AUSTRIA AND ITALY

 traditionally committed European country, had more rifts with the rest of the EU than under any government before. Silvio Berlusconi accumulated a number of clashes with his European partners: he supported the American project of a missile defence system, opposed by his European colleagues; he hinted disagreement with the Kyoto Treaty on greenhouse gases; he dropped support for the European military carrier A400M, thus endangering the financing and the launch of the project. Mr Berlusconi’s government fiercely opposed a European-wide arrest warrant and eventually backed it after strong European pressure and under conditions, just before the Laeken European Summit, mid-December. Mr Berlusconi himself shocked his European colleagues with comments about the superiority of the Western civilisation over the Muslim world in the aftermath of the events of 11 of September. The Italian prime minister on Sunday announced he would take over the post of minister for foreign affairs, "because I intend to modernise our foreign policy machinery in order to promote the commercial interests of Italian small and medium-sized businesses in Europe and in the world," reports the International Herald Tribune. Does Italy violate common European principles? EU officials repeatedly claimed in the past there was no reason for mobilising the EU against Italy for violation of common European principles, as was the case when an Austrian government including the Jörg Haider’s far right party came into power, as the Italian government does not pose problems related to human or fundamental rights. However, the recent stance on the euro of Italian ministers are not solely a matter of internal affairs but impact on the credibility of the single currency and might well weaken it. (EUobserver.com 7/1/02)

The Belgian foreign minister, Louis Michel, has warned Austria not to hold a referendum on the issue of EU enlargement. He said, "I personally think it is very dangerous to organise referendums when you're not sure to win them. If you organise a referendum and lose it that's a big problem for Europe." He also hinted that voters in individual EU countries should not be able to block EU policy. "Has a country the right to prevent the progress of Europe? I am not giving you an answer, but I am asking the question" (Daily Telegraph, 12 July 2001).

Subject: Council statement on the Italian government deficit. Several authoritative sources have revealed that the market value of fixed assets in the form of commercial and residential property in Italy has been continuing to fall substantially since 1993. Although it does not lay down a specific method for calculating property values, as Mr Bolkestein acknowledged in his answer to Written Question P-0729/01(1), the Fourth Directive (Directive 78/660/EEC)(2) imposes an obligation to correct the initial book value of land and buildings when their value at on the date of closure of a financial year is lower than the book value first entered less depreciation. Contrary to what happens in some Member States, for example the United Kingdom and Ireland, which each have their RICS, Italy has not adopted any official method, nor does it have an independent institute able and authorised to determine the revised value for tax purposes of land and buildings owned by individual companies. The fall in value described above cannot be recorded in the profit and loss account under the heading of "other depreciation of fixed assets", because it is not recognised for tax purposes. The Fourth Directive has not, de facto, been implemented in Italy. As a result, the tax levied since 1993 from national companies by Italian central government, on the current terms, is to some extent unlawful, and the aggregate tax revenue that could be attained if the situation were restored to a completely legal footing would be much lower than the declared amount, and the government deficit correspondingly higher. Could the Council confirm that the statement issued following meetings held on 2 and 3 May 1998 (ECOFIN Council and Council of the European Union), to the effect that the Italian government deficit was not excessive, was made with full knowledge of the facts set out above? (WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/01 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Council 11 June 2001)

A government led by Silvio Berlusconi would be likely to play havoc with the euro. Mr Berlusconi and his nationalist coalition partners have made clear they would have no truck with any attempts by Brussels to impose the monetary discipline without which the common currency cannot work. The perils of joining the euro would be exposed more starkly than ever, and the pound would be the safer for that.A victory for Mr Berlusconi would also be one in the eye for those foreign Eurocrats who have sought to preach to the Italians about which of their parties are fit to stand for election. One thinks of Gerhard Schroder, who condemned the National Alliance, the party that had its roots in Mussolini's Fascists and is now a partner in Mr Berlusconi's coalition. Mr Schroder quickly back-tracked when Italian politicians from the Left and Right alike told him to mind his own business. A Berlusconi triumph would be a blow to every federalist who believes that foreign Europeans should be allowed to interfere in the democratic politics of other European states. (Daily Telegraph 13/5/01) Silvio Berlusconi won - Ed

