Frenchy speaks with forked tongue

Who said this in May 2004?

I belong to the Gaulliste family which, wrongly or rightly, has always regarded the popular referendum as one of the most important expressions, indeed the most important expression, of Democracy.

And this in March 2005,

President Jacques Chirac chose the referendum. It was a good decision. A decision which will make it possible each one of us to take our responsibilities by expressing our opinion. To give a say to a sovereign people seems infinitely less risky to me than to try to advance Europe without asking the opinion of those who live it daily. If the European Constitution is, as I believe it to be, a major stage on the slow and patient construction of the Union, no one could understood and even less admit that a vote for all is not held

The same man who said this in November 2007,

"A referendum now would bring Europe into danger. There will be no Treaty if we had a referendum in France, which would again be followed by a referendum in the UK."

Harvey's law strikes again.

Good for the Goose

The news that is today reported by Third Sector that the Charities Commission has fired a shot over the bows of 16 Muslim organisations for supporting Ken Livingston has eery echoes of what will be happening in the Palace of Westminster over the next few weeks.

The 16 Charities were amongst 63 Muslim organisations that signed an open letter on the Guardian's Comment is Free website on the 3rd January.

According to the Charities Commission,

“The British Muslim Initiative has assured us that the individuals who signed the letter did so as private individuals rather than representing the charities’ views. The initiative has now made this clear on its website, and we have written to the charities involved to advise them on the type of political activity a charity can be involved in.”

Of course given the change in the law governing charities and political affiliation the fact that the Government has made it very clear that its key defence of the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty is that much of the NGO world support them is of great relevance.

As North points out on EU Referendum (and here) most of these NGO's are receiving significant funding from The Government and the EU, making them rather more Para than Non Governmental organisations.

"These are all part of this vast network of influence, all buying into the "project". And having been nurtured by the EU, the EU is calling in its marker, expecting them to spring forward to help the British government defend the new treaty, pretending to be independent "third-party support".

It is difficult to believe how far the EU has infiltrated our "civil society" until you see the evidence for yourself. So deep is the rot though that, whenever an organisation stands up in support of the EU, you can bet that, somewhere – and not very deep down - EU money is talking".

Is it too cynical to suggest that these law changes, taking place as they did after the No votes in France and Holland were in part driven by the desire to recruit the support of the 'Third Sector' in the then looming and now present debate over Europe?

What are they for?

I had a fascinating meeting today with a couple of people from the Palace of Westminster. We were talking about how quickly the Government were pushing through the ratification of the Constitution/Reform Treaty.

It appears that the Commons will finish their work by the end of February and it will be in the Lords in March, which is fair shifting. Apparently Gordon Brown has decided that the short, sharp shock treatment will work, a couple of weeks bad headlines that can be weathered.

Obviously as we were talking to representatives of Westminster the Yellow card clause (pg 184) of the Treaty came up,

ARTICLE 71. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and, where appropriate, the group of Member States, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, if the draft legislative act originates from them, shall take account of the reasoned opinions issued by national Parliaments or by a chamber of a national Parliament.
Each national Parliament shall have two votes, shared out on the basis of the national Parliamentary system. In the case of a bicameral Parliamentary system, each of the two chambers shall have one vote.

2. Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the draft must be reviewed. This threshold shall be a quarter in the case of a draft legislative act submitted on the basis of Article 61 I of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the area of freedom, security and justice.

After such review, the Commission or, where appropriate, the group of Member States, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, the European Central Bank or the European Investment Bank, if the draft legislative act originates from them, may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision.

What they mentioned is that the European Scrutiny Committees of both houses are concerned with the technical detail rather than with the broader political aspects. This of course explained why the Commons scrutiny committee lambasted the Treaty and laughed at the red lines, but refused to endorse a referendum.

