of Chief Executive of the Co-operative Union, Theresa Villiers MEP, Conservative MEP for London said: "Pauline Green's resignation demonstrates a total lack of regard for the electorate. This resignation highlights another flaw in the PR electoral system used in the European Elections in June. Under this system there are no by-elections. Instead, the next person on Labour's list of candidates, Carole Tongue, will automatically replace Pauline Green with no reference to the electorate at all." (Published by The Conservative Party, Monday, 29 November 1999)
But even if Euro-democracy were possible in theory, I have found in my first few months in Brussels and Strasbourg that there are powerful practical and organisational reasons why it doesn't and can't work. Take a Thursday earlier this month, when we voted nearly 200 times on nearly 400 motions or amendments (some of which come in blocks, which is why there are more amendments than votes). We vote either by a show of hands, or (if it looks close) electronically, or occasionally on a roll-call vote, which is a recorded electronic vote. The president reads out the numbers of the amendments being voted on. MEPs are provided with a "whip" by their political group. This is a list of recommendations on how to vote. It lists the amendment number and perhaps a few words to identify the amendment, for example "Aid to Turkey". But it doesn't indicate the content of the amendment - how much money, is it increased or decreased, or are conditions attached? Of course it would be nice if we could study all the amendments in advance and form a view on them, but with nearly four hundred, and all the other pressures on MEPs' time, that's just impossible. And sometimes the information just isn't available. There was an important amendment, for example, from Rosemary Scallon (remember Dana, the former Irish pop singer) about aid to women's groups in Europe, which was the subject of last minute negotiations, and apparently no one actually knew what the text of the amendment was, and yet we voted for it. At one point I was so frustrated by the lack of information (some amendments had been accidentally left out of our list) that I rose on a point of order to protest at this travesty of democracy. In my annoyance I lapsed into unparliamentary language - I think I remarked that the lunatics were running the asylum. Next day, however, I found that my intervention had disappeared from the verbatim record of proceedings. Like Stalin's propagandists deleting the face of Trotsky from the Politburo photo in the Red Square, I had been airbrushed out of history. The EU institutions don't take criticism kindly. My belief is that most MEPs, most of the time, don't really know what they're voting for. (Derby Evening Telegraph 29 November 1999, by East Midlands MEP Roger Helmer)
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, created in 1990 to oversee the democratic development of the formerly Communist countries of Eastern Europe, has described as "satisfactory" the results of the recent presidential election in Macedonia. This is in spite of the fact that even the central electoral commission itself has admitted that in five constituencies more votes were cast than there were registered voters. The poll was indeed marked by massive cheating in the poll, especially by the Albanians who inhabit the Western part of the country, and whose party supports the victorious candidate. Feelings ran high in Skopje on the day after the vote, as tens of thousands of ordinary citizens braved the rain to demonstrate against the fraud. However, since the West's candidate won, the OSCE has decided to look the other way. The OSCE's Nelsonian approach to electoral fraud comes only a few weeks after the European Union delivered an ultimatum (or "démarche") to Croatia threatening not to recognise the forthcoming parliamentary elections there as free and fair because of what it considers to be shortcomings in the media law. The EU and the OSCE are preparing even now to declare the Croatian elections invalid for this reason if the ruling HDZ party wins. . [Süddeutsche Zeitung, 16th November 1999]/( European Foundation Intelligence Digest). European political leaders welcomed the results of Croatia's general elections, which saw a grouping of left and centre opposition parties inflict an overwhelming defeat on the nationalist Croatian National Union (HDZ)... (ft.com)
'The real reason why Tudjman is so disliked in Brussels is that he is the democratically elected and popular architect of Croatia's national sovereignty' Diplomatic ultimatums and unilateral demands, presented by powerful governments to weak ones, used to be a thing of the past. But the European Union seems determined to resurrect the practice. On October 27, Brussels issued a "démarche" to the Government of Franjo Tudjman in Zagreb, as Croatia prepares to hold parliamentary elections on December 22. Its message was simple: if the ruling party stays in power, Croatia will be economically and diplomatically isolated. (The Times: Opinion November 9 1999)
TONY BLAIR yesterday confirmed that he was prepared to surrender the British veto over a number of European Union policies as part of the next stage of European integration. As William Hague accused the Prime Minister of "wielding the knife" that cut away British independence "slice by slice", Mr Blair announced that there were a number of new areas in which he believed Britain could be overruled by other EU nations. These include transport, environmental protection, reform of the European Court of Justice and the location of EU buildings. He specified only three issues -- tax, defence and border controls -- over which he would not give up the veto, although aides said he had not offered an exhaustive list. (Telegraph 11/10/99)
Corporate lobbying on the European and international levels by Trains-National Corporations remains seriously under-regulated. The laxity of rules and regulations for Brussels lobbyists encourages practices that would be considered underhanded and unacceptable in the US and in most European capitals. The European Parliament is gradually strengthening provisions in this field, but the progress is painfully slow and the results insufficient. In 1997, the Parliament introduced the obligatory registration of lobbyists attempting to influence MEPs as well as some minimal rules for regulating the behaviour of lobbyists. The rules were made somewhat stricter in March 1999. In particular, MEPs are now obliged to submit annual reports on extracurricular employment as well as on financial and other support received from outsiders, including from corporate sources. A peek at the register between the years of 1996 and 1998 revealed that a substantial number of MEPs submitted nothing and those who used the register often failed to declare everything. The lobbyist register - only accessible for those visiting the EP building in Strasbourg - is largely a list of names, and contains no details about whom the lobbyists represent and what their business in the Parliament entails. Though weak, the Parliament regulations are still better than those governing the European Commission and the Council of Ministers. Within these institutions, the only real possibility to monitor corporate lobbying is through the Access to Information rules. These rules may look fine on paper but they are disappointing in practice. Corporate Europe Observatory's repeated requests for information have met with unpredictable and often unreliable responses from the Commission This reality is off-putting for citizens, and will likely deter most people from pursuing cases further. With regards to former Commission President Delors, we received the very direct reply that "In view of the fact that the archives of the President, Commissioners, former Presidents and former Commissioners are regarded as being of a private nature adding that no official notes of the meetings exist, Mr. Delors has informed us of his wish not to grant you access to his documents regarding the European Round Table of Industrialists." Privacy was also given as the reason for the Commission denying us access to documents on the contacts between the ERT and Santer. It is hardly acceptable that meetings between the ERT and the President of the Commission are considered personal matters. The general rule is that access should be available to all internal Commission documents, "including preparatory documents regarding Commission decisions and policy initiatives... and other kinds of information which form the background of Commission decisions and policy measures. (Corporate Europe Observer CEO Issue #3 June 1999)
In a written answer Lord Macintosh reveals that in the 1998/99 period,
each MEP cost £1,137,000 compared with £394,000 for a member of the
commons and just £38,000 for a peer (House of Lords). Lords give 160 days per
year of work; the commons gives 157 days; and the Euro MEPs give only 55 days'
work per year. (Eurofaq posting 30/7/99). 
With
a small majority the European Parliament has decided to drop meetings on
Fridays in Strasbourg, leaving the monthly sessions in Strasbourg at only
four days. (EUobserver.com 17/5/01)
In his speech to the European Parliament, in which he presented his new Commission, Romano Prodi said he wanted to bring Europe "closer to the citizens". To do this, he suggested ... transferring more power to the European Commission. (Die Welt, 22nd July 1999). Mr. Prodi's remarks corroborate what was said in an interview with a German MEP on the BBC. When asked whether the Parliament would take the Prodi Commission to task she replied, "The Parliament and the Commission are allies against the member states. Together we have to prevent the member states from taking back power." [Radio 4, 10 p.m., 20th July 1999]
The German Foreign Minister Fischer emphasised that the EU should have a reinforced role in crisis management following the Kosovo conflict. The agreements made at Cologne to form a European defence union should, he said, make it easier for the EU to back up its foreign policy commitments with force. It was not, he added, a matter of a "militarisation" of the EU but rather of "developing its capacity as an effective force for peace." The purpose had to be to consign to the past the use of war as an instrument f politics and instead to forswear violence. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 22nd July 1999]
We should be grateful to Joscha Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, for pressing the cause of European federalism with an honesty that puts British ministers to shame. In an impassioned speech to the European Parliament he warned that the European Union would suffer an institutional heart attack unless it moves rapidly to political integration. The launch of the Euro he said has set up a dynamic that would inevitably sweep aside the current political arrangements of Europe. The introduction of the single currency is not primarily an economic but rather a sovereign and thus eminently political act, he said, adding: the political union must be our lodestar from now on. (The Daily Telegraph 13 January 1999)
MEPs, already anonymous to the UK's business community, are set to become even more invisible under the new electoral system. Each region of UK will get up to 11 new MEPs each. As constituencies are abolished in favour of larger multi-member regions, already weak links between MEPs and companies will disappear. The situation is causing particular concern because it threatens to muffle the voice of British business at a time when the European Parliament's powers are growing. People who run small and medium-sized businesses, such as Doctor Kartar Badsha, an environmental consultant based in Southport, get ignored. "My local MEP couldn't be bothered with us," said doctor Badsha "we were just too small for him. In fact I had found German and French MEPs to be much more helpful than British ones." It is estimated that there are 15,000 people involved in lobbying in Brussels. Critics say payments to MEPs for advisory roles, many of which come from lobby groups representing big business interests, call into question the European Parliament's independence. They ask why MEPs, on a basic salary of £45,000 a year need to take on consultancies when they already receive so many perks. (Financial Times 10 June 1999)
Mr Chris Patten, Commissioner for external affairs designate, said "I'm sure I will be able to work together with Mr Kinnock in the interest of Britain and in the interests, above all, of Europe." (BBC R4 Today 12/7/99) Mr Patten is a Privy Counsellor and has taken an oath of allegiance to the Queen, accepting that he would: "to his uttermost, bear faith and allegiance onto the Queen's Majesty... and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminencies and authorities against all foreign persons, states, etc.". However, on becoming a European Commissioner he will take another superior oath giving a solemn undertaking that he will "neither seek nor take instructions from any government." Mr Patten will find that he cannot work in the interests of Britain after all. - Ed
Every time the UK signs or ratifies an international treaty, it must be complemented by an Act of Parliament. The reason for this is that a treaty only affects the relations between signing states in their capacity as states: in other words, a treaty operates at an inter-national level. For a treaty to affect individual people within the UK, it must be turned into law within the UK, and the mechanism for doing that is an Act of Parliament. We can see an example of this regarding the EC itself, which makes laws principally by way of directives and regulations. Regulations become law in the UK when made by the EC, because the Treaty of Rome says so, and section 2 (1) of the European Communities Act 1972 gives effect to that part of the Treaty. Directives, on the other hand, require implementation by the UK in the form of domestic law, again because the Treaty of Rome says so, and the ECA 1972 gives effect to that statement. The ECA 1972 makes provision for Directives to be turned into Domestic law by way of statutory instrument. Sometimes an Act of Parliament is thought better - like Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (giving effect to the Product Liability Directive). (Eurofaq posting S & D Radlett 12/7/99)
By accepting article K7.6 of the Maastricht Treaty, which grants jurisdiction to the ECJ over any infringement of the Treaty,... or of any rule of law relating to its application, our Queen in Parliament has placed herself (and all of us) in a subordinate position to the decisions of the ECJ. By signing this Act our Queen in Parliament has undertaken to accept - in advance - any decision that this alien court should see fit to mete out upon her and us. So if, in a dispute the ECJ should rule that the Commission's case was well-founded and that our Parliament's decision, such as to withdraw unilaterally from the EU was illegitimate, she would have to meekly bow her head and accept that decision, and conform herself to it. By signing it she has in effect declared herself a vassal. (T Dick Erikson Eurofaq posting 10/7/99)
Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, believes that membership of the European Union should not prevent Britain from strengthening its special relationship with America. "I am trying to build a bridge between Nafta and the European Union to expand world trade. Where better than to site the footings of that bridge between the two greatest trading nations of the world?" The EU at present forbids members from entering into free-trade agreements with other organisations. This is contrary to WTO rules. But there is growing concern in the United States that moves towards European centralisaton are pulling its traditional ally away from North America. (D Telegraph 6/4/00)
CONGRESS is considering the possibility of inviting Britain to join the North American Free Trade Area as an alternative to the European Union. Senator Phil Gramm, a Texas Republican has taken steps to have the United States International Trade Commission study the impact British membership would have on America. This has prompted suggestions, largely from supporters of a federal Europe, that the idea of Britain joining Nafta is a pipe dream. But several leading politicians in North America, who take the idea seriously, support it and hope Britain will too. Last year, Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House of Representatives wrote in The Daily Telegraph "Britain must know she still has friends on the other side of the Atlantic". Mr Gramm appears ready to bring a sharper focus to what has hitherto been no more than a vague bafflement among senators about why any sovereign nation would stay within the EU. One senior senator said recently: "I can't understand why you'd shackle yourselves with the high costs, high unemployment and low growth of Europe. If you want to join us, you'd be welcome." More senior politicians are beginning to question whether it is in America's national interest to see Britain subsumed by Europe. A few want to offer Britain an alternative, in case there is a change of heart at Westminster. (Electronic Telegraph 7 July 1999). The U.S. International Trade Commission is an independent, nonpartisan, quasi-judicial federal agency with broad investigative responsibilities on matters relating to U.S. international trade. It has been requested by Congress to complete an Investigation on the domestic effects of including the UK in a free trade agreement with the NAFTA countries. An official announcement of this Investigation can be found on the web-site, at http://www.usitc.gov/er/nl1999/ER1223W1.HTM Jan 2000)
