Monday, February 28, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Ironies of Ironies (Three)

The (Rt Hon. the) Lord Tebbit
House of Lords

Dear Lord Tebbit

Today I have witnessed, a most shameful, disgraceful and contemptible farce in the House of Commons, I am of course writing about the debate of Prevention of Terrorism Bill.

My understanding, is that our elected representatives, have not been given the time to debate proposed government amendments and have been duped into abrogating their primary responsibility of scrutinising the Bill to your Lordships House.

May I therefore draw to your attention to section 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Safeguard for existing human rights. Section 11 states: A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict-any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom;

May I respectfully remind you that Magna Carta is still a statute in force and it states:

"NO FREEMAN shall be arrested or detained in prison or deprived of his or outlawed or exiled or in any way molested . . . except by the judgement of his peers."

The Prevention of Terrorism Bill in order to go through Parliament must expressly repeal the relevant section of Magna Carta otherwise, according to the precedent set by Lord Justice Laws' Judgement at the Supreme Court of Judicature (Queen's Bench Division) February 18th 2002, will stand.

If there is no repeal, then no-one can be held or imprisoned without an appearance before a court. Magna Carta (a 'constitutional statute' cannot be repealed by the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, an 'ordinary' statute).

the Judgement and I paraphrase but, in essence...

In the present state of its maturity, the common law has come to recognise that there exist rights which should properly be classified as constitutional or fundamental.…….The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, Human rights Act 1998……Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test:….

Of course there is an IRONY here, the Great Charter was not an Act of Parliament that can be repealed by a subsequent parliament. It was a contract in perpetuity between the sovereign and the people, which Parliament cannot undo.

I hope the above is of assistance but if you dont read this tonight, there is a copy in the post

Yours sincerely


Sunday, February 27, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Ironies of Ironies "TWO"

Politicised Pakistani police worries EU

In a letter to the interior secretary of Pakistan The European Union, has raised the issue of politicisation of the Pakistani police and have sought a detailed report. Appreciating the initiative of President Gen Pervez Musharraf to establish a commission of human rights, the European Union also drew his attention towards two areas where human rights abuses are still taking place.

The letter reads: "The European Union fully supports the Pakistani Police Order, 2002, as it has the potential to deliver accountability, but practice seems to be falling short." Citing recent amendments to the order, the European Union expressed concern over the increased politicisation of the police.

And this is the same European Union that has established EUROPOL (their very own politically controlled police) and has a "Member State" that wishes to pass a law, where a POLITICIAN can place people under arbitrary imprisonment without trial.

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

The Metric Martyrs have saved Magna Carta

Christopher Booker's Notebook Sunday Telegraph

It is one thing for Lord Falconer to brush aside all the legal confusion over Prince Charles's wedding plans simply by pronouncing that they are within the law after all. Quite another thing is the constitutional elephant trap that the Government has unwittingly walked into with its Prevention of Terrorism Bill, which will allow citizens to be placed under house arrest by fiat of the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke.

This drives a coach and horses through Magna Carta, which rules that "no freeman shall be arrested or detained in prison or deprived of his liberty – except by the judgment of his peers". And no doubt Lord Falconer and his colleagues might argue that it would be ridiculous to allow some fusty 800-year-old document to overrule the right of Mr Clarke in the 21st century to imprison his victims without permission of the courts.

What Mr Clarke has overlooked, however, is the landmark judgment given three years ago in the case of the "Metric Martyrs", in which Lord Justice Laws named Magna Carta, alongside the Bill of Rights, as a "constitutional statute", which cannot be overridden by any subsequent legislation, unless this is explicitly the will of Parliament.

It was on this principle that Steve Thoburn was found guilty of the criminal offence of selling bananas by the pound, because the judge ruled that the European Communities Act of 1972, under which metric weights and measures were made compulsory, was a "constitutional statute". It therefore could not be overridden by the later 1985 Weights and Measures Act, which permitted the continued selling of goods in pounds and ounces.

If Mr Clarke wishes to overrule Magna Carta, according to Lord Justice Laws's ruling of 2002, he must therefore make this explicit in his Prevention of Terrorism Bill. Parliament must be given the chance to decide that in this respect it wishes to override Magna Carta.

If Mr Clarke refuses to accept the relevance of Laws's judgment, then, as Neil Herron, the director of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund, points out, the whole case against the Martyrs collapses and their convictions must be overturned.

Even if, to avoid such embarrassment, Mr Clarke does ask Parliament explicitly to set aside the relevant section of Magna Carta, he will then be advised that the Great Charter was not an Act of Parliament that can be repealed by a subsequent parliament. It was a contract in perpetuity between the sovereign and the people, which Parliament cannot undo.

Whichever way the Government plays it, in its continuing assault on the constitutional rights of the British people, this time it is stuffed.


Saturday, February 26, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

EU constitution changes Europe into a State

Czech President Vaclav Klaus says The European constitution is a step which will change Europe of many states into a state of Europe

Klaus criticised the EU constitution because he says that it will be superior to the member countries' constitutions and that with the adoption of the EU constitution, the current concept of shared sovereignty will be abandoned and new, pan-European sovereignty will appear in which the EU member countries will lose their exclusive right to form their own laws.