But Westminster is very concerned at the implications of this article. It purports to give national parliaments a chance of blocking European legislation but in effect it does no such thing. This we know already. However by reducing national parliaments to a function of checking whether this or that piece of European legislation breaches subsidiarity then they will slowly no longer see themselves as a legislating chamber at all, but merely a checking chamber. Policy debates will become irrelevant or at best very rare. After all the EU legislates in most areas of policy and this increases with every year and thus the increase in paper stamped 'Brussels' will drown out UK policy work.

The people really are stupid

Well at least that is what our Government in Brussels thinks of us. Jens-Peter Bonde MEP, Co-President of the Ind/Dem Group in the European Parliament happened to be in the room as the Heads of Government signed the Treaty of Lisbon (that is apart from Macavity Brown of course).

Next to him was one of the functionaries who drew up the Lisbon Treaty. This fellow was unaware of the political sympathies of Mr Bonde and was disarmingly dishonest. At one point he chuckled and said,

"You know how we made the Treaty smaller than the Constitution?"....

"We changed the font size..Hah ha, so the Treaty is now truly shorter than the Constitution".

I checked this, and having gone to the Council website I can say that this is not entirely true. They did not change the font size; they changed the line spacing. So here is Exhibit one, from the Constitution of 2004, p.11

And here is the same text in the Treaty p.12

So I checked a couple of other things, like the word count of the two documents. The Constitution comes in at 67,850 words, and the Treaty 76,250, a full 8,500 words longer. And the page total?

The Constitution has 349 pages and the Treaty has 287.

So it stands to reason that, despite being 8,500 words longer the Treaty is 62 pages shorter and is therefore the much vaunted Mini-Treaty so beloved of Mr Sarkozy.

More democratic than the EU?

The news that that Chavez has accepted the results of the Constitutional referendum in Venezuela suggests that he is more democratic than the EU.

Which is which; one is a wannabe socialist dictatorship, and one accepts the results of referendum.

So might we get a say

The Lib/Dems drift, and shuttle and squirm. Ming tells us that we should not have a vote on the Constitutional Treaty, but maybe we should have a vote on the big question.

Well OK. It appears that those so enamoured of Europe cannot bring themselves to allow us a say on specifics they hope that fear and inertia might mean that a vote on withdrawal is winnable.

Well all I can say is be careful what you wish for Sir Ming.

To be fair if the vote was framed along the lines of
Q: Should Britain to leave the European Union?

Then my guess is that people might just say yes.

But if the question was more like,
Q: Should Britain leave the European Union and become utterly isolated, with no friends and prey to a rapacious USA?
Then it is possible that the response may be NO.

Meanwhile it appears the Dutch will not be given the opportunity to have a reprise of their 2004 raspberry. I wonder what the Government there might be scared of?

Vous etes nicked mon fils

It ios apparent that the pres do want to continue talking about the new Constitution, but they are running out ofthings to say.
The latest example is from Nicci Smith in the Times today,
Essentially the deal is to go through the Treaty and slowly comment piecemeal on seperate paragraphs. This time it is the reintroduction of the European Public Prosecutor.
She has however pulled out a plum of a statment of intent from

"Johannes Thuy, a spokesman for Eurojust, confirmed that the “end goal” was for the body to evolve into a public prosecutor’s office. “We could compel the British police to make a prosecution,” he admitted".

Just to recap, what this will mean is that under the new Constitution there will be the liklihood of a European Public law offical, The European Public Prosecutor, who will be able to order British police to arrest somebody in Britain for a crime, (such as the thought crimes of racism and xenophobia (page 14))which is not a crime in Britain. Then under the European Arrest Warrant the individual can be extradited to a European country where they can be held without charge at the judges pleasure (remember the plane spotters in Greece), and then flung into a foreign goal.

Not that we didn't know this before but it is startling to see it in black and white.
Add that to Eurogendfor and other such organisations and it all gets pretty concerning.