If the United Kingdom were to withdraw from the European Union, and seek to associate with NAFTA it could have the support of most Americans and most Canadians. Such a move already has broad bipartisan support in the US -- Senator Gramm on the Republican side, and Dick Gephart, the Democrat minority leader in the House, have both expressed support for such a move. Additionally, Preston Manning, the Canadian leader of the opposition, has been vocal in his support. The UK would be far more comfortable in such an arrangement, since there is no equivalent of the Eurofederalist movement in any of the countries. Quite the contrary -- Americans want to remain Americans, Canadians are adamant about remaining Canadians. (Eurofaq posting from the USA, James C. Bennett 11/8/99). The problem with joining NAFTA before leaving the EU is that Britian is forbidden by EU law from joining, or attempting to join, any international body without EU consent (Eurofaq posting Kenneth Bell 19/1/00). A Conservative MEP defied William Hague by calling for Britain to sever its links with the EU and instead build bridges across the Atlantic. Roger Helmer, who represents the East Midlands, called on the Tory party to be "positive and open-minded" about quitting Europe and instead signing a trade pact with America. The Times 21/1/00). In his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, 4/7/00, Senator Gramm said: " You can stay British and be in NAFTA - it is just a free trade agreement. Let me also say I believe that the two provisions of the Treaty of Rome that limit your ability to enter into trade expansion agreements violate GATT. Also I believe that, as an absolute minimum, you could gain the same status that Switzerland and Norway have. But my goal is to force the EU to open up trade and allow its members to engage in trade expansion." (CPS web site)
The government's new competition law faces a big hurdle even before it comes into force because of recent proposals by the European commission. The Competition Act, the biggest shake-up in competition regulation for 25 years, is intended to streamline procedures with those of the European Union. This aim has been sabotaged by Commission proposals to reform its own competition policy. (Financial Times 10 May 1999) The government proposes far tougher penalties for anti-competitive behaviour than the EU. Members of cartels face fines of up to 30% of turnover. Firms could find them selves fined both by the EU and UK government if they engage in cross-border price fixing. (FT 11/8/99)
Tony Blair a signed up to a three-part push for European integration and signalled a clear willingness to reduce Britain's ability to veto EU decisions. At the Cologne summit the 15 EU leaders agreed to set up an intergovernmental conference at which all countries will be pressed to see their blocking powers. The conference, to be concluded at the end of 2000, will cut Brussels' Commissioners from Britain from two to one after 2004. Mr Blair agreed that work be advanced on a Bill of Rights for Europe's 370 million citizens, a move that Germany sees as the first step to an EU constitution. (Daily Telegraph 4 June 1999)
The EU has put the Czech government in an uncomfortable dilemma. It has informed Prague that it must break its customs union with Slovakia before the Czech Republic can be granted EU membership. The two countries are deeply economically integrated and cutting links would hurt them both. Both Prague and Bratislava are determined to maintain the customs union which, created in 1993 after the countries split, allows the free movement of goods and services and establishes a common customs tariff and trade policy towards third countries (much like the EU itself in fact). Both Slovakia and the Czech Republic are top economic performers in the region. EU officials have stated repeatedly that the customs union threatens Prague's application for EU membership. (European Foundation Intelligence Digest Issue No. 72 18th June - 1st July 1999)
The central bank governors of France, Germany and Italy will no longer join finance ministers from the Group of Seven leading industrial economies in their regular discussions of the world economy. This agreement marks the end of a long and heated debate about Europe's representation at the G7, following the adoption of the euro. (Financial Times 14 June 1999) If we joined the euro we would lose our place on the G7 committee as well, hardly the increase in our influence that we are told would happen-Ed.
The recent Viagra case came as something of a surprise. The general principle of English law is that governmental policy decisions are not judicially reviewable, whilst their operational decisions may be. The Secretary of State issued a policy circular restricting the prescription of Viagra - presumably so that the NHS's scarce resources can be concentrated on life-threatening illnesses - which the High Court over-turned on May 26th. Why? Because Directive 89/105 said so! This means that the UK Secretary of State responsible for the UK's National Health Service is no longer able to take decisions regarding the purchasing policy of that Service. (Eurofaq posting S Radlett 21/6/99)
Mr Tony Blair said: "In his first question, he asked me for what is effectively a renegotiation of the treaty of Rome and Britain's entry into the European Union. [Interruption.] Such a renegotiation requires the consent of the other 14 members of the European Union. Can they name one that supports that proposition? If the right hon. Gentleman had been in my position, he would have gone to the European Council seeking a renegotiation of Britain's terms of entry into the European Union, and not a single other European country would have supported him." In other words, we cannot get out of the EU, or even change the terms of the treaties, without the unanimous agreement of all the other members - Ed (Hansard 8/6/99 col 468)
The Conservative Party is affiliated to the European People's Party in the European Parliament. The objective of the EPP, as stated in their "basic programme" is: Para 201. Only the union of Europe can secure its future: a future of freedom and security, progress and solidarity. In line with the commitment to Europe which the Christian Democrats have shown since the very beginning, the EPP calls for a gradual - but resolute - transformation of the European Community into a genuine political union on a federal model, following the doctrinal lines defined by the congresses of Luxembourg in 1988 and Dublin in 1990. Following the 1999 European elections the Conservatives have broken ties with the EPP and created a relationship with a spin-off group that, however, will share the same committee membership.
The existence of a large, long established, well-paid and lavishly funded bureaucracy is of itself a massive bulwark against change. The reality of the EU is that it is profoundly undemocratic. Those with experience of the British civil service will recognise the power which civil servants can wield through a mixture of duplicity and the incapacity of politicians. But British civil servants, for all their other faults, are not overtly political appointments. Moreover, they are not politicians in their own right. The EU employs as matter of course politicians in its highest bureaucratic posts and even the European Court of Justice has a fair sprinkling of politicos. The consequences of such a politicised bureaucracy are profound. Even if a majority of elected EU politicians wished to change course towards a less intrusive confederation, they would experience immense difficulty in overcoming the deliberate bureaucratic subversion that would follow as night follows day. In fact, the only means of preventing such subversion would be to sack every EU civil servant, a practical impossibility if the EU was to continue in any form. (No Halfway House, Robert Henderson e-mail 21/5/99)
Giles Chichester in response to question as to why Conservative MEPs voted for Corpus Juris on 13th April has answered that Conservative MEPs are not answerable to Westminster any more than one would expect a Westminster MP, or party, to be answerable to Brussels. Conservative MEPs are members of the European People's Party and are answerable to EPP whips. (Eurofaq posting A Woodhouse 27/5/99)
Our fourteen percent representation in the European Parliament costs the UK taxpayer £87m a year. (Eurofaq posting Harry Randall 25/5/99)
In the negotiations on the EU's long-term finances the Commission is arguing fiercely that administrative spending should be exempted from a real-terms spending freeze since some of its policy mandates could not be carried out without extra cash. (European Voice for February 1999)
When interviewed by Andrew Neil on BBC Radio 5 Live, Lord Hollick, who launched Britain in Europe, agreed that the euro was a major step in the political integration of Europe. "I have no problem with that," he said. (BBC Radio 5 Live 14 March 1999)
A section in the Treaty of Amsterdam, which comes into force on May 1 states: 17. Removal of the Right to an Independent Diplomacy. Article K9 of the TEU (former article K.5) says, "Within international organisations and at international conferences in which they take part, Member States shall defend the common positions adopted under the provisions of this Title. This means that if a qualified majority of EU countries (including the non-NATO members) decide to adopt a "common position" demanding "Peace with Milosevic Now", then within the NATO Conference, Britain, even if Blair is dead against it, will be forced to vote for the "common position". (Eurofaq posting TDE 24/4/99)
Mr Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission has promised to use his five-year term at the head of the EU executive to create a single European economy and to accelerate moves towards full-blown political union. In a speech warmly received in the European Parliament he also called for the powers of the Strasbourg and Brussels assembly to be enhanced, for less use of national vetoes and for the EU to develop its own defence capability. Harmonisation of tax and economic policies was central to the EU's economic future. (Daily Telegraph 14 April 1999)
Romano Prodi, the Commission president designate, used remarkably frank language, which is likely to embarrass the Prime Minister, in revealing his clear federalist intentions by committing himself to developing a common European soul. He said that the EU's two big projects of the moment, the single currency and the forging of a common foreign and defence policy, would fundamentally undermine the pillars of the nation state. (Daily Telegraph 7 April 1999)
'How a British Prime Minister, pledged to oppose a single European State could agree to place a known and active federalist in the most powerful position in the European Union, needs some explaining! If the Prime Minister has any lingering doubts about Senior Prodi's commitment, then let him consider the words of Snr.Prodi, as reported in a leading British newspaper on 6 April', "the euro was a decision that completely changed the nature of the nation states The pillars of the nation state are the sword and the currency and we changed that." 'As for the future, I quote again Senior Prodi's own words' "The real goal is to draw on the single currency and create a political Europe". (Lord Shore Of Stepney 10 April 1999)
EUROPEAN Union foreign ministers last night held out the long-term prospect of EU membership to all countries of the Balkan region as part of an ambitious strategy to promote peace and avoid a repetition of the Kosovo crisis. The plan to bind the Balkan nations ever closer to the EU by offering the carrot of eventual admission formed the centrepiece of a Stability Pact for the region tabled by the German presidency. The strategy, under which Nato membership would also be offered as a long-term goal, was warmly endorsed by the 15 foreign ministers at an emergency meeting in Luxembourg yesterday. After the meeting Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, said: "We are looking forward to a Europe of stability including the Balkans, which have to be part and parcel of Europe's future." Ministers cited Macedonia and Albania as countries that could realistically move towards eventual membership. (Electronic Telegraph 10/4/99)
The European Commission said Friday it was powerless to intervene over Spain's imposition of restrictive controls on its frontier with Gibraltar, despite a complaint from Britain that the move breaches the spirit of EU law. A spokeswoman for the European Union's executive said Madrid was entirely within its rights to rigorously check every passport and search cars if it believed they could contain drugs or other illicit material. "If you go to the UK, it is the same thing," she said. As the frontier with Gibraltar is an entry point into the passport-free Schengen zone, Spain had a particular duty to maintain tight controls, she added. Britain's ambassador to the EU, Sir Stephen Wall, has written to Commission President Jacques Santer asking him to remind Madrid of its obligations under the Treaty of Rome to ensure the free movement of citizens within the (AFP BRUSSELS, Feb 12 1999)
The EC Treaty and the Union Treaty are concluded "for an unlimited period" as provided for respectively in Articles 240 and Q respectively. Article O of the Treaty of Maastricht on European Union provides for the conditions and the procedures for accession to the Union and Article N set the conditions for amending the Treaties. The treaties are thus drafted in the understanding that no Member State will withdraw from the Union. (Letter from M. J-L Dewost, Office of M. Santer, President EC 1/2/99, Eurofaq). The following was the promise of the Wilson government in 1975: The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act that took us into the Market on January 1, 1973. Thus our continued membership will depend on the continuing assent of Parliament.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall take the example of the Agriculture Council because that is the one that I attended most recently. The Agriculture Council's decisions impact substantially on Europe as a whole because of the budgetary implications. They also directly affect the interests of our constituents. The decisions that come out of the Agriculture Council--or any council, for that matter--are neither democratic nor accountable in the sense that this House understands those terms. The Commission makes policy proposals. They are often made late, a day or two before the hearing of the Council, without much external examination or inquiry. They are presented to Ministers, many of whom have only a slight understanding of the technical issues involved. The issues are discussed late at night and are the subject of fudge, brokered agreements and private deals. There is little accountability on the part of either the Ministers involved or the Commission for the decisions that are taken. That process is profoundly unsatisfactory and wrong. (Hansard 13 Jan 1999: Column 393ff)
The Ukraine question poses a profound challenge for Europe. Seeking to revive the Gaullist dream of blocking American power, France is engaged in political flirtation with Russia and is unlikely to challenge the growth of Russian power. Germany, dependent on a secure Poland and deeply involved in the rest of Eastern Europe, does not want to see a return of Russia to its old borders. Germany is clearly motivated to support an independent Ukraine. Therefore, the Ukrainian question will challenge Western European solidarity, posing the first serious foreign policy challenge to a unified Europe. France will back Moscow to re-unite with the Ukraine. Germany will back nationalists in Kiev. Since the Europeans still haven't figured out how to forge a unified foreign policy, the coming Ukrainian crisis could pose real hazards for a united Europe. (http://www.stratfor.com/ 10/1/99)
"Every person holding the nationality of a Member State" of the European Union is regarded as a "citizen" of that Union, who "shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby" (Title II, Part Two: "Citizenship of the Union", Article 8. Maastricht Treaty).