In addition, citizens of individual countries will become citizens of the state of the European Union with the rights and obligations directly towards the institutions of this European state.

So there you are: "Just a tidying up exercise"

Friday, February 25, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Message for New Labour

At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
What say the reeds at Runnymede?
The lissom reeds that give and take,
That bend so far, but never break,
They keep the sleepy Thames awake
With tales of John at Runnymede.

At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
Oh, hear the reeds at Runnymede:
'You musn't sell, delay, deny,
A freeman's right or liberty.
It wakes the stubborn Englishry,
We saw 'em roused at Runnymede!

When through our ranks the Barons came,
With little thought of praise or blame,
But resolute to play the game,
They lumbered up to Runnymede;
And there they launched in solid line
The first attack on Right Divine,
The curt uncompromising "Sign!'
They settled John at Runnymede.

At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
Your rights were won at Runnymede!
No freeman shall be fined or bound,
Or dispossessed of freehold ground,
Except by lawful judgment found
And passed upon him by his peers.
Forget not, after all these years,
The Charter signed at Runnymede.'

And still when mob or Monarch lays
Too rude a hand on English ways,
The whisper wakes, the shudder plays,
Across the reeds at Runnymede.
And Thames, that knows the moods of kings,
And crowds and priests and suchlike things,
Rolls deep and dreadful as he brings
Their warning down from Runnymede!

A poem commemorating the signing of Magna Carta
Runnymede, Surrey, June 15, 1215
Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Lesson from History

'Men have sometimes been led by degrees, sometimes hurried into things, of which, if they could have seen the whole together, they would never have permitted the most remote approach. The people never give up their liberties except under some delusion.' - Edmund Burke c. 1790.

Remember, New Labour, like the Nazi Party, were voted into power. The lesson from history, the Nazi party, like New Labour, once achieving power, abolished the States Constitution.

Means Used by Nazi Conspirators in Gaining Control of the German State click on the link and read how it was done and then tell me there is no comparison

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

All-time Brilliant Legal Joke

Law west of ealing broadway reminds us

Anthony Aloysius Hancock, addressing his fellow jurors in Galton and Simpson's "Twelve Angry Men" :-

"What about Magna Carta?"

"Did she die in vain?"

Press Release: Immediate
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 noon 24th February, 2005

" Will the Terrorism Bill 'free' the Metric Martyrs?"

The Government is trampling over the Rights and Liberties of the People...with an unforseen consequence.
Where can liberty turn?
Charles Clarke, a politician and not a judge, is now to make lawful whatever he says is lawful...However,

"NO FREEMAN shall be arrested or detained in prison or deprived of his or outlawed or exiled or in any way molested . . . except by the judgment of his peers."
Magna Carta, 1215.

If we reference back to Section 62 and 63 of Lord Justice Laws' Judgment at the Supreme Court of Judicature (Queen's Bench Division) February 18th 2002, commonly known as the 'Metric Martyrs' Judgment (full judgment here) we can see...I paraphrase but, in essence...

"We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were "ordinary" statutes and "constitutional statutes". The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights 1689 … Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"

Therefore, the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in order to go through Parliament must expressly repeal the relevant section of Magna Carta otherwise, according to the precedent set by Laws, there is no repeal, so no-one can be held or imprisoned without an appearance before a court.
Magna Carta (a 'constitutional statute' cannot be repealed by the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, an 'ordinary' statute). To debate Magna Carta before the full house and expose the fact that it is every British citizen who will be deprived of a fundamental right is not what the Government will wish to do.

This thrusts the Metric Martyrs right back into the spotlight because we are currently using Lord Justice Laws Judgment against 'fines and penalties' imposed by 'administrative bodies'...unlawful if we apply the Laws Judgment because there is no express repeal of the relevant section of the Bill of Rights 1689 (a 'constitutional statute) which states:

"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void"

which would be required for the 'ordinary' statute (such as the Road Traffic Act 1991 which 'decriminalised' Parking offences) to have force in law. (Press report here)

Metric Martyrs Campaign Director, Neil Herron states, "Whichever route the Government wishes to proceed, one of the two must fall. Either the Metric Martyrs Judgment is correct which will have the effect of no imprisonment of suspected terrorists without trial, and the effect that all 'administrative 'fines and penalties ( such as decriminalised parking tickets, late payment penalties by the Inland Revenue and SORN notices by the DVLA) are unlawful; or the Metric Martyrs' convictions are unsafe. Either way, the Government are backing themselves up a very tight alley and are playing for very, very high stakes the implications of which they have not even considered as they stumble from one constitutional crisis to the next."

Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick StreetSunderland
Tel. 0191 565 7143
Mob. 07776 202045
e-mail metricmartyrs@btconnect.com

See article: Is Divorce a Conviction and article: Bill of Rights 1689

“..and when in subsequent ages the state, swollen with its own authority, has attempted to ride rough shod over the rights and liberties of the subject it is to this document that appeal has again and again been made, and never, as yet, without success...”