Some cracks

It appears that there a few small cracks in the dam of the Govermnet's position in view of a referendum. The Telegraph is reporting that a few hardy souls on their own benches are agitating for a referendum. (though their estmate of up to 40 rebels are, according to my information, wildly optimistic)
The most important is Gisela Stuart, though honourable mentions should go to both Kate Hoey amnd Ian Davidson. Gisela Stuart is one person who really does know her onions on the the whole Constitution as she was one of the sixteen members of the Constitutional Convention's Preasidium that drew up the Constitution back in 2004.
Her horror about how this was done came to light when she published a paper through the Fabian Society about how dictatorial the process was.

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

ReferendumList.org launched

So we can agree that the forthcoming EU treaty is going to be a big serious thing for the future of our countries. And we can also agree that elected politicians hold the power they wield, at least theoretically in trust. So what can a concerned citizen do about the thought that the European political elites have decided both singularly and pluraly to disenfranchise their populations by driving ahead with the Constitution, despite its explicit rejection in referenda?

Well this is something.

In a novel experience for this blog it is going to a joint venture with the proprietor of the Devil's Kitchen. Today we have written to every MP the following letter,

"Dear Member of Parliament,

In mid-October, the EU aims to have finished writing the Reform Treaty which will signed by Gordon Brown at the EU Summit in December. Mr Brown has repeatedly refused to honour the Labour Government's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the proposed Constitution, which nearly all informed Continental observers agree, the Reform Treaty is in substance.

According top a recent ICM Poll (21 June 2007), overall 86% of voters want a referendum.83% of Labour voters want a vote to be held on the text, as do 88% of Lib-Dem and Tory voters.88% of trade union members want a referendum.

We are running a research program into elected MPs' and selected PPCs' attitudes towards a referendum, and the results will be displayed on a searchable website: ReferendumList.org

Our questions to you are as follows:

1. Do you support the people's call for a Referendum on the EU Treaty?
2. Will you actively call for and support a referendum in the House of Commons?

If an MP does not reply, it will be assumed that they are not in favour of a referendum and that they are in favour of Parliamentary ratification only.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Mounsey
Gawain Towler
ReferendumList.org

So if you want to know what they are up to, whether they follow their respective party lines and so on then come along to ReferendumList and find out.

In the following weeks we will also be writing to all declared candidates so that, in the event of an early election the constituents will be apprised of the views of the candidates grubbing for their votes.

So please take on of the buttons to put on your websites, let people know and use this resource as well as you wish.

Faster pussycat...

Today's General Affairs Council was presided over by Luís Amado, the Portugese Foriegn Minister, and amongst his speaking notes is this rather chilling statement of intent,

"The Presidency will guide this IGC in strict compliance with the mandate we received. That mandate is the unique basis and exclusive framework for the
work of the IGC. We shall not deviate one millimetre from that mandate . The mandate set out the explicit will of all the Heads of State and Government which approved it. The general responsibility for the conduct of this IGC falls on them". (Bold in orignal)

This is of course well beyond the legal and indeed the precedent of the Council of Mnisters, who have never before been bound by anything about what they can, and cannot bring to the table at a Council meeting. What they are doing is abolishing 'any other business', which as we all know is when the interesting stuff happens. What is astounding is the Milliband, no doubt under the instructions of Gordon Brown is going along with this astounding piece of lesse majestie. (Just imagine if Jacques Chirac had been bound by a previously set agaenda).

A bit earlier in the speaking notes is yet another commitment to do everything at such a speed as to not allow the negotiators feet touch the ground, (let alone allow national political debate effect the outcome).

"the IGC must conclude its work as quickly as possible".

Frankly, during the long summer recess there is not a tart's chance of chastity that any serious consideration will happen.

Oh and there seems to be a deadline set as well. The Constitution will be signed, sealed and delivered,

"The Presidency has organised the working of this IGC with the aim of concluding negotiations on 18 and 19 October, in Lisbon".

So now you know.