The areas in which we surrendered our right to make independent foreign policy include Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and the rest of Europe. These are deemed areas of general interest and common positions are decided by majority voting. We can still make independent policy for North America and Australasia; these are the only parts of the world not covered by EC working groups. (S Telegraph 12/12/98).
Mr Blair and Mr Schroder agreed to consider common measures to support wider health and environmental objectives. (FT 10/12/98)
Roy Hattersley, prominent member of the European Movement, confided that the pro-EMU forces not only had the money to finance the referendum campaign and the attractive personalities, but they will also be able to formulate the question put to the British people in a way that they will not be able to say "no". (S Telegraph 29/11/98)
Gerhard Schroder, Germany's new Chancellor, will use his presidency of the EU to drive forward European integration. He wants a stronger political, environmental and social union. The EMU is a step on the road to integration. "With us in Germany the federal system has proved itself". "Tax policy must be harmonised". (D Telegraph 11/11/98) Joschka Fischer the German foreign minister says turning the EU into a single political state is the decisive task of our time (European Voice/Telegraph 26/11/98)
In 1969, after de Gaulle had said "Non" to us, he confided to Ambassador Christopher Soames his vision of Europe. A loose but broad construct liberated from supranational pretensions and invasions of sovereignty. This was so at odds with our Foreign Office federalists, alarmed at being thought as uncommunitaire, that they leaked de Gaulle's naughty suggestions to the Germans. It was destroyed in the ensuing uproar. (This Blessed Plot, Hugo Young, Macmillan £20)
Winston Churchill is sometimes credited with founding the concept of a united Europe. This is what he said: "We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not combined. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European statesmen address us in the words which were used of old - 'Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Captain of the Host?' we should reply with the Shunamite woman: 'Nay, sir, for we dwell among our own people. "-Winston Churchill - 1953
A Poignant Reminder. Lest we should forget, Gerhard Schröder reminded us in his inaugural parliamentary speech this week that the destination of European integration is political union. "Only through the further development of a political union will we succeed in developing a Europe close to its citizens," Schröder claimed. Adding the recommendation that "a federal order in Europe seems the best guarantee for progress ... the German federal system has proved itself." Meanwhile, millions of people across Britain and the continent poignantly marked the 80th anniversary of the falling silent of the guns after four years of slaughter on the Somme. And people prayed that no expansive European dictatorship should challenge their political freedoms again. (posted 11/11/98 http://www.eurocritic.demon.co.uk/cj-news.htm#Top)
Article 104c7 of Maastricht says : 7. Where the existence of an excessive deficit is decided according to paragraph 6, the Council shall make recommendations to the member state concerned with a view to bringing that situation to an end within a given period. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 8, these recommendations shall not be made public. This explains why the Labour Government sticks to the Conservative spending plans. (S Telegraph 9/11/98). This explains why the Government sticks to the Conservative spending plans. (S Telegraph 9/11/98). Brussels had requested the previous British Government to put forward proposals to cuts its excessive budget deficit, to ensure compliance with the Growth and Stability Pact under the Maastricht Treaty. (Sunday Telegraph 8/11/98)
The Economic and Social Committee is made up of 222 members. It is supposed to represent three groups of civil society. It is an EU consultative body. In practice this means that it issues opinions on every topic under the sun which everyone with any power in the EU ignores. The highlight this year has been the scandal over members fiddling their travel expenses. (The European 26/10/98)
20 years ago there were only two satellite agencies helping the various European institutions. Now there are 11 and their function is to employ experts in their field to implement EU policies from a decentralised base. There are centres for the environment, health and safety at work, training, evaluation of medicines, drugs monitoring, trade marks and designs, translations, plant variety, and racism monitoring. Staffing will reach 1,200 in 1999. Providing just pensions will cost 58m euro and only two agencies have funded pension schemes. Some agencies have introduced supplementary budgets without warning. The EP is concerned that they should follow an approved code of practice. (E Voice 15/10/98)
The UK is not the most awkward member of the EC. The voting patterns in the Council of Ministers show that Germany votes against most decisions. (Jan 95-July 98)
|
Country'No' votes and abstentions |
|
|
Germany |
52 |
|
Britain |
41 |
|
Italy |
30 |
|
Sweden |
22 |
|
The Netherlands |
19 |
|
Denmark |
18 |
|
Spain |
16 |
|
Portugal |
15 |
|
France |
12 |
|
Belgium |
11 |
|
Greece |
10 |
|
Austria |
10 |
|
Ireland |
9 |
|
Luxembourg |
7 |
|
Finland |
7 |
(European Voice 15/10/98)
France's decision to ignore the European Commission's instructions on importing British beef confirms France's recent tendency to ignore European laws altogether. France is now top of the list of disobedient countries, with 419 directives not applied. The second worse countries are Italy (329) and Germany (293). France is also the country which is brought before the European Court of Justice more than any other country. It currently has 42 cases outstanding before the ECJ; Belgium is in second place with 34 outstanding cases. [Courrier international, 16th - 22nd December 1999] Among the complaints being investigated by the European Court of Justice are restrictions on the ability of foreign promoters to put on shows such as travelling circuses in France. Company law in France allows ministers to impose a freeze on any corporate take-over by non-French farm. Non-domestic auction houses are prohibited from setting up in Paris. (Daily Telegraph 11/12/99)
The government is studying options that would give the EU a direct role in defence policy for the first time. Ministries have joined forces to propose a massive expansion of EU powers (D Telegraph 3/10/98) European defence and foreign ministers took the first step toward merging the Western European Union (WEU), Europe's defence organisation, into the European Union at a two-day conference which ended Tuesday. "The death-knell of the WEU", set up in 1948, was sounded by German Defence Minister Rudolf Scharping, who called for the organisation to be integrated into European Union structures by the end of 2000. (May 11 1999 AFP)
The fundamental argument in favour of a single European state is that it makes war impossible. Professor Rummel in his book "Death by Government" (ISBN 1-56000-927-6) shows that argument to be worthless. In his analysis of wars he shows that between 1816 and 1991 the number of wars between democracies was nil. The number between democracies and non-democracies was 155 and between non-democracies there were 198 wars. The lesson for 21st century Europe is that the way to prevent war is democracy. Once that democracy is disabled and corrupted within a single European state, the risk of war increases. (Eurofacts 20/11/98). The European Union is basically undemocratic and soon there will be taxation without representation - not very reassuring - Ed.
In order to cope with the influx of new member states it is proposed to re-vamp the unwieldy college of 20 commissioners and create a two-tier structure with an upper echelon of six super commissioners. Jacques Santer has to convince member states he is not simply trying to accrue more power to himself. (European 21/9/98)
The powers of the European Parliament are growing. There are now 23 new areas of power in the European Parliament after signing the Amsterdam Treaty. Members of the EP now have the right to approve the candidate nominated for President of the Commission. Also the right to approve all Commissioners. EP legislative powers have been increased through the co-decision procedure in which the EP and the Council of Ministers have to jointly adopt legislative texts. These will cover large new areas of EU activity including: Immigration; transport; research and environmental policy; implementation of regional fund and social fund decisions; development co-operation; employment and health; equal pay for men and women; actions to combat community fraud; transparency and access to information. Under the co-decision procedure MEPs will have the right to amend or reject draft texts, and encourage the EP and the Council to seek an agreement on a common text. The European Parliament will have the same powers as the Council. It has to be accepted that if the powers of the EP are increased then those of national parliaments will be diminished. (Countryside'- Issue no.7)
Directorate-General (DG) XVI Mission Statement: The European Union is characterised and enriched by its diversity: there are differences in language, culture and landscape, not just between different Member States but between different regions. Socio-economic disparities between regions, however, can be harmful to the whole Union and the pursuit of economic and social cohesion is consequently one of the priority policies of the EU: as an expression of Europe-wide solidarity as a prerequisite for economic efficiency and global competitiveness. Under-performance in weaker regions leads to a fall in consumer demand for European products, hinders economic development, distorts competition in the Single Market and ultimately reduces the EU's competitiveness on the global market. Directorate-General (DG) XVI is the department of the European Commission that is responsible for Community action to reduce the gaps in socio-economic development between the various regions of the European Union in accordance with Article 130a and 130c of the Treaty. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg16/mission/missi_en.htm)
The EU is an economic giant, a political dwarf and a military earthworm, said the former Belgian Prime Minister Mark Eyskens. Behind this observation lies a power struggle outside any democratic control. Foreign and security policy (CFSP) is to be the responsibility of the future "high representative" of the CFSP. This person will be appointed in December. Hitherto the General Affairs Council (GAC) held this responsibility and was peopled by the foreign ministers. However it has forfeited its role through general neglect and sheer lack of inspiration, as evidenced by the failure in Yugoslavia and the conflict between Greece and Turkey. If a prominent politician is appointed to lead CFSP he will act as Secretary General to the Council of Ministers and the GAC will be relegated to a simple foreign affairs council. (European 20/7/98)
"Citizens from other EU countries living in the UK will be able to vote in the UK for next years elections for the European Parliament" the UK Government announced yesterday. Eurostat, the EU statistics office said that more than 800,000 non-British EU citizens live in the UK. (FT 26/8/98)
The proposals for expanding the EU will mean considerable cuts in Structural Funds for poor areas of the UK. Because our unemployment is lower than in much richer EU countries, money will be diverted away from the UK. Wales would get nothing even though 90% now qualifies for EU grants. Also, because long-term unemployeds are diverted into long-term sickness benefit our unemployment figures appear lower than other countries. As the fourth poorest country the UK will have to divert funds to the richest countries in the EU. (D Telegraph 2/8/98)
The British taxpayer is footing a bill of almost £16,000 a day to support a MEP. A Westminster MP costs £2,440 a day and a member of the House of Lords costs £280 a day. (Sunday telegraph 26/7/98)