Winston Churchill, History of the English-Speaking Peoples.


Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Finland, tidying up exercise

As reported in virtual Finland Finnish Euro-MP, is suggesting that the government appoint a working group to tweak the constitution, particularly its clauses on the EU powers of the president and the prime minister.

I picked up on this here and commented on the Yes blog here, Alexander Stubb said in European Parliament on Friday that the new EU constitutional treaty would deprive Finland's president and foreign minister of the right to take part in European Council meetings

which elicited a response from no less than- Lauri, Assistant to Alex Stubb. Who wrote-- Take a portion of a text out of context and go for it.......Always leads to misunderstandings about president:....... In Finland PM is responsible for EU politics, not the President. When the European Council becomes an official EU institution, it is no longer a question of Finnish foreign policy, but EU policy. Thus the conclusion. This has more to do with the Finnish constitution than the European one... :o)

So, as I have written, loss of Soverignty

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Blackpool, twinning opportunity

''Kraft durch Freude,''

German lawmakers clear the way for the government to sell partially built complex on the Baltic Sea coast.

I would suggest that, the twinning project initiative, could be sponsored through the UK's "Debt through Bet" program.


Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

New Anglo Saxon dictionary

Bureaupolycrat. n. (100%) Estuary English = EU Commissioner (usually duplicitous and/or mendacious)

DERIVATIVES. bureaupolycratic adj. bureaupolycratically adv

EUPUNDIT nonce. (100%) Estuary English = vassal to Bureaupolycrat (usually nefarious)

DERIVATIVES. Denis MacShane Haemorrhoid Peter Hain iniquitous John Prescott Fuckwit

Scottish Raj n (100%) Paxonion (prudent's mate)

(from the New Anglo Saxon dictionary)

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

"Sinn Fein Bombs"

I have been tracking web newspaper "The Portadown News" for a couple of weeks now and wondered how I could introduce it to my readers.

This weeks edition is a corker, the headline reads "Sinn Fein Bombs" and the article is by their security correspondent, Roger Base.

SINN FEIN has been seriously injured by a massive no-warning implosion. Security Sources believe the blast was caused by an improvised rhetorical device containing 26 million pounds of home-made bullshit. At least 3,000 people are feared to be still dead. "This implosion was a crime" said a Sinn Fein spokesman yesterday, "unless we triggered it ourselves, in which case it wasn't"

visit and Enjoy :-)


Monday, February 21, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Ironies of ironies

From what Tim Worstall writes today, it seems the Spanish hid their own constitution in Margot Walldstom's round powder box, when she visited Spain the other week.

Tim notes; They Do Things Differently in Spain and questions the sanctity of the secret ballot, the assertion is based on what a reporter has written in the Telegraph, which is linked from his blog.

"In a Madrid polling station in the central district of La Latina, Jose Luis Gonzalez, a retired 60-year-old, picked up a "Yes" slip."

Ironies of ironies, Article 23 of the Spanish Constitution states that Spanish citizens have a right to vote in elections by universal suffrage. Universal suffrage being declared in Article 10, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain.

Funny that, as the EU Constitution enshrines the ECHR (which has been ratified by spain) First Protocol article 3 which states that the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections by secret ballot.


Sunday, February 20, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Protocol "Public Broadcasting"

I do find myself wondering if the BBC belongs to the British Public? is it sovereign? and how will the British Government resolve the following contradictions

Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

27. PROTOCOL ON THE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC BROADCASTING IN THE MEMBER STATES THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, CONSIDERING that the system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism, HAVE AGREED UPON the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexeto the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe:

The provisions of the Constitution shall be without prejudice to the competence of Member States to provide for the funding of public service broadcasting insofar as such funding is granted to broadcasting organisations for the fulfilment of the public service remit as conferred, defined and organised by each Member State, and insofar as such funding does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest, while the realisation of the remit of that public service shall be taken into account.

If one tries to interpret this abortion on the English language, it basically says.

That the public financing through license fees is legal and justified because public broadcasting is directly related to the "democratic, social and cultural needs of each society" and it is an important element to safeguard "pluralism".

On the other hand, it says, that funding of public broadcasting should not "affect trading conditions and competition".

In other words, there should be a "fair balance" which should allow private broadcasters to compete under "fair conditions" (confused, me too).

And at the same time, the protocol says, that, it is a competence, of a sovereign decision of the member state.

Ermmmm, Is it a member state competence or an EU competence? When "trade in services" became a part of the mandate of the "World Trade Organisations (WTO) negotiations on global trade liberalisation. The issue here is, that according to the WTO rules, there should be no national subsidies for the production of goods and services, which would distort competition.

From a US perspective, the European license fee system for broadcasting is interpreted as such a "subsidy" which undermines and blocks the capacity of US broadcasting corporations to enter the European broadcasting market.