So the first draft is here

Yup, for your reading pleasure we have the first draft of the new Reform Treaty that was launched at the General Affairs Council meeting today in Brussels.

And what a whopper it is. Weighing in at a dainty 277 pages it is made up of three parts,

The Reform Treaty itself (or at least the amendments to the two previous treaties based on the EU Constitution) 145 pages.
The Protocols, which we must remember are leagally binding, 69 pages.
and the Declarations, which though not being legally buinding are in fact politically binding at 63 pages.

So in order to fully grasp what is going on first you will need a big desk. Then in separate piles, these three documents; the Mandate from the Brussels summit of last month; copies of the Constitution and of the Treaty of European Union. Then just for fun you can cross reference to your hearts content to find out what on earth is going on.

Oh did I fail to mention that as of yet, the three draft documents released today are, of course only available in French?

Update
Good to see EU Referendum keeping up

How to transform a "no" into a "yes"?

Valéry Giscard d'Estaing turned up in the Parliament to talk about the new Treaty. And as these Continental politicians are, he was incontinent about it.
The former President of the Convention which had drafted the rejected constitutional treaty told his adoring audience of MEPs that, "it is the continuation of the Laeken process” and that "90% of the words are the same" as the European Constitution.
Talking about the decision not to keep the constitutional terminology, and to officially throw out the symbols of the Union (anthem, flag...) he admitted that it would "would resemble the constitutional treaty”. On the symbols of the EU, he called on the Parliament to note that they were everywhere already and that they shouldn’t get too upset about it. Even on Bastille day the Ode to Joy played alongside the Marseillese . Furthmore he pointed out that the mandate of the IGC asked only that they "would not be evoked" in the future treaty - what means their implicit recognition , and he applauded Joe Lienen’s idea that the EP should cock a snook at the nation states by constantly waving flags and playing the tune..
He pointed out that the "primacy of the European law is fixed by an annext".
He pointed out that the “High Representative for Common Foreign and Security is one and the same as the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs" in the Constitution treaty and that "in any case, everyone will call him "Minister ".
For the former President of the Convention, "The changes are only in presentation, but the contents, are the results of the European Convention and of the 2004 IGC (the" European Constitution "). They remain unchanged, but in a different order, with some minor corrections in the form of protocols ".
Of course in his mind nobody ever rejected his baby "the French ‘No’ was not a ‘No’ to our text". He didn’t go into detail what the French were rejecting, but in no way could the result be taken as a condemnation of the European constitution, but just to make sure he commended Sarkozy, He has opposed referenda and opted for the Parliamentary way to ratification, “which guarantees ratification"...

So its not out of the Question then

According to the Economist's Charlemagne column,

"European officials have discussed among themselves what might happen in the (admittedly unlikely) event that domestic politics forces Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, to hold a referendum on the new treaty. If Britain were to vote no to a treaty that is already a painful compromise, Europe would enter uncharted waters. And keeping the EU moving at a single pace might then become Brussels's latest lost cause".

Well put it this way, shifts from unlikely to accepted wisdom happen all the time.

Move along, nothing to see

Who does he think he is kidding. Gordon stands there with his new bestest pal Mr Socrates from Portugal and tells us that there is no need for a referendum on the treaty no need at all, but what did he actually say,

Well he talked about the red lines,

"The first is obviously that the Charter of Rights should not be justiciable in British law; the second was that there had to be an opt-in for the justice and home affairs sections of the amending treaty; the third was that the foreign affairs and security work of Europe should be on an intergovernmental basis and that should not be changed; the fourth was that the social security provisions should allow for an emergency break, in other words that Britain could not incur extra costs as a result of these; and the fifth was that national security issues should remain a matter for member states. These were what you might call our red lines in negotiating the new amending treaty".