An international media campaign has been started in earnest against the leader of the Italian Right, Silvio Berlusconi. It recalls to some extent the attack by foreign governments on the Freedom Party in Austria last February. Berlusconi’s coalition is expected to win a majority at the forthcoming parliamentary elections in Italy on 13th May. Hostile articles have appeared in organs of globalism like The Economist, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times but continental European newspapers have also joined the fray. One of the countries at the forefront of the campaign against Berlusconi is Spain. There, the judge who caused the arrest of General Pinochet in London, Baltasar Garzón, has submitted via the Spanish government and the Spanish ambassador in Rome, a request to the Italian parliament that Mr. Berlusconi’s immunity can be lifted so that extradition proceedings against him may commence. The Spanish newspaper El Mundo has also played a role in stirring the pot with new allegations of tax fraud against Berlusconi. [El Mundo, 30th April 2001] Not to be outdone, the French paper Le Monde has also entered the fray. The impression has thereby been created that a large body of international opinion is lined up against Berlusconi. The paper naturally also raised questions about the two other main parties in the coalition, the Northern League led by Umberto Bossi and the Alleanza Nazionale led by Gianfranco Fini. [Le Monde, 30th April 2001] The left-wing French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur also weighed in, recalling that, a month ago, Jacques Delors said that the EU should impose sanctions on Italy if, once elected, Berlusconi infringed the stability pact by cutting taxes: Berlusconi has indeed said that he wants to cut taxes but protests his loyalty to the European project. Chancellor Schroeder of Germany also said some months ago that an election of the right-wing coalition in Rome would present Europe with the same problem as it had had in Vienna. [Jean Daniel, Le Nouvel Observateur, 3rd May 2001] Other attacks have come from the Frankfurter Rundschau, Time and the Tagesspiegel in Berlin. (European Foundation briefing 3/5/01)

Faced with the prospect that the Italians might elect a right-wing government with the Alleanza Nazionale and the Northern League as coalition partners on 13th May, most European chancelleries are playing down completely any repetition of the disastrous sanctions which were inflicted on Austria when the Freedom Party entered the government there in February 2000. By common consent, the boycott of Austria was a failure: it has certainly failed to dislodge the Black-Blue coalition from power in Vienna and it is likely that the boycott caused the Danes to vote against adopting the euro and the Swiss to vote against joining the EU. But one German Social Democrat MEP has inadvertently admitted the real reason why Italy will be spared the treatment meted out to Austria: "Unlike Austria, Italy is a large country and a founder member of the European Union," said Martin Schulz. [Andreas Middel, Die Welt, 12th April 2001]

Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel called Italy's federalist Northern League leader Umberto Bossi a fascist on Tuesday and threatened EU sanctions against Italy if he was elected to power. Speaking after a meeting of NATO foreign ministers here, Michel said Italy should be sanctioned like Austria if Bossi is voted into power in Rome in a coalition with former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi. "My ideas won't be any different" in the case of Italy than they were for Austria, he said. Michel said there was a mechanism in the EU's Nice Treaty permitting member states to set off an alarm procedure if another member shows signs of deviating from what are considered to be the union's key values. At least 12 member states would have to agree for the mechanism to be implemented. Elections are due to be held in Italy in either late April or early May. The Northern League is allied to Berlusconi's Forza Italia and the post-fascist National Alliance of Gianfranco Fini. Bossi remains fervently opposed to the European Union. (BRUSSELS, Feb 27, 2001 AFP)