The European Union and the European Parliament has made it clear, in their negotiations on a renewed "General Agreement on Trade in Services" (GATS), which also included broadcasting services, they argued in favour of a "cultural exception clause". Such an "exception clause" allows special treatment in certain areas where special "democratic, social and cultural needs of a society" are at stake.

The issue was on the agenda of the failed WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999. The following WTO Development Round of the so-called Doha-Process also included this subject, but it is still to be discussed in detail. The Cancun conference (September 2003), which also failed, was dominated by the issue of free trade in the agrarian sector. But it is only a question of time before issues such as broadcasting and other media and teleservices and trade related issues of intellectual property right (TRIPS) will move further to the centre of the WTO discussion.

At the present time, there is no clear picture, how the controversies can be resolved and how the potential conflicts could be settled. It is also unclear how this potential US-EU conflict will be influenced by other WTO members and special positions of third world countries and the leaders of the G 21 (China, India, Brazil and South Africa) who have not yet made clear statements about their relevant positions.

So my question is, on what basis is the Government developing its current review of the BBC charter.

Also see bbc-bias-or-eu-propaganda

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Loss of sovereignty V

Christopher Booker reports in the Telegraph today, on an interesting story as to why the wife of a British citizen is unable to practice dentistry in the UK. Read the full story here

The reason given by the junior health minister Rosie Winterton; Not my fault guv, honest, "its all down to EU regulations".

Booker concludes: In other words, here is a British minister admitting that a serious injustice has been done to two British citizens but explaining there is nothing she can do to put it right. If ministers and MPs are so happy to admit that they no longer run our country, can she explain why we should vote for them?

"Britain Back" to rule from Westminster, not "Forward" to the rule of Brussels.


Saturday, February 19, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

loss of sovereignty IV

EU forces end to Gibraltar's tax breaks

The Government has agreed to scrap tax breaks for thousands of companies registered in Gibraltar following pressure from Europe.

Under current rules, an "Exempt Company" pays no income tax on its profits and is instead subject to a fixed annual tax of between £225 and £300. Companies subject to the general company taxation regime in Gibraltar pay a standard rate of tax on profits of 35 per cent

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Nose in the festering pot

Three-minute 'shift' for MEP
A CHORLEY-based MEP claimed allowances after spending just minutes in the EU Parliament. Conservative MEP Den Dover, who represents the North West in Brussels, was photographed leaving the parliament building after just three minutes inside.

It was reported in a national newspaper this week that he signed in early last Wednesday and then left almost immediately to catch the 8.13am Eurostar train back to London. He was then driven to Chorley in a BMW. Mr Dover still picked up his £190 attendance allowance.

The MEP failed to respond to phone calls and answerphone messages left at both his constituency office in Countess Way, Euxton, and his Brussels office yesterday.

A spokesman for the European Parliament said: "The claim does not break any of the parliamentary rules." MEPs are allowed to claim £190 for participation in official meetings to cover general expenses.

There is no requirement to provide proof of meetings or time spent in official buildings and to claim allowances MEPs simply have to sign an attendance register.

On his website, http://www.dendovermep.co.uk/ Mr Dover sets out his MISSION STATEMENT FOR 2002

To continue my very high attendance and voting records in Brussels and Strasbourg.

To keep 'doing what is best for Britain in Europe' in accordance with my election pledge.

To liaise with Members of Parliament, Councillors and Members of the Party at all times.

As Budgets Spokesman to improve value for money in Europe and reduce the costs.

As a Member of the Employment Committee to create the right conditions for enterprise

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Loss of sovereignty III

EU Constitution to end UK embassies All of Britain’s 153 embassies across the globe will be shut if the European constitution is adopted, Spain’s Prime minister warned.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told a Spanish radio station: “We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service.”

Zapatero's views appeared to contradict claims made by Tony Blair that Britain would keep its power to act alone.

One of them is a lying bastard


Friday, February 18, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Loss of sovereignty II

Ceskenovincy News

The established order of the European Union, currently headed by Jean-Claude Juncker (Junket Junker the President of the Luxury of the Borg) has said, that the sovereign head of state of the Czech Republic (Vaclav Klaus) cannot meet with the sovereign head of state of the USA (George W. Bush) when he visits the European Union

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Vote yes for the EURO

Is anybody tracking the European Union Bill. Anne Palmer is:

Please note the change of words in "The European Union Bill" before Parliament (page 24) Article 14

(1)"For the words from "to move to" to "1992" substitute "to adopt the euro" in accordance with Protocol 13 to the EU treaty (the protcol on certain provisions relating to the United Kingdom as regards economic and monetary union.

(2) after "economic policies" insert "and"; and

(3) for the words from "Article 2" onwards substitute "Article 1-3 of that Treaty as provided for in Articles III-178 and III-179".

There are so many changes of words throughout, that if you have not glanced at the whole, it might be as well to do just that. Regards Anne

Now read the above in relation to Article 1-8 of the EU Constitution

The currency of the Union "shall be" the euro.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if there is a "YES" vote and if Labour are in power, the Government will state, that there is no need for a referendum on the EURO, as its adoption is enshrined within the document the populace has just voted "YES" for.