The Amsterdam Treaty, in the Protocol on Subsidiarity, states that the European Court of Justice rulings have precedence, not just over national laws, but even over the constitutional or basic laws of the member states. Of the fourteen members only four are judges as we would recognise them, the other ten are political appointees and all are charged with furthering Euro federalism in their deliberations. (EuroFaq 2/2/98). Article 7(6) means that our sovereignty will be irrevocably transferred and that the Queen and parliament are no longer the supreme power in our country. The safeguard that no parliament can bind its successors has been given away. (European Journal 11/97) (FFP). The actual wording of Article 3(b) on subsidiarity is: "In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Community shall take action in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states and can therefore by reason of the scale or efforts of the proposed action be better achieved by the Community". This has been described as a prime example of gobbledegook and will in no way protect the rights of Nation States and the primacy of national self-government. (Eurofacts 7/8/98)
The Amsterdam Treaty Protocol on Subsidiarity and Proportionality does not apply to the European Court of Justice. Subsidiarity and Proportionality mean what the Council and the Commission intend them to mean at any one time. (Eurofacts/Guide to the Treaty of Amsterdam 24/4/98)
Even Commission decisions can be overruled by the European Court of Justice. In 1993 the Commission agreed a merger between two German potash companies. Two French potash companies complained to the ECJ, which annulled the Commission's merger decision. (European Voice 11/6/98)
The Council of Ministers cannot alter a Commission proposal except by unanimity. This gives an unelected Commission enormous power at the expense of member states (European Voice letter 2/7/98)
It is estimated that 80% of British legislation concerning the environment now originates in Brussels. The Amsterdam Treaty has given euro-MPs roles as co-legislators with the Council of Ministers in 15 new policy fields, including transport, consumer protection, visas, employment, social policy, customs co-operation and the free movement of citizens. (Daily Telegraph 9 June 1999)
The six eastern European countries that have applied to join the EU have been dismayed to discover that they are expected to adopt over 80,000 pages of new laws, regulations and directives. (Sunday Telegraph 28/6/98)
The European Court of Justice is able to overrule the Council of Ministers and the Commission. The Court ruled in April 1998 in the case of a Swedish woman who bought life assurance in England that tax discrimination between member states is illegal. Tax is the area most closely guarded by individual states and they almost never reach agreement because unanimous voting is required in the Council of Ministers. The Court of Justice can impose tax rules on all of them- Ed. (FT 24/6/98)
The single market is not intended to create free trade among countries. It is intended to do precisely the opposite, to suppress freedom among EU member states and subsume it instead within the uniformity of one single, centrally directed economy. This is why Commissioner Monti has said that if the single currency fails then Europe risks collapsing into a free trade zone, which is exactly what we have been struggling to avoid for the last 25 years. (European 27/4/98)
The EC intends to harmonise national rules on organ transplants and blood transfusions and to bring national public health rules into line with EU veterinary and food safety regulations. (European Voice 9/4/98)
The social partners are the representatives of the large unions ETUC, the major employers UNICE and the Public sector, or European Centre for Enterprises with Public participation, CEEP. The social partners can enter into negotiations after the Commission has consulted them. These groups have the blessing of the Commission and thus all other potential candidates wishing to join the negotiations are excluded. The agreement signed by the social partners is submitted to the Commission who decides to submit them to the Council for adoption. The European Parliament is expressly not permitted to intervene. For many years the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, UEAPME, has been refused access to the European social dialogue negotiations. The UEAPME has lodged a petition at the Court of First Instance against the Council of Ministers and the EU regarding the directive on parental leave. This will create difficulties for SMEs when implemented. It is necessary to address the question of representative and democracy when only three social partners negotiate the framework agreements that become binding on all employers and workers. (European Voice 9/4/98)
Spanish fishermen are to be awarded £80m by the Court of Appeal in compensation by the British government when they were excluded by the 1998 Merchant Shipping Act from using UK fishing quotas. This is the first time in which the English courts have had to award damages against the UK government for breaches of EC law by the enactment and implementation of an Act of Parliament. (D Telegraph 6/9/98)
Phare is an aid programme for eastern and central Europe and Tacis is similarly for former Soviet Union countries. The programmes have consumed $21bn and have achieved little other than becoming bywords for waste and inefficiency. Plagued by bureaucracy, lack of resources, lax monitoring and a total absence of strategic objectives Phare and Tacis have been singled out for damning reports by the EU's Court of Auditors. It has given the first full report of how the money has been squandered. (The European 20/4/98)
Commissioner Kinnock writes to a constituent denying that the EU has an anthem, just a tune played on occasions. However, the classroom guide "What Exactly is Europe" published by the EU says: "..all countries share an anthem. It is the Theme to the Ode to Joy". (S Telegraph 22/3/98)
The European Commission has stated that it can no longer publish figures showing how much each country pays into and receives from the EU's £60bn budget, because the wider benefits of membership dwarf the mere budgetary dimension. Apparently budgetary flows do not capture all the benefits so it would be misleading to publish figures showing net national contributions. This attitude contrasts with Commissioner Brittan's statement that the EC has a very transparent budgetary system and none other is so rigorous. (S Telegraph 22/3/98)
The European Commission follows its own agenda, which often exceeds its legal powers. It tries to avoid acting ultra-vires by invoking alternative powers. The 48-hour limit on the working week was obviously a Social Chapter measure that Britain had opted out of, but was enacted under health and safety legislation by qualified majority voting. The Commission wants to ban tobacco advertising but lacks the legal powers in health legislation. It is, therefore, imposing the ban as a harmonisation of advertising markets. The German government said it would challenge the law on the grounds that the ban would limit freedom of speech. It also breached the German constitution. On the other hand, the Commission turns a blind eye to the French law that bans alcohol advertising on broadcast sports events. The law blatantly flouts EU single market rules. (European Voice 30/4/98) (D Telegraph 14/5/98)
The High Court's decision to block plans to ban tobacco advertising was followed by government promise to appeal as a matter of urgency. Mr Justice Turner granted an injunction to leading tobacco companies preventing implementation of the European Tobacco Advertising Directive in Britain before a ruling by the European Court of Justice. The judge said that although it was strongly arguable that the companies would succeed in their European challenge, the Government should not introduce new regulations before the ruling, expected later this year. (FT 31/10/99)
Up to 15% of European parliament decisions are illegal because no quorum is present. Some committee meetings go on when the translators have gone home. (European Journal 5/98)
The UK has tabled a proposal, The European Spatial Development Directive, to harmonise land use and planning policies in the EU. Conflicts arise in border areas such as in Denmark, which restricts out-of-town shopping, while Sweden does not. Some member countries see this as extending the EC's powers into national government territory. (FT 8/6/98)
Mount Athos is a sacred monastery in Greece that excludes women. It has received EC funds for repairs and is now subject to equal access rules for women under the Schengen Agreement. An attempt to exempt it from the rule was opposed by Scandinavian ministers. (BBC R4 Today 15/6/98)
The German government vowed to defy a landmark European Court ruling applying the internal market rules to its health system. The government would ignore the judgement enabling EU citizens to shop around for medical services in other member states and have the costs reimbursed by their own national health systems. This threatened the manageability of the country's health insurance system. (FT 7/6/98)
The confidential report by the European Court of Auditors says the current system for paying MEPs' allowances amounts to an open invitation to fraud and calls for a profound overhaul of the regulatory framework. (European Voice 1/6/98). The budget for emergency travel was £2.2m but in 1997 MEPs actually drew £31.9m. (European 1/6/98). ). MEPs can more than double their salaries by claiming full allowances irrespective of what they actually paid. MEPs have caved in to pressure and voted to relate all allowances to actual costs. 8 Tory MEPs voted against the reform proposal but then claimed they had made a mistake in reading their instructions. MEPs also voted to receive a uniform salary with one proposal to lift it to £84,000 a year. (D Telegraph 19/6/98)
A Labour ex-MEP, George Stevenson, allegedly offered his agent a £5,000 bribe to be a ghost researcher. This way Mr Stevenson could claim a salary of £25,000 so as to be able to buy a building. (The Times 21/6/98)
The Commission is spending £1.6m on their Brussels canteen just three years after it was built. Meals are subsidised at the rate of £5,000 per day. Prices are about one third of those in public restaurants. (Mail on Sunday 22/3/98).
MEPs have decided to take three months off to concentrate on the June parliamentary elections. Officials fear that an enormous backlog of legislative proposals will build up by the time the MEPs resume their normal duties after the summer break. (European Voice 17 March 1998)
The Amsterdam Treaty establishes an important precedent. It gives the Council of Ministers the right to suspend the voting rights of a member state if it is in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. This precedent could allow our fellow Ministers to strip us of our Treaty rights while leaving in place our Treaty obligations.(Eurofacts 21/11/98)
Tim Loughton MP, Conservative Spokesman for Regions and Regeneration, said: ". . . the next Conservative Government will abolish regional development agencies, regional chambers, regional planners, regional cultural consortiums, regional supply offices, regional assemblies and their regional Euro-offices. They will not be missed by the people of England. (CP press release 9/3/01)
The Government launched a package of measures designed to give greater power to the regions. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and Chancellor Gordon Brown unveiled a range of proposals designed to address economic imbalances. They included a new flexibility for Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to decide their own budget priorities. Mr Prescott announced a £5m fund to enable the regional chambers to establish greater scrutiny of the work of individual RDAs. He said: "RDAs are the strategic drivers of economic development in the regions and they have made excellent progress over the last year. (Yorkshire Post Sat March 10, 2001)
In the run-up to St George's Day, Conservatives today attacked plans by Labour and the Liberal Democrats to abolish shire counties in England and replace their county councils with a series of regional assemblies on European Union lines. Both Labour and Liberal Democrats are committed to introducing regional assemblies in England, which will mean the abolition of county councils. As Beverley Hughes, Minister for Local Government, recently confirmed, 'A move to elected regional government in England would imply changing to a predominantly unitary system of local government.' (HC Debs, col. 21W, 19 March 2001).