But Gordon, virtually everybody apart from you believes that the Charter will be justiciable in UK law. And they are better qualified to comment upon this than you are. Former Commissioner Vitorino, Professor Chalmers, Uncle Tom Cobley and all. The 'Opt in' rather than an 'opt out' is hardly protection of our interests as it allows the UK government to become utterly linked without debate anywhere, whereas an opt out (that could have been secured) would have meant that debate would have taken place before such an action was taken. On foreign affairs this is so much hokum, we have a new Foreign Minister, whether the EU plan to call it a a High representative or not. From the Foreign Minister will flow Foreign Policy. Oh we do not have to go to war without our own agreement, but there is a damn sight more to Foreign Policy than war making (I suppose that is what 10 years in the Treasury gets you, an utterly headline driven blinkered vision of what makes up foreign policy). First I have ever heard of this social security break being a red line, come to think of it this is the first I have heard about it at all. National security issues a national issue, don't make me laugh Gordo, what is a 'Common Asylum Policy"? What does he think the European Army is, what about the whole range of CSFP. Only today the EU is signing Passenger Data agreements with the US, what is that other than national security?

What were the red lines again, he has five here, I am sure there were only 4 before the summit and one was tax raising powers.
Here we go,
"they were the fundamental charter of rights, foreign policy, common law, and tax and benefits".

So what the is the benighted manse slider talking about?

Oh yes and of course, we cannot have a referendum.

Lord Mandelson of Soho or 'Darling, do you think I look good in ermine?'

The Times reports today that Commissioner Mandeson will be enobled as part of Blair's post resignation honours. (Well put it this way he ain't getting a gong from Gordon).

A friend of Mandelson said: “It will be like an honorary title and he won’t get involved in the day-to-day workings of the House of Lords. He wouldn’t want to anyway. But I’d expect him to make an appearance when things get spicy. I don’t doubt it will be controversial.”

He will no doubt all those other former fonctinaries ofthe EU Institutions who speak and vote on EU related matters in the House of Lords without having to mention their financial remunerations (pensions) from those institutions, (Article 9, Para 2 pg 83)

"Where the official is in receipt of a retirement pension or an invalidity allowance, the Appointing Authority may decide to withhold an amount from the pension or the invalidity allowance for a given period;

but who are, by the EU's code of conduct required not to do anything which might damage the interests of the institutions, (Article 10 b, pg 83)

"The severity of the disciplinary penalties imposed shall be commensurate with the seriousness of the misconduct. To determine the seriousness of the misconduct and to decide upon the disciplinary penalty to be imposed, account shall be taken in particular of:
(b) the extent to which the misconduct adversely affects the integrity, reputation or interests of the institutions,

And what fun indeed he will have got into the Lords in time to talk and vote on the new Constitution. One of the "spicy" things his friend must have been referring to.

Delors says 'Up Yours' to Sarko

Now here is an astonishing turn up for the books. Jacques Delors, possibly the most infamous (and effective) centralising European Commission President has come out in favour of a referendum in France.
Speaking to France 1 radio (Reported by AFP) he said,
"If I was an MP today I would "vote in favour of the compromise", but he is a "supporter of a second referendum to clarify the positions and to ensure that the opposition does not stiffen".

"Le Français (Delors) a également assuré que s'il était député, il "voterait le compromis", tout en étant "partisan d'un deuxième référendum pour éviter que les positions se crispent et que les oppositions se durcissent".

It is astonishing, just a short 15 years after leaving the Commission he is begining to understand democracy, could this be the first good thing he has ever said?

Who do you believe?

One of the truisms of war, politics and other contested areas of life, is that it always serves you well to look at what the other side are saying or doing. This is particularly apposite when they the other side are replete with confidence.
To that end I bring you another collection of quotes from the federasts of Europe. This time from yesterday's European parliamentary Constitutional Affairs Committee.