No need to call me a cynic. My name is Anoneumouse and I have a drink problem. (hic)

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Loss of Sovereignty

EU constitution takes away Finnish President's right to participate in EU summits Virtual Finland

Finnish euro parliamentarian, Alexander Stubb (cons) said in European Parliament on Friday that the new EU constitutional treaty would deprive Finland's president and foreign minister of the right to take part in European Council meetings.

Mr Stubb said that when, in accordance with EU constitution, the European Council would become an organ of the European Union, its activities would no longer belong to the domain of the president.

"Then, it is no longer Finland's foreign policy but Finland's policy in the European Union, which unambiguously belongs with the prime minister's responsibilities", said Mr Stubb.

EU constitutional treaty will enter into force in November 2006, during Finland's presidency of the EU, subject to ratification by member states.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

EU VAT dodge

Reported in This is Guernsey

A SERIOUS threat to the future of the Channel Islands’ successful mail order and Internet fulfilment industry emerged last week when two MPs and the Sunday Telegraph called for the closure of the EU VAT loophole.

This is a predictable reaction given that 2005 is a likely election year in the UK. In addition, the arrival of Tesco and Amazon in Jersey has heightened the profile of the loophole’s exploitation.

Under current EU VAT laws, goods under £18 imported into union territory are not liable to VAT. As the Channel Islands are outside the EU, companies can set up here and export goods under £18 to the UK, France etc. without charging VAT to the customer.

Just as an interesting aside. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (i.e. the separate bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey) are not part of the United Kingdom, but are classified as Crown Dependencies. They each have their own legislature, system of laws, and taxation, and they are not represented in the UK Parliament. Nor are they members of the European Union, though they do have special trading rights with it. The UK is responsible for their defence and for their international relations, and the inhabitants of all the islands are British citizens with the right of abode in the UK. i.e. they are classed as EU Citizens too, but not subject to the rights and duties afforded under the nonsense of Article 17 (8) ECT or the proposed Article 1-10 of the EU Constitution.

What a rats nest, "Britain Back" to Westminster, "not Forward" to Brussels


Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

We are in control of our Borders

I ask my self, has Blunket been moonlighting

UK Passport Program

Although UK does not have an instant citizenship or an investment citizenship programs, we can still help you obtain UK residency and citizenship by way of first acquiring the passport of Guyana or St. Kitts through the official investment program. Both nations are members of the British Commonwealth and by official rules, persons with the passport from one of these two nations can apply for UK citizenship after 3 years of residence.

Using our high-level channels in London, we can greatly facilitate the process of getting resident status and later on applying for citizenship, or, if the applicant first acquires his Guyana or St. Kitts through us, for an additional fee of Euro 2,000 we can arrange for the 3-year residency requirement to be waived and the citizenship to be granted in a matter of weeks.

European Union Passport Programs

Having a second passport from an EU country provides excellent benefits in terms of visa-free travel to most countries worldwide and the ability to live and work in any EU country of your choice.

Although many companies claim to offer help in obtaining second passport from one of the EU countries, most of the times what they really offer is the official residency program. Although this indeed provides the opportunity to apply for EU citizenship later on, these residency programs have such major disadvantages as high cost (the necessity to invest significant amounts in the country’s economy) and the need to stay and work in the country for years before applying for citizenship.

Our company, besides working with those who find the official residency programs quite suitable to their needs, also has an opportunity to offer help in acquiring second passport in several EU countries to people who need a fully legal, duly issued EU passport in a much shorter time and for less money.

We have been in this business for several years, and having established close contacts with high-ranking officials within the governmental offices of these EU nations, can now offer help with acquiring an EU passport without the necessity to go through long and expensive residency period. The time frame for our exclusive second passport program is usually around four weeks with prices starting as low as Euro 9,000 for Czech Republic Passport. Besides Czech Republic, we offer EU Passports in Slovenia, Austria, and Denmark.

So what is going on here, if like me you are confused, then why not drop a line to The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner By clicking the link, it takes you directly to the commissioners e-mail page.

"Britain Back" to its own border controls, " not Forward" to EU immigration anarchy

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

The UN 1503 Procedure

For those of you who wish to follow up my suggestion in my previous posts HERE and HERE of renouncing EU citizenship. The following concerns the '1503 Procedure' of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Under this procedure, citizens are able to petition the UN Commission on Human Rights, in confidence, if they believe that their human rights are being breached and there are no remedies under domestic law.

As all citizens of EU member states have been made, without any individual choice, citizens of the EU, they are liable to the duties and obligations of EU citizenship.

Indeed, the new EU constitution states under Article I-10:

1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution.

As the EU itself takes on the role of a state, British nationals are effectively being compelled to become citizens of another country.

If you wish to take up the matter with the UN, I have provided a template that you can adapt. Make sure you check the rules for communications under the '1503 Procedure' Procedure; in particular, you must provide your name, address and date of birth. Anonymous communications will not be accepted.