More than 100,000 Austrians have signed a petition calling for a referendum on whether to leave the European Union, obliging parliament to discuss the issue, organizers said Tuesday. "Action EU Exit" launched the petition last week charging that the European Union had stripped Austria of its sovereignty, undermined agriculture, jeopardized people's health and threatened Austrian neutrality. "We are very pleased with the result, and it just shows that people are fed up with the EU." spokeswoman Gabriele Wladyka told AFP. The 100,000 signatures had been gathered despite "difficulties" advertizing the petition in areas run by the Social Democrats, particularly the capital Vienna. Posters were torn up, and notices put up in appartment blocks telling people where they should go to vote were ripped down. (VIENNA, Dec 5, 2000 AFP). EU critics from "Überparteilichen Aktion EU-Austritt" in Austria have collected 193.885 signatures demanding a new referendum of the EU-membership. Only 100.000 was necessary in order to demand a debateon the question in the Austrian Parliament. (EUobserver.com 7/12/00)

The European Commission has presented a proposal to the European Council for means by which to conduct future boycotts of countries, in the manner of the failed boycott against Austria. The EU recognises that the boycott of Austria was illegal under the EU treaties and so it decided to act bilaterally instead – a neat way of sidestepping the law when convenient. The suggestion now is that a warning and monitoring mechanism should be set up to deal with cases where "fundamental European values" are believed to be threatened. The proposal is that the procedure should be able to be started by two-thirds of the member states and that the state accused should have the right to a fair hearing. The Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schüssel, always complained that his country had not been given a fair hearing during the boycott of his country and Austria, together with its former persecutor, Belgium is among those EU countries which support this new proposal. It is likely therefore to be included in the new Nice treaty. [Die Welt, 4th October 2000]

EUROPEAN Union leaders were last night forced into an embarrassing climbdown by agreeing to an unconditional lifting of diplomatic sanctions against Austria. The EU's reversal marks the end of a seven-month campaign, led by France and Germany, to break up Austria's conservative coalition government and drive Jörg Haider's far-Right Freedom Party from office. "The measures put in place by the 14 [states] were useful. They can now be lifted," said a joint statement released in Paris by the French government, the current holders of the EU presidency. The result is a significant victory for Vienna, which refused to bow to intense EU pressure throughout the sanctions period and said it would not accept anything less that an "unconditional" end to sanctions. France had pushed for a probationary "suspension" of sanctions on less favourable terms, but was overruled by the majority of EU states. The "wise men" had been called in to examine the conduct of the Austrian government and assess the "political character" of the Freedom Party. They found no evidence that the Austrian government had strayed from "Europe's common values". Instead, it found that Austria's treatment of minorities was "superior to that found in many other EU member states", and the level of violence against foreigners was less than in other EU states. It concluded that the sanctions had served a useful purpose in some respects, "heightening sensibility" about civil rights, both in Austria and in the rest of the EU. But the policy had also caused Austrians to feel that their institutions were under attack, and had fuelled a nationalist backlash. (Wednesday 13 September 2000)

The Austrians have reacted with undisguised delight at the flood of stories being released from Germany about the rise in "right-wing" extremism, much of it involving murderous attacks on immigrants. "Unlike in Germany, no homes for asylum-seekers are on fire," wrote one newspaper among the majority which are incensed at the diplomatic boycott of their country by a preachy Germany and her European partners. It is indeed the case that right-wing extremism is far more effectively suppressed in Austria than in Germany, ever since the leader of the main neo-Nazi party in Austria was imprisoned for 11 years in the 1994. His right-hand man got eight years for Nazi activity (although both men have now been let out for good behaviour). "Germany's foreigners would certainly consider it a step forward if they were bothered as little as they are here in Austria," concluded one new magazine with delight. [Handelsblatt, 7th August 2000]