All the Constitution is there ! Nothing is missing !
Jean-Louis Bourlanges MEP,

We kept the substance of the Constitution
Jo Leinen MEP (President)

We have the same thing but we regressed for transparency and clearness
Enrico Baron Crespo MEP

It's incredible to see all what they slipped under the carpet !
Gérard Onesta MEP

Formally, it's not a constitution but it's a big step to the constitution
Carlos Carnero MEP

Our political union finally has a Constitution
Johannes Voggenhuber MEP

Can we have a referendum please?

Join us Ambrose, the water is lovely

Ambrose Evans Pritchard writes in his Telegraph column today,

"If Europe's political leaders succeed in ramming through a barely disguised remake of the same European constitution rejected by the French and Dutch people, I for one will come off the fence after years of hesitation and join the fight for total British withdrawal from the Union".

Well given what looks like the end result of this weekend he will not have to shift his bottom just yet, as they are not creating a treaty this week. But I suspect that come the Portugese summit later this year he will be finally clambering into the withdrawalist camp.

The point is is that it is not the fault of Mrs Merkel and the other continental powers, it is purely the duplicity of our own government that drives him to this,

"There are in any case lines of principle that may not be crossed, as Tony Blair acknowledged in April 2004.
"What you cannot do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and bring it back with a few amendments and say: 'Have another go.' You cannot do that," he said.

Oh yes they can Ambrose, and they will

Oddly enough, the peoples of Europe do want to be consulted

These are the results of an FT/Haris poll that came out today, and they cannot make easy reading for all those gathering in Brussels next week.

Interestingly the FT talked to two countries that have already ratified (one by referendum, Spain - one by Parliamentary fiat and Italy) and they seem to be generous enough to think that the other three who have not ratified should be allowed a say. Good for them, particularly in the case of Italy.

Of course the Germans cannot have a vote on the Constitution (or whatever they want to call it) because they are not allowed to have a referendum. Oddly it seems that the great EU panjandrum of the FT, George Parker is still of the mind that Germany has ratified, when he must be aware that they haven't. He must be one of those people that when they are told something by a senior Commissioner they believe it. A useful attribute in the bureau chief of the FT in Brussels don't you think?

Anyhow the numbers discovered in the poll are pretty conclusive,

"an FT/Harris poll found strong majorities in big European countries in favour of putting the next phase of EU integration to public votes in countries such as Britain, France, the Netherlands and Poland that did not ratify the original constitution.

A total of 75 per cent of Span­­iards, 71 per cent of Ger­mans, 69 per cent of Britons, 68 per cent of Italians and 64 per cent of French believe the treaty important enough to warrant a referendum".

Of course, the problem is that the Euro elite reside in the tiny minority who think that politicians know best.

Forked tongue warning

Coments by Margaret Beckett and 'Buff' Hoon about the summit are gloriously decietful. Holding out the prospect of a referendum whilst knowing full well that they have no intention of dong any such thing.
Even better we have Hoon, buttering up Brown (who of course is not invited to Brussels) and speaking for him rather than Blair.

Gordon Brown could still hold a referendum on the future of the EU if the continent's leaders agree significant constitutional changes to the way it is run, Europe Minister Geoff Hoon has said.

As European foreign ministers gathered in Luxembourg ahead of this week's crucial leaders' summit in Berlin, Mr Hoon said that the prime minister-in-waiting had not ruled out a referendum on any new treaty."Clearly a judgment has got to be made in terms of what is in the final package,"

Which will suprise Patrick Wintour, and Number 10 who only yesterday were announcing, "Britain will not hold a referendum on Europe's future".

Of course the difference between these positions is pretty semantic, nothing that happens in Brussels bar the implementation of a Catholic hereditary monarchy on all 27 countries will ever pass the bar for the Labour Government. The name Constitution has gone, therefore it isn't a Constitution, therefore there is no need to get the consent ofthe people. Simple.

However I suspect that Mr Brown may find that hoodwinking the British public will be a lot harder to do in reality than it currently seems to those who pour the wormwood of flattery in his ears.