To the Office of the United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights. United Nations Office at Geneva 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

I wish the following complaint to be dealt with under the 1503 procedure.

I am unable to exhaust peaceful remedies as the UK Human Rights Act 1998 does not allow me to challenge parliament. (Contravention of article 8 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights)

6. - (1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

6. - (3) In this section "public authority" includes-
(a) a court or tribunal, and

(b) any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature,

but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament.

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is attempting to force EU citizenship on me, which is in breach of article 20 (2) of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? Article 20. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Recently in the UK, we have been faced with two new and highly questionable charters of Human Rights, both of which seek to prohibit discrimination. I am told my 'rights and freedoms are secured without discrimination on any grounds such as…association with a national minority…birth or other status'. Since the UK government has foolishly subscribed to these terms it must abide by them. By attempting to impose an unwanted foreign citizenship on me they are directly breaching my human rights, as defined above. I have a right and freedom to be a subject of the Crown, and to be described as English within the UK. By being described as an EU citizens as well, I am being discriminated against as a member of the English minority in the EU. On these grounds alone, logic would suggest they should now withdraw mine and all other unwanted EU Citizenship and EU passports.


1. How can the EU (a non-country) claim it can impose citizenship on me without my agreement?

2. Where in law does the state take the right to create the notion that dual-citizenship is somehow compulsory?

3. Where in law does the UK parliament claim sovereignty over my birthrights?

4. Given the terms of the oath sworn by the monarch of the UK at her coronation, and the oaths sworn by her ministers and senior civil servants, how do you or they explain or attempt to justify the present inherent and fundamental contradictions involved?

5. At one stage in the EU's metamorphosis, the issuing of an EU passport was merely a 'recommendation' by the EU. In which case, was citizenship merely a recommendation, too? And is it still?

6. What happens to the legal status of supposed citizenship if and when the EU purports to seize 'legal personality' for itself in the forthcoming European Constitution, after which it can then claim to be a country?

European Constitution
Article I-10: Citizenship of the Union

1. Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution.

I do not wish to be a citizen of the associated states of Europe
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Study into attitudes to EU constitution

Reported in the Irish RTE News A leading academic has warned that the Irish Government could face embarrassment similar to that of the first referendum on the Nice treaty with the new EU Constitution.

A new EU-wide survey shows that Ireland has one of the lowest levels of support in the union for the new draft document.

Professor Richard Sinnott of UCD has carried out an analysis of the findings. Having read the previous post "Letter from Irish friends" one can hardly be surprised. I have personally observed, that the more people who actually take the time to read the actual document, the more hostile they become to the PROJECT. Their hostility is further compounded when they analyse the weasel words of pro-eu politicians, against the actual text.

"Britain Back" to rule from Westminster, not "Forward" into Brussels

Monday, February 14, 2005

Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)

Letter from Irish Friends

Monday 14 February 2005

Dear British Friends,
May I send you below a 12-point summary of the EU Constitution that has been prepared by my organisation,in the hope that you may find it of use.

As the Referendum Bill comes before the House of Commons and Spain's referendum on the EU Constitution takes place on Sunday next, more and more people will ask what this Constitution means.

This 12-point Summary is being sent in simple e-mail text in this e-mail and in another immediately following, as it is a lengthy document. Please feel free to use or adapt it in any way you might wish,without any need of acknowledgement to its source. Please forward it to your friends and acquaintances if you think they might be interested

The most important thing the proposed Constitution does is to give the EU the constitutional form of a European Federal State. This EU State would not yet have all the powers of a fully-fledged State. It could not yet impose taxes or force its members to go to war against their will. But apart from that, a post-Constitution EU would have most of the powers and features of Statehood.

The Constitution proposes to give the EU the constitutional form of a State by four logical legal steps:

(1) It repeals the existing EU and EC treaties and thereby abolishes the existing European Union and Community(Article IV-437);

(2) It establishes in their place what would constitutionally,legally and politically be quite a new European Union, based like any State upon its own Constitution(Article I-1);

(3) It asserts the primacy of this Constitution and laws made under it over the Constitutions and laws of its Member States(Article I-6);

(4) It gives this new Union legal personality for the first time so that it may conduct itself as a State amongst the international community of States(Article I-7).

The Constitution also proposes important changes in the rules of running the EU. It would surrender some 60 further areas of national policy or decision-making to Brussels. It would take significant steps towards militarizing the EU. It would give the new Union the power to decide our basic rights for the first time in all areas covered by EU law, which is now vast and growing.

Most national political leaders can be expected to take a wholly uncritical view of the EU Constitution because the more national powers are transferred to Brussels,the more power accrues to themselves personally,as they make supranational laws for 450 million people on the 25-member EU Council of Ministers. However citizens lose their power to decide their own laws thereby. They lose their right to political self-determination and their national independence and democracy.

Every effort has been made to ensure that the legal facts on the proposed Constitution in this 12-point Summary are correct. The political judgements are of course a matter of opinion.