Austria's rightwing coalition defied the other 14 members of the European Union on Tuesday with a pledge to go ahead with a referendum aimed at rallying public anger over Vienna's continued diplomatic isolation within the EU. Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel's People's party reached an agreement with the far-right Freedom party of Jörg Haider to hold the referendum on October 29 or November 26, depending on how quickly a panel of three "wise men" prepared a report on Austria's compliance with basic European values. The two parties also agreed on the text of six proposed questions, one of which asks: "Should the government, as part of the impending reform of the EU treaty, ensure with all suitable means that the sanctions unjustly imposed on Austria by the other member states of the European Union are immediately lifted?". Mr Schüssel said the only way to stop the referendum from going ahead was for the sanctions to be lifted. The decision by the government's powerful coalition committee came just after France, which took over the rotating EU presidency on July 1, said it would keep the sanctions in place until the end of the year. Apart from the implied threat to the Nice summit, other referendum questions if approved, could put Austria at loggerheads with French and German designs for EU reform. It would ask for efforts to safeguard the rights of small EU countries against the "dominance of a few large states", and for a "clear division of tasks between the European and the national level". The other questions also touch on issues related to the sanctions, the "basic right of every state to freely elect its own government", a commitment of all EU institutions to observe due process and human rights, and a call for a judicial process "in the case of alleged violations of basic European values". All six questions must be answered in the same way, yes or no. (FT 5/7/00)

Germany and France are ganging together to dictate European Union policy to other EU members, Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel said in an interview published Sunday. "We cannot accept a Franco-German board of management which dictates to others what we should do," said Schuessel in the interview published in the daily newspaper ABC. "They cannot tell us what the Austrian government should be like," he added. (MADRID, May 14 AFP)

Austria's President Thomas Klestil called for the end to the EU sanctions against his country in an interview in the Austrian daily Kurier Thursday. "I demand the lifting of measures of the 14 other EU members, in line with the body's Treaty of Amsterdam," said Klestil in the paper. The treaty defines the methods for any country committing "grave and lasting violations" of fundamental EU principles. "I want to stop the European Union from being seen as an enemy to the government and the people," he said, because the sanctions were seen as unjust by most Austrians. (BERLIN, May 4 2000 AFP)

The Justice Minister of Liechtenstein has said that it is inconceivable that his country would ever sign the European Economic Area treaties, still less apply to join the EU. He was reacting to a statement by the German Finance Minister, Hans Eichel, who has implied that Liechtenstein was a den of money-launderers and tax evaders, a reputation which has been strengthened recently during the CDU financial scandals. On no account would Liechtenstein co-operate with the tax authorities of a third country. Mr. Frommelt added that the EU's treatment of Austria had changed public attitudes to European integration and that public support for joining the EEA was quite out of the question. [Handelsblatt, 7th March 2000]

The president of the European Council, the Portuguese prime minister, Antonio Guterres, has vowed to continue stepping up the pressure on Austria until the Freedom Party is driven out of the coalition. Meanwhile, the vice-chancellor of Austria, Susanne Riess-Passer, who replaced Haider as the leader of the Freedom Party, has said that at the next elections in Austria, the Freedom Party will win the largest number of seats and Haider will become Chancellor. [El País, 5th March 2000]

European Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler, an Austrian, urged Europe to reassess its sanctions against Vienna, stressing that they may well be counter-productive. He also accused some politicians of being plain "impolite" by snubbing their Austrian colleagues. "It escapes me how it could make any sense, in conjunction with these measures, to ignore common courtesies, like the fact that they will not shake hands with Austrians," he told the daily Die Presse. "That's not sanction-induced, that's just impolite," he said. According to a poll published Monday, most Austrians think the European Union is wrong to try to impose its views on Austria: 62 percent think the new government should be given a chance, according to the Spectra polling Institute. (VIENNA, March 13 2000AFP)

The Italian political class has reacted furiously to remarks made by the German Chancellor who said that the current diplomatic isolation against Austria would be used as a precedent for similar action against Italy if it elected a right-wing coalition which included the Alleanza nazionale. The leader of the opposition, Silvio Berlusconi, has called it an unacceptable attack on the principle of national sovereignty. At the beginning of the Haider affair, his Forza Italia party joined others (like Lega Nord in Italy, but also the CSU in Bavaria) in distancing themselves from the isolation of Austria. However, neither Berlusconi nor the prime minister, Massimo d'Alema, explained how their sudden support for the principle of national sovereignty squared with Italy's diplomatic sanctions against Austria or with its general support for the anti-national and anti-democratic process of European integration. [La Repubblica, Corriere della sera, 18th February 2000.]