EU Committee Of Regions Prepares for Regional Government: Regional Policy is the Key to Further Integration. The Committee of the Regions (COR) calls for the further development of European regional policy into the integration policy par excellence, in an opinion drafted by Karl - Heinz Klär, State Secretary, Delegate for Federal and European Affairs of the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate (D/PSE) and adopted at the plenary session on 15th February 2001. Mr Klär argues that 'we should promote a policy of bottom-up integration aimed at the sustained, day-to-day deepening of the EU. Europe's regions can become still more integrated and the EU should support this process.' (UPC/02512 en Brussels 16 February 2001)
The Committee of the Regions is carving out a niche for itself in the EU institutional framework. It may eventually become the second parliamentary chamber with its 222 members deeply involved in the politics of their respective regions. It shot itself in the foot by becoming embroiled in a highly damaging recruitment scandal, prompting widespread allegations of cronyism. It hopes to gain the status of a full institution, with the right to defend itself before the European Court of Justice. The Amsterdam Treaty allows it to set up its own administrative support staff. (European Voice 1/4/98). The President of the Committee of the Regions said that the concepts of the nation and the state are fading away and people's traditional national identities are losing their meaning. Regionalisation is well established with England divided into eight Euro-regions with their core governments, regional development agencies and European electoral constituencies. (S Telegraph 6/12/98)
TONY BLAIR and Robin Cook are drawing up plans for a European "senate" made up of national politicians, including British MPs, to monitor the work of the European Parliament. This could take the form either of a second chamber to the European Parliament, similar to the House of Lords, or a large constitutional committee with formal powers. It would be responsible for holding the European Commission to account and protecting subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should, when possible, be taken by member states rather than in Brussels. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary also believe that the Government needs to do more to try to calm the fears of voters that their lives are increasingly being run from Brussels. (Electronic Telegraph 31 July 2000)
The Council of European Municipalities and Regions originated from the conviction that local and regional authorities have a fundamental role to play in the realisation of the European Union. They provide popular support for Europe through the efforts of local politicians who are the elected representatives closest to the citizens. The CEMR brings together more than 100,000 local and regional authorities in Europe. It includes countries outside the EU such as Latvia and Bulgaria area. It is a different organisation from the Committee of the Regions. (http://www.ccre.org/)
Regionalisation of Arts Bodies. If you are a UK body you may need to reinvent yourself along regional lines so that you have direct access to information from regions, a distinct regional identity to present to funders and are in a position to develop partnerships within, and beyond each region. To this end VAN has an office in Welshpool and in Edinburgh. We are also proposing the setting up of Regional Voluntary Arts Forums to provide a voice for the sector at regional level. (Voluntary Arts News Updates April 1999)
Scores of regional assemblies throughout the Union could soon be far more closely involved with the work the European Parliament under plans being considered by MEPs. One of the proposals on the table would give local legislatures direct access to follow the progress of EU initiatives of interest to them at the committee stage. We have an informal agreement, and we hope this will soon be formalised, to reserve six places in the regional affairs committee for representatives from these Parliaments with legislative powers, said the European Parliament president. The Parliament is giving regional assemblies access to its own database and is ready to use this to communicate activities for a wider audience. Almost 90 of the 270 regional Parliaments in the Union have some form of legislative responsibility. British labour MEP and Parliament vice-president David Martin believes that the involvement of regional Parliament's can bring a new practical dimension to the Union. (European Voice 17 December 1998 )
The Conservatives vowed to sweep away the embryonic tier of regional government, and return powers to town halls. Mr Redwood claimed the government's regional agenda was part of a scheme to integrate Britain into a European superstate. The EU wants us all to develop new loyalties to the regions of Europe and the British government is after the same ends. They are trying to subvert the unity of the kingdom by devolution. (Financial Times 9 July 1999)
A chart sent by the EU to businesses, schools and libraries shows Scotland, Wales in Northern Ireland as parts of Europe. But it does not show England; instead it is simply represented by nine regions. (The Sun 15 April 1999)
"Reform in this direction has been much slower than expected. It seems obvious in a totalitarian State to remove the last remnants of historical localism and to substitute regions, based on economic or political foundations, especially when the Party has already worked these out to its satisfaction. But localism dies hard............" (The House That Hitler Built': p 96: Stephen H. Roberts [Prof. of history - Sydney University] 1937)
Integrated Regional Government Offices, IRGOs, are set up under EU rules and deal with employment, trade, industry and transport. The Sussex town of Rye now appears to have two councils, one elected and another formed in November 1996 with appointed members, called the Rye Partnership. This appears to take its orders from the IRGO in Guildford. This unelected Guildford body has published job adverts for Project Managers for the Regional Government. (Source: FFP23 and Rye resident)
Most local authorities have European / International Officers or units and now collectively contribute to a permanent office in Brussels with a staff of four for the Birmingham and West Midlands Office. Not only does this Office disseminate valuable information to its members and help organise regional lobbying activities in Brussels, but it also acts often as the go-between for the region's formal representatives on the EU institutions. The eight MEPs from West Midlands constituencies and the two representatives (and two alternates) from the West Midlands on the Committee of the Regions regularly liaise with the Office and through them, with the regional partners. Such is the MEPs' commitment to this that they often meet, cross-party, as a regional grouping and have regularly attended, with COR representatives, meetings in the West Midlands of the WMLGA's European and International Affairs Panel of councillors and, in the past, the Regional Economic Consortium. Over the last decade or so, regionalism and the EU regional dimension has increased in importance as the EU seeks to increase decision-making at the lower levels of government, 'closer to the people'. UK Governments have reacted to these developments. Firstly, with the formation of Integrated Regional Government Offices and the board of the West Midlands RDA. Four places on each of the boards are filled by elected representatives of local government. Other sectors, such as education, trade unions and the voluntary sector take the remaining seats. The Government is also encouraging the setting up of voluntary Regional Chambers. Within the West Midlands a Chamber of 60 has been established. The representatives are drawn predominantly from elected local government, but nine places will be taken by representatives of the business community and the remaining nine by representatives of other sectors. The Committee of the Regions brings together representatives of local and regional authorities across the EU and acts as an advisory body. There are 24 UK Members of the Committee, who are appointed on a political and geographical basis every four years. (Committee of the Regions)
The seven member states of the North Western Metropolitan Area (NWMA), which encompasses all or part of Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, have been cooperating since 1997 on transnational spatial development policies in the framework of INTERREG IIC. INTERREG is the EU Community Initiative to foster cross-border and transnational cooperation between regions of Europe. The NWMA cooperation programme has been managed by an international Secretariat based in London. (European Voice 22/4/00)
Countries in the Schengen group, which allow unrestricted cross-border travel, maintain a database of undesirable individuals called SIS. It has records on 4 million people designated as undesirables who are to be kept out permanently (Telegraph Jan 98)
The EU has secretly agreed to join a telephone tapping system in co-operation with the FBI. It will tap telephones, faxes, and e-mail. The plans were drawn up under a secret network of committees established under the Third Pillar of the Maastricht Treaty covering co-operation on law and order. This is an area where the EU's democratic deficit is most evident. The Home Secretary denied the Lords European Community Committee a copy of the report. (Guardian 25/2/97). Phone tapping will ostensibly become more difficult under the integrated services digital network directive on harmonising telecommunications. This, however, will have the effect of disrupting City firms and financial regulators which rely on monitoring financial markets by recording telephone deals (FT 9/7/97)
The European Parliament's overwhelming support for tougher measures to ensure cleaner fuel for motor vehicles by 2005 is a sign of its growing legislative confidence - and one which EU governments and industry cannot afford to ignore. It is a foretaste of what will happen when the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified and we have even wider legislative powers." the extension of the Union's co-decision procedure, under which MEPs and governments jointly agree EU laws, will greatly increase the Parliament's authority and make ministers realise that they cannot legislate in isolation. Viewed from the perspective of governments, the Parliament's decision to demand mandatory, rather than optional limits by 2005 does not just reflect a fundamental difference of opinion over the best way to tackle air pollution. It is also perceived as an internal battle within the Union as MEPs try to elbow their way into the heart of decision-making. (European Voice 3/3/98)
Electoral law has been thrown into confusion after the European Court of Human Rights said the Representation of the People Act breached the freedom of expression provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government opposed the ruling saying that the act prevented wealthy campaigners from buying seats. (FT20/2/98)
The ECHU has ruled the UK courts martial system illegal.
The European Parliament's overwhelming support for tougher measures to ensure cleaner fuel for motor vehicles by 2005 is a sign of its growing legislative confidence - and one which EU governments and industry cannot afford to ignore. It is a foretaste of what will happen when the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified and we have even wider legislative powers." the extension of the Union's co-decision procedure, under which MEPs and governments jointly agree EU laws, will greatly increase the Parliament's authority and make ministers realise that they cannot legislate in isolation. Viewed from the perspective of governments, the Parliament's decision to demand mandatory, rather than optional limits by 2005 does not just reflect a fundamental difference of opinion over the best way to tackle air pollution. It is also perceived as an internal battle within the Union as MEPs try to elbow their way into the heart of decision-making. (European Voice 3/3/98)
A directive had legal effect from the moment of its notification. Where a directive set out an implementation period during that period states had to take measures to ensure the aims of the directive were achieved by the end of the period. States had to avoid taking measures liable to compromise the aims of the directive. (FT 6/1/98)
While the UK acts as President of the EU ministers presiding over meetings of the Council cannot represent UK interests, they have to represent the consensus of the Council and cannot express their own country's views. (Motorcycle Rider Mar/Apr 1998) (BMF Briefing Spring 1988)
If a proposal is defeated in a European Parliament committee then MEPs are forbidden, by parliamentary etiquette, from discussing the matter since it would be seen to be contrary to the European Parliament's wishes. (Motorcycle Rider Mar/Apr 1998)
The removal of border controls in the EU has coincided in a rise in the activities of organised gangs and mafias that specialise in drug trafficking, prostitution, money laundering, arms and radioactive materials. This has been exacerbated by a lack of trust among police forces. Criminal networks benefit from the differences between different justice systems, says a Commission paper. The desire is to pool sovereignty in the areas of law enforcement and justice. (FT 2/2/98)
To prepare for the entry of new member states The Commission proposes to freeze spending on structural funds and reduce the categories. Britain gets £1.5bn of its contribution to the EU back in the form of aid to industrial and rural areas in decline. Under the new proposals we could stand to lose hundreds of millions. (FT 2/2/98). Peter Mandelson went to Brussels to plead with the Commission not to cut regional aid by 50%. In fact we are only given back less than 80% of the money British taxpayers send to Brussels. When the money is returned to us Brussels insists that full recognition be given by way of notices with the ring of stars. (S Telegraph 8/2/98). ). Objective 2 funding, for programmes in areas in industrial and rural decline, will take 15 months to be agreed. (FT 23/2/98)
Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome turns the EU into a body of unlimited powers provided that the Council of Ministers is unanimous. This means that it can act far beyond what is provided in the treaty itself. Unanimity provides no protection because only the agreement of governments is required - parliamentary or popular approval by referendum is necessary. (These Tides 8/9/97) (FFP)
The rules for the European Commission's managed contracts state that all invitations to tender must be published in the European Journal. All successful awards must also be published. Over the last 5 years of 1,920 invitations to tender only 410 awards were published, only 21%. If the results are published then anyone who is concerned at the pattern of granting awards can follow up their doubts. The European Court of Auditors and MEPs have criticised many of the contracts. The Commission manages contracts worth £12bn. (BBC R4 6/1/98)
The EU is dividing up regions regardless of their home countries. For example, East Sussex is part of Interreg II, which includes part of Normandy. The Commission prefers to deal directly with these regions which have the right to send delegates to the Committee of Regions in Brussels and they receive grants to further EU policies. (Daily Telegraph 27/12/97). The new proportional representation system for electing MEPs gives Political Party HQs total control over the selection of candidates. The regions chosen for the election correspond with the regions devised by Brussels for splitting up countries. (European Journal 11/97) (FFP)
MEPs are awarded funds for their political parties. If they change parties then the funds follow them. This means it is unwise to become an independent MEP because valuable funding is lost. This is why two rebel Labour MEPs have affiliated to the Green Party to be sure of getting the money (Independent 3/1/98)
The driving force behind the Single Market, the Maastricht Treaty, the Single Currency, the Single European Act and the European Transport Infrastructure is the European Round Table of Industrialists. This was founded in 1983 with 45 captains of industry. Its object is to shape Europe according to the preferences of Trans-National Companies. It promotes biotechnology; it opposes energy constraints such as the carbon tax. It had a clause inserted in the Amsterdam Treaty that stipulated that environmental regulations should not be an obstacle to the internal market. (Guardian 28/8/97)