In the comments below on the national vetoes abolished we have drawn on the valuable legal notes on the Constitution carried on the web-site of the British Vote No Campaign, www.vote-no.com, as well as on material published by the Democracy Movement.

This document has been prepared by a small EU-critical research and information centre in Dublin. We receive no public funds and our work is entirely financed out of our own pockets, apart from occasional private donations. We would like to publish this and related material in properly printed form for dissemination across the EU through TEAM, the European Alliance of EU-critical Movements, to which we are affiliated.

If you think this work merits supporting, my colleagues and I would ask you to consider sending us a donation to the address below. Any such assistance would be used solely to further our EU-critical work and would of course be acknowledged.

With good wishes for your own work for British and international democracy and against the proposed EU Constitution in the period ahead . . .

Yours faithfully

Anthony Coughlan

The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
24 Crawford Ave.
Dublin 9
Tel: 00-353-1-8305792

PS. On another matter entirely: the Irish Minister for Justice stated recently that if identity cards were introduced in the UK,they would be introduced in the Republic of Ireland also so as to safeguard the Anglo-Irsh travel area. Mr Tony Blair's policy on identity cards in Britain stems ultimately from his commitment to EU integration. When citizens in all EU countries carry identity cards,these would doubtless be "harmonized" like passports, and all carry the EU flag as part of the new Union's "common area of freedom and justice". It is disconcerting in these circumstances to read that it is Britain's ultra-Europhile Lib-Dems who are opposing this policy. One would think that there should be rich electoral dividends to be reaped by any UK politicians who can link opposition to this assault on traditional British liberties with criticism of the EU as
its ultimate source?




"The Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State."

- Guy Verhofstadt, Belgian Prime Minister,Financial Times,21-6-2004


* "Our Constitution cannot be reduced to a mere treaty for co-operation between governments. Anyone who has not yet grasped this fact deserves to wear the dunce's cap."

- Valery Giscard-d'Estaing, President of the EU Convention, Speech in Aachen accepting the Charlemagne Prize for European integration, 29-5-2003

* "It wasn't worth creating a negative commotion with the British. I rewrote my text with the word federal replaced by communautaire, which means exactly the same thing."

Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Wall Street Journal Europe, 7-7-2003

* "We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes."

- Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of
the EU Convention, Irish Times, 2-6-2004

* "In Europe one needs to act 'as if' - as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if States were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty Š The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge."

- Giuliano Amato, Italian Prime Minister and later Vice-President of the EU Convention which drafted the Constitution,interview with Barbara Spinelli, La Stampa, 13-7-2000

* "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 parliaments and governments 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 Š None of the existing policies were questioned ... Consensus was achieved among those who were deemed to matter and those deemed to matter made it plain that the rest would not be allowed to wreck the final agreement."

- Gisela Stuart MP, British Labour Party representative on the EU Convention and member of its Praesidium which drafted the Constitution,in "The Making of Europe's Constitution", London, 2003

* "Creating a single European State bound by one European Constitution is the decisive task of our time."

- German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Daily Telegraph, 27-12-1998


Below is a 12-point summary of the EU Constitution, which is contained in the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" that was signed in October 2004. Some 10 countries will be holding referendums on this between now and autumn 2006. Download the "Reader-Friendly Edition of the EU Constitution", which will give you its full text, together with a useful index, glossary and other information, from http://www.euabc

The Constitution has 448 Articles and is divided into four parts,indicated by Roman numerals.It has 36 Protocols and 48 political Declarations attached and is over 400 pages long.


In 2001 the Laeken Declaration of EU Presidents and Prime Ministers set up the "Convention on the Future of Europe" to consider the widely acknowledged problem of the lack of democracy in the EU, and how to make the EU less centralised and bring it closer to citizens. The Declaration referred to the possibility of restoring powers from the EU to its Member States and mentioned the drafting of a Constitution only as a possibility "in the long run". But instead of making proposals for a more democratic and less centralised EU, the Euro-federalists who dominated the Convention rushed headlong into drafting a Constitution which proposes replacing the existing EU by a new Union in the constitutional form of an EU Federation. The Constitution they drafted does not propose restoring a single power from Brussels to the Member States, but instead shifts many more powers from the Member States to Brussels. One reason why most national political leaders can be expected to take a wholly uncritical view of it is that every transfer of national power to Brussels increases their own personal power at EU level, where they make laws for 450 million Europeans on the EU Council of Ministers. At national level Government Ministers are part of the executive arm of government and require the support of elected national parliaments for their policies. At EU level these same people are transformed into supranational legislators for over half a continent. It is unsurprising that this appeals to Ministers and aspiring Ministers. This huge increase in the power of a tiny number of politicians comes at at the expense of a reduced say for ordinary citizens, the loss of their right to decide who will make their laws and with it their national independence and democracy.



The "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" sets out to create an entirely new, totally different and vastly more powerful EU entity in the constitutional form of a Federal European State, without changing the "EU" name.