Haider might indeed prove problematic for enlargement, he is being used as an excuse for even more European legislation and control over the political processes of member states. The Belgians have proposed simply outlawing parties which are "xenophobic". The French commissioner for reform, the strongly pro-European Michel Barnier, has proposed a variation of the same. He has suggested that the EU develop "a mechanism for democratic surveillance and alert" which would complete Article 7 of the Amsterdam treaty, the so-called "lynch mob" clause which allows EU states to suspend the rights of a member state if it has violated human rights. [Le Monde, 16th February 2000]

Mr. Titford, UK Independence Party MEP, challenged other Euro-Parliamentarians as to whether they would declare an election in Britain invalid if UKIP (whose policy is also to withdraw from the EU) was ever voted to a position of power sharing in a British Government. Labour MEPs shouted out "Yes, we would".(2nd. Feb 2000 emergency debate on the 'Austrian Issue' in the European Parliament)

Differences are emerging between Ireland and its European partners over the decision to cut bilateral contacts with a new Austrian coalition because of the presence of the far-right Freedom Party of Jorg Haider. Other countries such as France, where the main parties have strongly resisted any cohabitation with extremists groups, Ireland has a history of armed groups taking the constitutional path for. It could find itself in a similar position to Austria's Conservatives if Sinn Fein, the IRA's political wing, emerges with enough seats to say kingmaker after the election. The EU's row with Mr Haider has also revived the trauma of Ireland's own role in the second world war. The issues have been crystallised by the death last month of Francis Stewart, a writer who broadcast pro-German propaganda to Ireland and was accused of anti-Semitism. (FT 16/2/00)

Action could be taken by the European Union if the far-right Freedom Party forms a coalition in Austria. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine said the EU was preparing to take measures against Austria if the Freedom Party entered government. Discussions were underway, he said, but it would be current EU president, Portugal, which would announce any action being taken. And diplomatic sources said measures could be announced in Brussels on Monday. Mr Vedrine said: "Talks are under way to take measures but it is up to the Portuguese presidency of the union to announce them." Mr Vedrine declined to give specific details about the measures but said expulsion was a possibilty. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/2/00)

Countries across Europe are expressing outrage at the possibility of the far-right Freedom Party (FP) joining the ruling Austrian government. This is the first time in which European Union (EU) governments have criticized the composition of a member government. But the outcry by liberals will only serve to solidify FP leader Joerg Haider's nationalist appeal in Austria, unwittingly supporting his argument that EU structures are supplanting national sovereignty. The episode now unfolding in Austria has serious consequences throughout the rest of the European Union. (Stratfor1/2/00)

It is all very well that the EU is uniting against the rightwing threat in one of the member states (Austria). Meanwhile the much larger leftwing menace is entirely ignored. The Communist parties of western Europe, who condoned most of the hideous Soviet atrocities, which went on until 10 years ago, and were heavily compromised by taking the Kremlin funds for decades, have changed colour hurriedly and are bursting to come to power. It has happened already in Italy and France. No one is investigating Moscow's cash donations to those parties, though the relevant documents of the USSR's Central Committee have been declassified in Russia and published repeatedly. Indeed, with all the "political morality" there are many undesirable cuckoo eggs in the EU nest even now. (Oleg Gordievsky, FT 7/2/00)