The European Commission was seeking to recover from a humiliating reverse when EU environment and trade ministers united to oppose discussion of biotechnology in the World Trade Organisation. Ministers slapped down the Commission's attempt to bridge the EU's differences with the US by going part of the way towards endorsing Washington's demand that the WTO set up a working group on biotechnology as part of a new world trade round. Ministers and environmental groups fear a WTO working group would jeopardise the successful conclusion of separate negotiations on a biosafety protocol to the United Nations biodiversity convention which are due to completed a next month in Montreal. "It would be a classic example of what offends so many people about the WTO. The working group would be seen as a WTO are body that could write roughshod over member states' policies in a very sensitive area," one European trade minister said. (FT 3/12/99)
Prof. Martin Feldstein of Harvard is pessimistic about the likely success of the EMU. A formal political union is no guarantee against an intra-European war. Henry Kaufman, economist, says localised recessions would be all but inevitable causing countries to seek to re-establish their own currency. The early years will be especially volatile and dangerous. The system will be unable to cope with localised economic shocks. (FT 19/11/97)
In the Amsterdam Treaty Britain thought it had won the right to opt-in to elements of the open frontiers Schengen Agreement. The Spanish, however, resentful of the long-standing feud over Gibraltar, inserted a clause stating that any country could veto the UK's attempts to opt-in. This late amendment was inserted without the full knowledge of the UK delegation. (D Telegraph 5/11/97)
In the Amsterdam Treaty, there is a requirement that new EU members take on Schengen in its entirety. Poland and Hungary will be badly affected. Recently they did not enforce visa requirements with their eastern neighbours. Under EU pressure Poland imposed visas on Belarus which led to demonstrations by thousands of Polish and Belarusian traders. Poland still has visa-free arrangement with Ukraine. It regards the stability of Ukraine as a vital national interest. The EU will enforce visas. Hungary is very concerned that Schengen will create new barriers with large Hungarian minorities in Romania, Slovakia and other eastern states. Hungary might apply divisive special visa rules favouring Hungarian minorities. The EU will insist that Poland and Hungary enforce strict border supervision. These are only lightly guarded at present in accordance with the efforts to create a flourishing cross-border trade. This trade is worth $7bn annually to Poland. A useful change would be for the EU to ensure that applying for an EU visa becomes a less irritating and humiliating experience. (FT 23/2/98)
France and Germany have agreed to create a new Council of Finance Ministers to co-ordinate the economic policies of the Euro zone. It will deliberate on tax and spending matters, structural policies, wage costs, labour market flexibility and trade relations. This Council will embrace the entire sweep of economic policy making. The boundaries of national economic management will be eventually erased. In other words, European Government. (FT October 1997). The UK has been refused a permanent place in the group. Even documents might not be available to the UK if we do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism. (PA 17/11/97
The Department of Trade and Industry has climbed down over its proposal to reclaim central control of inward investment subsidies throughout the UK. It wants to prevent bidding battles between England, Scotland and Wales (FT17/11/97). Ed's note: It will quickly become apparent that control of the EU economy with, inter alia, an inflexible labour force will have to include control of internal and inward investment. Come back Industrial Development Certificates, all is forgiven! A resolution by the European Parliament states that shifting capital assets for purely fiscal reasons leads to the misallocation of resources...that leads to distortions in economic flows which adversely affects the proper functioning of the single market. (Eurofacts 24/10/98)
In Austria anonymous savings accounts are the most popular and traditional savings instrument. The European Commission has forbidden them and will take Austria to the European Court of Justice to enforce the ban. (FT 15/10/97) (FT 16/7/98) Just as Austria was about to be suspended as a member of the Fin- ancial Action Task Force (FATF), the country has finally succumbed to pressure to abolish its anonymous savings "passbook" accounts, which can be used for money laundering purposes. (19/6/00 http://www.tax-news.com/html/oldnews/st_Austria_16_06_00.htm)
Money in circulation increased unexpectedly last month but the Bank of England warned that the adoption of European statistical standards left the figures vulnerable to revision. (FT 24/10/97)
About half the UK taxpayer's money sent to Brussels comes back to fund schemes which meet with Brussels' approval. These schemes spawn numerous new groups, mostly with steering committees, administrators and advisors. An issue of the Marches Objective 5b Programme News gives a flavour of this proliferation, as follows:
GROWTH - a specialist placement organiser; Shropshire County Council's Objective Enterprise Grant Scheme; Marches Objective 5b Programme Monitoring Committee; The Mid-term Evaluation by ECOTECH (Research & Consulting) Ltd; Leominster District Council's 5b Welcome Villages Scheme; Shropshire's Sustainable Rural Tourism Project; Shropshire Tourism Marketing Consortium; Golden Valley and Black Mountains Bed & Breakfast Group; Marches Countryside Attractions Group; Rural Roadshow; Farm Enterprise Programme; Marches Farm Produce Group; Northern Marches Environmental Action Programme; Oswestry Hill LEADER; Clun Valley Local Development Group; Clun Valley LEADER; Hereford II LEADER; Herefordshire Hills Programme; Whole Village Marketing Scheme; Team Valley LEADER; County Council European Liaison Team; Shropshire Regeneration Strategy which has a steering committee, a Chief Executive's Group, a Co-ordinating Group and a Technical Assistance team. The Seeking a Sense of Place in the Southern Marches Project aims to raise local awareness of the fragile local environment and will give grants. The Cohesion Forum in Brussels had 12 local representatives visit in May and 30 visited in April. A Town Centre manager has been appointed for three market towns; Oswestry Town Centre Partnership has secured EU funding; The Countryside Commission has EU funding for Offa's Dyke; an Objective 5b Agricultural Facilitator appointed; an Objective 5b ESF Thematic Group has been formed for the Marches' economy; an IT Resource Centre has been formed to give 12 hours computer training to businesses; a TEC has won £529,710 in EU funding; a manager has been appointed for a woodlands project; subsidies are available for apple planting; a development manager has been appointed for Marches Quality Meat; grants are available for conversion to dwarf hops; Northern Marches Environmental Action Programme has funded a wildlife and sensory garden; the Kington District Footpath Scheme has EU funds for kissing gates; a consultant has been appointed to evaluate the leader II programme; Marches Greenwood Network has funding for woodland skills training; a gallery is to be developed for tourism; there will be a Leader II symposium in Brussels (the most exciting project of all-sic); a bracken composting scheme has an EU grant; a grant was given to develop visitor facilities in a parish church; a Dial-a-Ride bus service has multi-annual grants; Tourist Information Point network has EU funding, etc. (Marches Objective 5b News November 1997). Without the EC levy about twice the money could be available to local authorities to meet their own priorities, not Brussels'.
One third of all UK legislation and 70% of business legislation is decided in Brussels. The UK civil service says up to 30% of its time is taken up with EU matters. (FT 4/8/97)
The difference between the British and the European legal system is that in Britain everything that is not forbidden in law is permitted whereas in Europe everything that is not permitted by law is forbidden. (Journal 20/7/94). The UK metrication order is a typical example of European law. Every system of measurement is forbidden except for a tightly defined set of metric units, and pints of beer and milk, or miles on road markings. For any other units of measurement to be legal, a law would have to be passed. (BWMA Conference March 1999)
As the former Italian prime minister received his second custodial sentence for bribery, newspapers reported that in the Italian parliament one MP in two has been charged with criminal offences, though only one senator in three. (Eurofacts 7/8/98)
When M. Chirac, now President of France, became mayor of Paris there were 100 people in his cabinet. This rose to 962 people and to 1342 if regional municipal advisers are added. It is alleged that most of these were fake non-existent jobs for political favours. Commentators suggest that, once the scandal has become stale, the matter will be quietly dropped. (Times 30/9/98)(FFP23)
The Amsterdam Treaty refers to respect for human rights and freedom. Rights no longer mean individual freedom from oppression but rather rights are claims on others. These are the right to work, the right to welfare, the right to pension. These claims will be enforceable in the European Court of Justice. (Eurofacts/Guide to the Treaty of Amsterdam 24/4/98). The next stage will be forcing citizens to exercise their collective rights. Our government wants to coercing people into work with the Welfare to Work initiative. The threat to use police to clear the streets of rough sleepers when new hostels for the homeless are built will enforce the right to housing - Ed.
A directive had legal effect from the moment of its notification. Where a directive set out an implementation period during that period states had to take measures to ensure the aims of the directive were achieved by the end of the period. States had to avoid taking measures liable to compromise the aims of the directive. (FT 6/1/98)
The Amsterdam Treaty to be agreed by the Intergovernmental Conference states that the Union shall have legal personality. This means that the EU can conduct negotiations in its own right and sign treaties that will bind us all. The state of Europe will be created. (S Telegraph p28 27/4/97)
The European Court of Justice is to rule that men are given free prescriptions from the age of 60, the same as women. The judgement is likely to be retrospective to 1985 so all eligible men will be able to claim up to £5.65 per prescription since 1985. (18/7/95).
Officials of the EU Commission issue commission Regulations. They are automatically law in the whole of the EU, they are not submitted to the Council of Ministers. The production of these regulations increased from 1,160 in 1993 to 1,579 in 1994. (S Telegraph 19/2/95). The European Legislation Select Committee said a large and growing proportion of law seems to be made in a private club (Independent 28/6/96)
The European Council of Ministers votes in private and keeps member's voting patterns secret. This means that members can deny that they voted for unpopular measures. More than 300 laws have been passed by Qualified Majority Voting (FT 4/7/94). The Council of Ministers is refusing to disclose information on how it is operating its "openness" policy, claiming this information is covered by secrecy rules. This is the only legislature in Europe that meets behind closed doors. If the EC applied for membership of itself it would be rejected, on the grounds that it is not a democracy, said MEP David Martin. The Council now says that statistics on voting will be periodically published. (FT 8/7/94). A new code has been agreed which will lift the veil of secrecy although the Council of Ministers reserves the right to legislate in private and keep Minuted Statements secret. (FT 3/10/95). The Guardian newspaper has won a EU Court of Justice ruling that the Council of Ministers was wrong to deny it access to documents. (FT 20/10/95). The Council of Ministers has resolved that nothing on the agenda in the fields of asylum and immigration will be made public before decisions are taken (IoS 26/11/95). A lack of openness has also been apparent in the negotiations leading up to the Amsterdam IGC changes to the Maastricht Treaty. Requests for information have been refused so reporters have had to apply to the Finnish Government information service which has published background details of the new proposals (BBC R4 Eurofile 14/6/97) . The Council of Ministers have decided to hold a debate on openness, in secret. The British planned as an objective of the Presidency to open decision making to greater public scrutiny. It had reckoned without the obfuscating traditions of many European bureaucracies, especially those of France, Belgium and Spain. The British proposed press briefings after the notoriously opaque K4 committee- the co-ordinating committee of senior national civil servants that does the groundwork for ministerial justice and home affairs councils. This was rejected as impractical. Some have questioned whether Britain's campaign for openness squares with Whitehall's' own tradition of secrecy. Efforts to discover Council documents have led an editor and an MEP to apply to the EU Ombudsman and the European Court of Justice to pry out the information they seek. (FT 9/2/98). The Ombudsman has stated that Council of Ministers should make available key documents showing the background to decisions. (EP News 8/98)
The 1997 Dublin Convention squarely places the duty of processing asylum applications on the first EU member State at whose border the 'alien' (to use the EU's own terminology) arrives. That Calais can operate a transit camp to channel them on to Britain (photo & report, 7 April) means either that France is in flagrant breach of that Convention, or that the Convention itself has been modified. My understanding is that it has, allowing asylum seekers now to specify the country in which they wish to have their applications processed. (Letter from B Stone to Daily Telegraph 11 April 2000)
In the European Parliament plenary sessions, so called "verbatim reports" are merely summaries of the main speeches. There are no accurate reports like Hansard. Most agreements happen behind closed doors in committee meetings. These usually represent the views of the two main groupings, the Socialists and the European People's Party. (Eurofacts 24/4/98)
The EU Commission demands a written promise from Swedish Civil Servants that they will not hand out classified EU-documents to the public, but this places them in a conflict with the Swedish Constitution. If they do not sign, they get no documents and this makes their job difficult if not impossible. Sweden is very unlikely to succeed in her attempts to make the EU administration more transparent. On the contrary, it seems that the restrictive rules that are the EU's heritage from certain member countries threaten to invade the Swedish administration, writes Swedish paper Dagens Nyheter. More and more EU documents, necessary for the work of Swedish civil servants, particularly in the field of agriculture and food safety, are to be found in the Commission's database CIRCA. In order to get access to CIRCA, each civil servant has to sign a declaration binding them to secrecy. By doing this, though, the civil servant would be in breach of the Swedish Constitution. The EU Parliament has not been so willing to support openness as the Swedish Government expected. (EUobserver.com 3/3/01)