In Newsnight's interview with the Portuguese minister for Europe, Paxman argued that Haider had not violated any rights, to which the minister replied that since he might do so then he should be prevented from coming to power. (BBC 2 TV 3/2/00). Behind the scenes there was Commission concern that the EU warning -- fully backed by Tony Blair -- was an over-reaction raising huge questions about the sovereign rights of member states. The 14 governments have warned they will cut their bilateral political and diplomatic links with Austria if the Freedom Party is ushered into coalition power. But the EU Treaty only provides for such action if a member state persistently breaks "the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law". The fact that the outspoken French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen is an MEP and works alongside other political factions raised concern that targeting exposed the EU to allegations of double standards. (PA News 3/2/00)

It is a delicious irony that the diplomatic protest by 14 EU governments against Austria is not being carried out through the official mechanisms of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. Instead, the protest is a classic bilateral diplomatic action by 14 states who all happen to be members of the EU. The reason for side-stepping the CFSP provisions is simple: they would render any EU action impossible because Austria has a veto. In other words, at the EU's moment of most self-righteous glory, it has been forced to admit that the Common Foreign Policy provisions in its beloved treaties actually prevent concerted foreign policy action from being taken! Conversely, the common action shows that the national veto is worthless. Henceforth no single state can prevent common action being taken by its partners on any foreign policy issue. A future dissenting country may not be constrained to follow its partners, but those partners will not hesitate to present themselves as the EU even though they are technically acting as sovereign nations. The present EU action was announced by the Presidency of the Council (currently held by Portugal) following a normal meeting of EU foreign ministers in Lisbon. So they are happy to use the infrastructure of the EU, but not to obey the treaties, when it suits them. To cap it all, EU business continues as usual. This means that Britain and other EU states, who all vaunt the merits of "pooling sovereignty", are now being governed through the Council of Ministers which includes ministers from a party which 14 member governments regard as crypto-Nazi.( European Foundation issue 87 28/1/00)

In the earlier European Parliament draft, a Party that strayed from the "democratic principles and fundamental rights" (nowhere defined) was to be suspended, in the new version a Party will not even be *recognised* - i.e. will not be legitimate - unless it has 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 T D-E 7/11/00) An EU conference on 'European Rights and Values for the 21st century' today backed demands for curbs on far right organisations to be built into a new law governing European political parties. European Parliament Socialist Group leader Enrique Baron called for the inclusion of values expressed in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights in a draft Statute on European Political Parties. The Statute now awaiting the approval of EU ministers will regulate the activities of political parties at EU level. Said Mr Baron: 'The new Statute should recognise only parties whose policies, actions or leadership statements fall within the perimeter of democracy. Such a legal provision would allow Europe to impose sanctions on any EU government that takes into its ranks a party not recognised within this democratic perimeter.' He added: 'This move will ring-fence democracy by codifying the boundaries of acceptable political behaviour. It will tackle the menace of anti-democratic forces in Europe that appeal to the dangerous nationalisms of the last century.(European Socialist and Social Democratic Round Table on "Rights and Values in 21st century Europe" 21 October 2000, Vienna)

On Thursday, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs voted to support Ursula Schleicher's report on the funding of political parties. Ms Schleicher's report has been criticised for favouring large existing parties over smaller parties. Ms Schleicher is a member of the Christian Democrats in the European Parliament. According to the proposed rules, parties must have clear European objectives, must address questions of European integration, cannot restrict peoples' rights, and must agree to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. (EUobserver.com 8/5/01)

European political parties contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union and are assumed to be promoting a european identity; on a proposal from the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council shall adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty, the statute and funding arrangements for European political parties. Parties which, to go by their programmes or the attitude of their members, seek to violate democratic principles and fundamental rights, may be the subject of suspension proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Communities at the request of the Commission, after consulting Parliament and the Council; the suspension measures that may be taken pursuant to this article shall be adopted, on a proposal from the Commission, by a decision of Parliament and the Council adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty; (DRAFT REPORT on the European Parliament's proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference Committee on Constitutional Affairs10 February 2000) Parties that they consider to be pro-EU will get funded, as well as, it appears, having their Statutes written for them by the EU institutions. Parties which the EU's existing institutions consider to be seeking to violate unspecified "democratic principles and fundamental rights" (and so which they can define as and when the spur of the moment dictates - basically, this just means any party that they disapprove of), may be SUSPENDED. This what they used to call "Guided democracy"... rather like what Pinochet allowed Chile to have when he stepped down from being active dictator. (Eurofaq posting TD-E24/2/00) European political parties contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union and are assumed to be promoting a european identity; on a proposal from the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council shall adopt, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty (refers to majority voting), the statute and funding arrangements for European political parties. Parties which, to go by their programmes or the attitude of their members, seek to violate democratic principles and fundamental rights, may be the subject of suspension proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Communities at the request of the Commission, after consulting Parliament and the Council; the suspension measures that may be taken pursuant to this article shall be adopted, on a proposal from the Commission, by a decision of Parliament and the Council adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty; (DRAFT REPORT on the European Parliament's proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference Committee on Constitutional Affairs10 February 2000) Parties that they consider to be pro-EU will get funded, as well as, it appears, having their Statutes written for them by the EU institutions. Parties which the EU's existing institutions consider to be seeking to violate unspecified "democratic principles and fundamental rights" (and so which they can define as and when the spur of the moment dictates - basically, this just means any party that they disapprove of), may be SUSPENDED. This what they used to call "Guided democracy"... rather like what Pinochet allowed Chile to have when he stepped down from being active dictator. (Eurofaq posting TD-E24/2/00) So unless Blair vetoes this at the Nice IGC, we shall be granting them the power to write the rules governing when and how we may have political parties of our choice! Of course what they mean is a sort of licence, a political party that is not "recognised" according to their rules is not legitimate. i.e., it is ILLEGAL, ergo the ECJ will send in the Europol to "RESTORE LEGALITY", meaning, to smash up its offices, confiscate its files, arrest its members, and burn all its literature! This is back to the Europe of the thirties.... (T Dick-Erickson posting 23/10/00)

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)

'Apart from the suspension of voting rights in the Council, in the event of a serious and persistent violation by a Member State of the fundamental principles on which the Union is based the Treaties make no provision for that state to be excluded from the Union or to leave it. In the event of a serious, lasting crisis, the result would be complete deadlock'. (press release from Nicole Fontaine President of the European Parliament 25/2/00) {http://europa.eu.int/igc2000/offdoc/index.htm}. Under the existing article they must all agree to do this, so it can only be done if there is a majority of 14 against 1. The new provisions would enable it to be done with a smaller majority, so even if the errant state had one or two friends it would not be saved. And it seems they want to make provision for the EU to declare that a State is "at risk " of violating "the principles of 6.1" , so that do not really have to prove anything... their powers become even broader. Not just a "breach of the principles" but a merely "threatened breach of the principles" is enough for the big stick to be got out. (T Dick-Erickson posting 23/10/00). New in the Nice Treaty is article 7, which gives the EU member states the right to take measures against a fellow member state, if that state is doing anything on a national level that is a serious breach of human rights. Belgium, who had one point threatened to veto the whole Treaty, got their wish and now one third of member states can ask for actions and a majority of four-fifths can launch them (EUobserver.com 11/12/00)

"The European Union is taking powers to investigate, regulate and even ban political parties. This proposal, if implemented later this year (at the Intergovernmental Conference in Nice) will mean the end of freedom to form political parties across Europe", says Jeffrey Titford, M.E.P. The European Union plans to fund only those parties which "support the principle of European integration". The UK Independence Party and its allies on the continent would be refused official recognition. Political parties which support European integration would be given huge public subsidies. Leading constitutional lawyer, Torquil Dick-Erikson, said of the proposals: "If these proposals are approved, all political parties will be illegal in the European Union unless they have been 'recognised' by the Commission. This is a very sinister proposal indeed". (26/7/00 statement issued by Jeffrey Titford, M.E.P.)