European Union governments have quietly adopted new secrecy rules that limit the public's right to know what EU officials are doing on a wide range of military and civilian matters. The rules, adopted in an unpublicized written procedure in Brussels while the European Parliament was on vacation, are likely to cause a political uproar when the Parliament returns next month, political observers said, particularly because Parliament is currently attempting to increase rather than decrease openness on EU matters. Immigration and drugs could also be covered by the restriction, according to freedom of information campaigners, and even the fact that certain documents exist will not be disclosed to inquirers. The new code of access to documents, which became law last week, was rushed through while the European political establishment was on holiday under the so-called "written procedure", which prevents debate by MEPs. The rules were adopted by European ambassadors to the EU in Brussels at the request of Javier Solana, the EU's high representative for foreign and security affairs. They impose the same kind of secrecy on various European matters as the military secrecy directives employed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, where Mr. Solana was secretary-general until last year. According to the new rules, information may be withheld from Europeans on a wide range of security issues, among them: ''public security, the security and defense of the Union or one of its member states, military or nonmilitary crisis management, international relations, monetary stability, court proceedings, inspections and investigations.'' The new rules are so restrictive that the fact that certain classified documents exist will not be revealed. However, officials said that even low-level information would be classified if it concerned a non-EU country, and would be released only if that country's government gave written permission. Tony Bunyan, of a civil rights monitoring group called Statewatch, said the secrecy rules would also apply to such issues as immigration and drugs. The officials responsible for policies will also be responsible for classifying them, he added. The European ombudsman, Jacob Sodeman, who has campaigned for greater transparency in the EU, attacked the new secrecy code as unnecessary, saying it was a mistake to bracket together military and nonmilitary issues. In an interview this month with the newspaper Aamulehti in Tampere, Finland, he said that Mr. Solana's appointment had been a ''serious mistake.'' Hans Verploeg, general-secretary of the Netherlands Association of Journalists, described the adoption of the new secrecy code as a ''military coup - so clever in the middle of summertime.'' He pointed out that the new rules in Brussels contrasted with the situation in his country, which has a U.S.-style Freedom of Information act. So far as confidential EU information is concerned, he said, the Netherlands, which boasts an open style of government like the Nordic countries, will now have to conform to the more closed standards of the rest of Europe. All top-secret, secret and confidential EU documents will now be excluded from public records, along with any other material mentioning the existence of restricted documents. As a member of the Legal Affairs committee at Parliament, Ms. Hautala has participated in the negotiations to increase openness in the EU. She said the council had given no warning that it intended to change the rules and asserted in an interview that Mr. Solana had carried out ''a well-planned act of bad faith after everyone had left Brussels.'' ''This tendency is leaning toward more and more secrecy in all fields of security, even where there is nothing to hide,'' she added. (International Herald Tribune Paris, August 26, 2000) After discussing the matter with the political group chairmen, Nicole FONTAINE, President of the European Parliament, plans to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Communities seeking the annulment of two decisions by the Council and its Secretary-General, published in the Official Journal of 23 August 2000, dealing with access to documents in the sphere of security and defence. (Europarl Press release, 19/10/00)
The new secrecy provisions that were introduced by majority voting against the wishes of the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden are to be legally challenged by the Netherlands in the European court of human rights in Strasbourg. The government says "decisions on whether or not a document should be kept secret should be based on its content, not its classification." (FT 25/9/00). The proposal was shaped in secret by NATO and Mr Solana, and pushed through in July when the institutions in Brussels are half-empty, the European Parliament is in recess and most of the press corps are also taking holidays. It was passed by a majority vote by the Brussels-based permanent representatives of the 15 EU member-states (COREPER), which meant it could not be debated by the European Parliament, and so passed automatically into law on August 23rd. The British civil liberties bulletin, Statewatch (www.statewatch.org/news), has been to the fore in highlighting this new code. When the editor, Tony Bunyan, asked for details of the Solana plan back in July, he was given a response which would be hilarious if it was not so serious. He was refused information by a senior EU official on the grounds that such information "could fuel public discussion on the subject". Anyone who queries any aspect of the EU is accused of being an isolationist, although unlike the UK, there are almost no isolationists in Ireland. But more and more people are worried about the increasing centralisation of power and the culture of secrecy in the EU. (Irish Times 23/9/00)
The European ombudsman launched a strong attack on the European commission, accusing it of reneging on pledges to give the public better access to documents of the institutions of the European Union. He said the plans defining the public's right of access to papers, electronic files or recordings of the Commission, Council of Ministers and the European Parliament seemed "to consist mainly of a long list of possible reasons to deny access to documents". The Commission's plans have already attracted strong criticism from members of the European Parliament, NGOs and civil liberties groups. The ombudsman objected to proposals to deny access to texts for internal use, such as discussion documents, opinions of departments and informal messages. Furthermore, a Commission proposal to refuse access where it could "significantly undermine" the public interest, individual privacy, commercial and industrial secrecy and confidentiality raise problems of interpretation. Particularly disturbing was the opportunity given to third parties to block access to documents they supplied on grounds of confidentiality. Companies with dubious dealings would be able to conceal their activities. The proposal that documents would be off-limits where disclosure could significantly undermine "the deliberations and effective functioning of the institutions" could easily turn into a "catch all clause " impeding transparency. (FT 3/2/00)
The European ombudsman has accused the European Commission of maladministration and infringing the principle of openness in its handling of an investigation into alleged breach of Union competition rules. The Commission used a safeguard designed to protect individuals to protect companies. A firm wanted to know who was present at a meeting with Commission officials and a European brewery lobby group. The Commission wrongly rejected the request on grounds that it breached data protection rules. (European Voice 27/4/00)
EU PLANS UNDERMINE CITIZENS RIGHT OF ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS Proposals drawn up by senior officials from the Council, Commission and the European Parliament are seeking to deny citizens access to documents in direct contravention of the Amsterdam Treaty. "These proposals would set the clock back and re-impose the secrecy of the pre- Maastricht days, they have no place in a democracy. They have all the hallmarks of a "Brussels stitch-up", of a deal between the officials to exclude citizens and civil society from the decision-making process and from any knowledge of the ongoing practices of EU bodies and agencies. The proposals even suggest that an "embargo system" should be created and access to documents delayed to "avoid any interference in the decision-making process" and to prevent "misunderstanding". In short to exclude citizens from finding out what is to be adopted in their name until after it had been agreed. Such ideas seek to re-impose the pre- Maastricht "lobby-system" whereby "Brussels-based" trusted sources are given privileged access to information. The Amsterdam Treaty was intended to enshrine the right of access to documents following years of conflict especially between the Council and citizens. ( Statewatch editor Tony Bunyan 26 April 1999)
Irish and Commonwealth citizens are banned from applying for 125,000 UK civil service jobs according to the EU Labour Market directive. This states that certain jobs require special allegiance to the state. (Guardian 18/3/96 p7)
If the Council of Ministers fails to agree upon a Commission proposal with the requisite majority then the Commission has the power pass the proposal into law. This power was used for the first time when the Council failed to agree to the relaxation of the ban on beef by-products (Independent June 96).
In the power play at the EU the Commission tries to pass laws without authority. The European Court of Justice accused the Commission of trying to introduce legislation through the back door. The Court annulled a policy statement passed by the Commission interpreting the rules on the free movement of capital. The Commission incorrectly said that restrictions on pension fund investment broke rules on free movement of capital. (FT 21/3/97). In another example of power play, the Council of Ministers failed to involve the EU Parliament on a compulsory beef labelling scheme. By doing so the Council rejected a Commission proposal that would have ensured parliamentary scrutiny. Instead the Council took its decision in private. (FT 21/3/97). Mr Santer has called for court action against them because they refused to pass a regulation on beef labelling (FT26/3/97)
Employees of the EU have immunity from prosecution. Criminal investigations by the Belgium police are severely hampered by EU employee's vows of secrecy. Belgian fraud investigators say that fraud by EC officials is going unchecked. (Independent 15/1/96). The EU Parliament has rejected a proposal to outlaw the acceptance of undeclared gifts and payments. It has shelved plans for a register of lobbyist's gifts and full declaration of MEP's financial interests. (FT 18/1/96). The MEPs have relented and agreed to open up their business interests to public scrutiny (FT 18/7/96) . 26 members of staff of the EC based in London enjoy diplomatic immunity. (Hansard/ Eurofacts 7/8/98
In order to preserve secrecy the President of the Commission is issuing rules that forbid employees from writing articles about the work of the Commission and they will have to submit the manuscript of any books they write to the President for approval. (FT 1/11/95).
An important reason for secrecy is that many side deals are made by the Council of Ministers, some of these completely contradict the specific legislation to be enacted. The legality of these deals is questionable. What is undeniable is that publicly agreed laws are covertly watered down in unpublished minutes of the Council. Examples include the law on the transport of lethal substances, 3381/94, which is covered by a secret statement which nullifies the consultation requirements. The data protection law has been softened. Legal safeguards on the emission of carbon monoxide have also been watered down. (Independent 23/6/95).
Under pressure from European Ombudsman the Council of ministers agreed to provide updated lists of all measures which EU governments have taken on immigration, asylum, crime and judicial co-operation on civil and criminal matters to any member the public who asked for them. The Ombudsman's call for action followed complaints from British journalist Tony Bunyan, who has long campaigned for the Council to provide details of measures agreed in politically sensitive areas of justice and home affairs. When he first approach the Council for information, he was told that such a listed not exist, even though a compendium of legislative acts in other areas of EU activity is published regularly. (European Voice 28 January 1999)
The highly controversial EU data protection directive came into force on 1 July 2001. Many businesses share information on staff and customers across borders. The directive threatens to throw a legal spanner into these commercial works. The EU and the USA hammered out a compromise "safe harbour" agreement certifying that US companies satisfied the EU standards for data transfer. Only 78 organisations have signed-up. Financial services have been excluded from the scheme because the US and EU authorities wanted to negotiate a separate scheme, as yet undetermined. The safe harbour scheme is not the panacea to every problem. There is a requirement in some countries to get an individual's consent before any data is transferred. An alternative is the "model contract" issued by the Commission. But this is unduly burdensome. There is a loophole where it can be shown that individuals have given their consent unambiguously that could be exploited by companies. (Financial Times 30/6/01)
The Directive on Data Protection could lead to individuals losing important existing rights to information. Individuals will find themselves paying more, receiving information more slowly and losing the right to be told that some types of information have been withheld unless the government legislates to ensure that existing higher standards of access are preserved when the new directive comes in. The government has said, however, that it intends to go no further than absolutely necessary in implementing the directive (FT 30/9/96). The new rules give law enforcement agencies and the Inland Revenue sweeping exemptions from the old British data protection rules. Police and tax authorities are exempt from any requirement to process our information fairly and lawfully. (D Telegraph Connected 29/1/98)
In a letter to the Daily Telegraph a woman described how her husband left the message on the answering machine to say that he had broken down was waiting for the AA. It was freezing cold and he had no warm clothing or his asthma inhaler with him. She rang the AA to find out his precise position so she could take these things to him. She was informed that under the Data Protection Act such information could not be released. (Daily Telegraph 31/12/99). In another letter a woman described how she tried to telephone her sister, who was born deaf, using the Typetalk system. The operator refused to connect her because the account was in the name of her husband. (Daily Telegraph 3/1/00)
The Data Protection Directive will cost business over £700m a year to implement. There will also be a one-off start-up cost of £1.15bn. (FT 16/1/98) Every organisation holding information about individuals will be involved. They will have to write to every individual to ask their consent to collect and hold information about them and to reorganise the way the information is held. Charities will face a £120m start up bill and annual costs of £37m. (D Telegraph 16/1/98)
Under the data protection directive it will be illegal to export an address list to America if it is held on a computer. Owners of palmtop and laptop computers travelling to the USA could be liable to criminal proceedings. (Times 11/9/98) (FFP)
The Database Directive will weaken the British protection for databases and our copyright laws, the world's strongest. Owners of large Web sites will be in a legal limbo. The new law will paralyse much investment in new database ventures, and drive some software companies offshore. (D TelegraphConnected 29/1/98)
The newfound openness by the Council of Ministers conceals a far more powerful and secret organisation called Coreper. This is a group of the ambassadors of the member states to the EU. It is an exclusive club of elite and permanent officials which meets regularly and makes 90% of the EU decisions before they even reach ministers. Meetings are deliberately held informally and no minutes are taken. This affords deniability to the participants. Coreper has legislative and decision-making powers. (FT 11/3/95).
The EU Commission, composed of bureaucrats, has the monopoly on the initiation of legislation and it determines the required quorum in the Council of Ministers. Coreper then usually directs ministers. Once the Council of Ministers has adopted a directive the parliaments of member states are obliged to implement it. National Ministers assembled in Brussels jointly control their parliaments (EPF Sept 1995).
Only member states and Community institutions have an absolute right to judicial review. Private citizens and companies have no right to discover why Commission decisions are taken, nor can they seek redress from improper decisions, nor obtain judicial review of the legality of Commission or other Community measures.(FT 28/3/95). If a UK statute conflicts with an EU law then it can be amended with a statutory instrument, i.e. it does not have to be passed by Parliament ( S Telegraph 6/11/95). It is not open to a national court to rule that a directive was passed in contravention of the powers of the EU law-making body. The European Court claims the power to fill in gaps in treaties and contradict the text of written law (Times 19/9/94)
The European Court of Justice has successfully asserted the supremacy of European law over national law. It has asserted that Directives agreed by the Council of Ministers confer rights immediately enforceable by citizens against member governments. The European Court made governments liable to pay damages to their citizens for failing to safeguard their rights under EU law. Governments are liable to pay damages retrospectively, however unforeseen the breach of EU law. This means governments have to find massive sums for unforeseen breaches going back many years. (FT 21/8/95). The Court has stated its objective as making concrete advances towards European Unity. The Court is not subject to precedent and can change its mind. It is impossible to forecast what it will decide (D Telegraph 6/1/97)
If a country fails to comply with EU law it rests with the Commission to initiate referral to the European court of Justice AND to state what penalty is appropriate (CEC Briefing 6/6/96)
The Court of Appeal has ruled that the right to compensation for unfair dismissal under English law is contrary to EU law. This is because the two-year limit discriminates against women who are more likely to have worked less than the two years. English law infringes the 1992 Directive on equal treatment for the sexes. Ministers have the choice to scrap the right to compensation, or remove any qualifying period. The principle of marginal differences in impact will strike down a mass of other social legislation, e.g. holiday entitlement and working hours. Had it realised the implications it is highly unlikely any UK government would have agreed to the directives in the first place (FT 8/8/95). The TUC is seeking a judicial review in the High Court against competitive tendering on the grounds that it discriminates against women working in local government (FT 2/12/95)
The European Commission wants to extend its responsibility over national governments in the areas of justice, crime, immigration, racism and xenophobia. The Commission wants to take the lead role in these areas with member countries subject to qualified majority voting. The Britain alone is resisting these extensions of Brussels' power (FT14/12/95).
The EU doctrine of legal occupation means that once the EU has legislated in any area it keeps that area in its power forever(CIB).
The European Commissioners are attempting to spend money on projects that were not approved in the budget. There is no legal base for such expenditure. The UK government has intimated that it will take the Commission to the European Court of Justice to put a stop to such spending. (Independent 1/2/96).
Competition law has become the foundation of a new kind of regulation that has become all pervading. The EC has introduced the concept of essential facility. Any firm that owns a facility can be forced to rent it to competitors at a fee no more favourable than the notional fee that it rents the facility to itself. Success in business now depends not on satisfying customers but on satisfying regulators and denouncing rivals.(FT 31/1/96).
The EU has ambitions to become a military superpower. Apart from the stress caused to neutral countries such as Ireland and Sweden, such a super power is too likely to define itself against the US. (FT 30/1/96). The proposal for a common defence policy is that for the first 6 years the Commission would act in an advisory capacity, after it could order armies to attack.
The European Single Currency is the indispensable instrument to counterbalance the imperialism of the dollar (Le Figaro18 July 1997)
European law now comprises one third of UK law. EU law is increasingly implemented by means of Statutory Instruments. These receive little Parliamentary scrutiny, they are passing through with very little notice at the rate of over 3,000 a year. Some of these pass into law during the Parliamentary recess. (Dire Directives Jan 96).
Exclusion orders under the Prevention Of Terrorism Act are unlawful according to a ruling by the European Court of Justice ( Daily Tel 1/12/95)
English translations of directives submitted to the Council of Ministers for approval are often produced late. The Directive on Pollution Control and Prevention was issued two days before the decision on it by the Council. The Directive on Health Checks for the Trade in Pigs and Cattle was available on the day of decision. A policy decision on communication on overseas aid was never translated (Observer 15/10/95). EU treaties are not written in English, only in German, French, Italian or Dutch. The full English texts of the treaties are translated privately by the British Management Data Foundation. (S Telegraph 25/1/98)
The Commons Select Committee on European Legislation is supposed to scrutinise all Brussels proposals on behalf of Parliament. It has been treated with contempt not only by Brussels but also by Ministers and government departments. In 1995 the Committee was expected to give blind clearance to 42 important pieces of Brussels legislation without an official text. This year, so far, there were 75 similar instances. Government departments, such as Trade and Industry, Treasury and the Foreign Office have taken an inordinate amount of time to reply to the Committee, sometimes sending their advice to the wrong address. Our ministers have taken decisions in the Council of Ministers without obtaining scrutiny clearance from the Committee, even failing to inform the Committee afterwards. (Independent 20/8/96). The Committee receives about 400 EU documents a year and only has time to look in detail at about 80 of them. (FT 24/11/96). The Amsterdam Treaty allows national parliaments four weeks notice of new Commission proposals before the Council of Ministers agree on a directive. COSAC, the Conference of Economic Affairs Committee is a forum for inter-parliamentary co-operation. It meets twice a year but has no power (Eurofacts 24/10/98). The Commons Modernisation Select Committee has recommended setting up an office in Brussels to help remedy the UK Parliament's inadequate scrutiny of draft EU legislation. Commons standing committees charged with debating EU laws should be increased from two to five. There is no monitoring of what actually happens in the Council of Ministers after draft legislation has been scrutinised by the Commons committees. (FT 18/6/98)
The European Court has ruled that where a trader experiences hardship as a result of EU regulations his government is not allowed to provide interim relief. Only the Commission can grant such relief. (FT3/12/96).
Britain is the best of the big five states at implementing EU regulations. Britain is also the smallest offender giving state aid to ailing manufacturing companies. (D Telegraph 27/1/97) Germany is the largest giver of subsidies to industry (FT 8/10/97)
The European Court of Justice has criticised the Commission for giving grants worth a total of £4m to help prostitutes, alcoholics, wheelchair and bicycle repair clubs and other victims of social exclusion. The EC shows a casual approach to spending which falls somewhat short of the principles of legality.(D Telegraph 23/1/98). The EC and the European Parliament have suspended new commitments to a range of projects pending a review. Funds worth £340m are under investigation. What is lacking is the approval of member states to the expenditure. (FT 12/6/98)
In 1995 the UK contributed a net £4bn to the EU budget. The total net contributions were £20.4bn and the total net payments to the poorer countries were £12.5bn. The difference of £7.9bn was the cost of running the EU. (Eurofacts 7/3/97) The net UK contribution in 1998 will be GBP4.1bn. (S Telegraph 19/10/97)(FFP)
The Irish Government has incurred the wrath of the European Commission. The Irish do not enforce domestic water rates and the Commission objects. In a snub to the Government, Commissioner Wulf-Mathies has stated that the EU would reduce its contribution towards the financing of water projects from 85% to 80%. A Government official accused the Commissioner of interfering in the Irish political process. (FT 9/5/97). The EC has threatened the Irish that future Brussels aid may be cut unless the Irish introduce domestic water charges. The Commission will probably catch the Irish with a new directive enshrining the polluter pays principle. This will force the Irish to charge for sewage treatment. (FT 4/2/98)
The UK has lost control of half the foreign aid budget to the EU. The EU programme has been widely criticised as inefficient, inadequately controlled and lacking focus. (Sunday Telegraph 18/5/97 p2). The EU's £2.7bn overseas aid programme, to which Britain gives £530m a year, is dreadful and harms the environment, says Claire Short, International Development Secretary. It often causes the poverty it is supposed to alleviate. Britain was powerless to refuse the EU the money. (D Telegraph 2/12/98)
Clare Short, New Labour's International Development Secretary, said to a Commons Committee today that to agree, or amend, any contract made under European Union aid programmes requires 40 signatures. The bureaucracy involved in this EU Directorate was like a Kafka book, she said. (BBC R4 parliamentary report 5/7/00)
The World Food Programme (WFP) complained Friday it had still not received any donations from the European Union this year, forcing it to reduce food rations it distributes in a number of drought-hit African countries. WFP spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume said although the agency was negotiating with the European Commission, it is "still waiting" for contributions. Speaking to reporters, she said the EU had not released any funds so far this year for the WFP's operations, despite it having been the second largest donor after the United States last year. "We don't know why we've had no response," Berthiaume replied when asked about the reasons for the lack of cash. (GENEVA, Aug 18, 2000 AFP)
The EU Court of Auditors accused Brussels executives of failing in their responsibility and resorting to shady accounting in the way it administered human rights spending. Human rights organisations said the consequences for many hundreds of projects based all over the world are extremely grave. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, questioned the EU's commitment, saying that its approached to human rights "Tends to be splintered, lacks leadership and is marginalised in policy-making." (The Times 11 November 1998). The UK is stepping up its campaign to ensure that a higher proportion of EU aid goes the to the world's poorest countries following publication of a damning report on Union spending by the British Parliament's development committee. Development Minister Clare Short said it was "truly appalling" that the EU gave only half of its euro 5.6 billion aid budget to poor nations in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, compared to three-quarters a decade ago. (European Voice 11 February 1999)
A third of Britain's £2.3 billion a year overseas aid budget is now being simply handed over to Brussels, much of it to be wasted in fraud or on misbegotten schemes which are creating a swathe of environmental damage around the world. In recent years the percentage of Britain's aid budget has been stealthily it rising, to the point where it will this year top £700 million. But contributions by UK taxpayers amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds have already vanished on some of the most daring examples of fraud and mismanagement to be highlighted by the EU Court of Auditors. These include our contributions to the corruption-riddled £600 million programme to secure the safety of East European nuclear power stations. Non-governmental aid organisations have protested at the chaotic bureaucracy which surrounds the EU aid programme, the lack of any proper monitoring on how the money is spent, and disastrous shortcomings of many of the projects themselves. In Uganda Oxfam has highlighted the EU funded Natural Forest Management and Conservation project, which is resulted in 100,000 people being evicted from their land, the destruction of homes and crops, the looting of livestock, beatings and even deaths. Survival International last year reported on the scandal of a £14 million project to re-settle Chaco Indians in their ancestral lands in Paraguay, which resulted in landowners being overpaid millions of pounds for useless lands in other parts of the country. In one project in Cameroon, UK taxpayers contributed to building more than thousand miles of roads that opened up a large area of rainforest to European logging companies. This helped to destroy the environment that was home to thousands of Baka pygmies, and threatens huge destruction of wildlife, including a World Heritage forest reserve that the EU also supported. An EU programme to promote the production of palm oil in Nigeria led to thousands of people being displaced from their homes, bulldozing of farms and grave sites, mass tree felling and poisoning of waterways with pesticides that had been banned in Europe. Requests for crucial information about the projects, such as environmental impact statements, are routinely refused. Often the first time local people learn of development projects is when the bulldozers arrive in their villages. (Sunday Telegraph 17 January 1999)
In 1986 Sandy Gall, the former ITN foreign correspondent, set up a charity in Afghanistan to provide artificial limbs and other aid to children and victims of the Civil War. So successful was the charity that the Government Overseas Development Administration agreed to fund a major expansion of its work. But as more and more of Britain's overseas aid budget and has been handed over to Brussels, this year it is one third of the entire budget, the funding of the charity passed under the control of the European Community Humanitarian Office, Echo. In 1997 Mrs Bonino, the Commissioner in charge of Echo became so indignant at the Taliban regime's treatment of women that she decided that aid to Afghanistan was to be stopped. Already the had run into difficulties with Echo. They had been told they could no longer provide artificial limbs, as another Echo funded body was already doing this, even though Afghan farmers staged a demonstration to protest that the 'rubber feet' provided by the Gall's clinic were infinitely superior. Funds from Brussels invariably arrived late and officials complained that records were not being kept according to the desired bureaucratic procedures. In recent months the Gall's clinic with a staff of 80 has any being kept going by emergency help from Norwegian churches which, because Norway is outside the EU, are not subject to Mrs Bonino's ban. But now the Norwegians have said they can no longer provide the funding to keep the clinic running. (Sunday Telegraph 21 March 1999). ). Mrs Bonino claims that not a single penny of Britain's overseas aid budget had been handed over to Brussels. Government figures, however, clearly show that we now hand over to Brussels nearly a third of the entire aid budget. This amounts this year to £783 million. Mrs Bonino denied that aid from the Commission to Afghanistan has been halted. Yet Mr Gall confirmed this is precisely what happened which is why his Jalalabad Clinic must close on April the 30th. (Sunday Telegraph 11 April 1999)
There are five ex-Commissioners sitting in the House of Lords. It is suggested that they should declare an interest in debates concerning the EU because their pensions of £26,000 a year depend on the survival of the EU. (Telegraph 26/7/97) ). The cost of EU official's pensions is causing concern. These are not fully funded so are paid out of revenue. The pension bill is currently £300m. So serious is the drain on resources that an emergency report has been ordered. An official earning £100,000 a year can expect a pension of up to £ 70,000 per year. (D Telegraph 1/8/97). When questioned in the House of Lords, Lord Richard an ex-Commissioner, said that ex-Commissioners were exempted from the normal rules about declaring an interest. (S Telegraph 2/11/97)