What is called the "European Union" at present is a descriptive term for various forms of cooperation between its Member States(See Title 1,Article A, of the Maastricht Treaty on European Union,1993). One of these forms is the European Community(EC). This still exists. It has legal personality separate from its Member States, all 25 of which still belong to it. In the 1960s the EC Court of Justice declared Community(EC) law to be supranational and to have primacy over national law in any case of conflict between the two,although this has never been laid down in any Treaty. The European Community (EC) covers mainly the economic and single market area, including the euro-currency. Here the Community Member States are regarded as having "pooled" their sovereignty and the EC Commission as having the exclusive right to propose EC laws.

In all other areas of government the EU Member States have retained their independence and sovereignty, and cooperate with one another as free and equal partners internationally, or "intergovernmentally" in EU terminology: in foreign and military matters, crime and justice matters, and national policy on health, housing, education,social security, culture etc. If the proposed Constitution were ratified we would stand to lose our independence from the EU in such areas.

The proposed Treaty-cum-Constitution would equip the EU with teeth. The "European Union" that we are currently members of refers to all these different forms of cooperation taken together. However the present EU does not have legal personality or an independent corporate existence in its own right. There is therefore, strictly speaking, no such thing as "European Union" law, only "European Community" or "EC" law. The Constitution's supporters generally mix up the terms "Union" and "Community" to prevent people realising that the proposed new European Union, based on its own Constitution, would in legal and political terms be fundamentally different from the EU that we are currently members of. The new Union would become our real sovereign. We would be real citizens of it for the first time, not just honorary ones as we are told we are at present, and we would owe it and its institutions real allegiance.


The "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" gives the EU the constitutional form of a European Federation in four logical legal steps:

STEP ONE is to repeal all the previous European treaties from the 1957 Treaty of Rome to the 2003 Nice Treaty and thereby abolish the existing European Union and European Community. Article IV-437 provides: "This Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe shall repeal the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Treaty on European Union and... the acts and treaties which have supplemented and amended them."

STEP TWO is to establish in their place what is constitutionally,legally and politically quite a new European Union,founded like any State upon its own Constitution. Article I-1 provides: "Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union..." A Constitution in this context, as distinct from a Treaty, is an independent source of legal authority for a
State. The EU Constitution lays down that the new Union would be the legal successor of the existing EU and EC and that it would take over the 100,000 or so pages of existing Community law, as the Community would be henceforth defunct (Art.IV-438). Those pushing the Constitution believe that because the same name,"European Union",is used before and after, people will not notice the enormous legal-political significance of the change being proposed.

STEP THREE is to lay down that the EU Constitution and laws made under it shall have primacy over the law, including the Constitutional Law,of its Member States, just as in any Federal State, without any qualification or exclusions. Article I-6 provides: "The Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States." This primacy of supranational European law has never been stated in a European Treaty before. Unlike the present EU and the treaties it is based on, which recognise that Member States remain independent and sovereign in certain areas, the proposed Constitution for this new Union would bring ALL areas of government policy within its scope either actually or potentially. The EU Constitution would become the fundamental source of legal authority for the new Union, supplanting the national constitutions of the Member States in that respect,and national constitutions and laws would have to be changed to recognise this fact. The superiority of the EU over its Member States is also evident in the important second sentence of Article I-1 which establishes the new Union: "The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives(i.e.the objectives and values they have in common), and shall exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it." As Convention Chairman V.Giscard d'Estaing has remarked: "It wasn't worth creating a negative commotion with the British. I rewrote my text with the word federal replaced by communautaire, which means exactly the same thing."

STEP FOUR is for the EU Constitution to give this new European Union legal personality and its own separate corporate existence for the first time, so that it can make treaties in its own right with other States and conduct itself as a State in the international community of States. Article I-7 provides: "The Union shall have legal personality." This Article would make the new EU legally separate from its Members, just as the USA Federation is separate from its constituent members states such as Texas or New York, which retain their own state constitutions but are subordinate to the US Constitution.

By these four steps the "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" would establish a new European Union in the constitutional form of a Federal European State, within which the present sovereign Member States would have the constitutional form of provinces or regions. This new federal EU would not yet have all the powers of a fully-fledged Federation. The two principal powers it would lack would be the power to levy taxes and to compel its component memers to go to war against their will. But otherwise it would possess all the main features of Statehood, including those set out in the Montevideo Convention governing the recognition of States in international law. Those pushing the EU integration project are confident the EU will obtain these two remaining powers in time. The Constitution gives the EU flag,anthem, motto and annual Europe Day a legal basis in a European treaty for the first time,as the State symbols of the EU Federation it establishes (Art.I-8).


The Constitution would replace the system of weighted voting for making EU laws that was agreed in the Nice Treaty to allow for EU enlargement, by a new "double majority" system of States and populations(Art.I-25). This would mean that 55% of the Member States, at least 15, could outvote 10 as long as they included 65% of the EU's total population.

The Constitution would abolish some 60 further national vetoes on areas of EU public policy-making or decision-taking, in addition to those already abolished by the Nice Treaty and earlier treaties(See the list below). The abolition of the national veto in so many policy areas, so that countries can increasingly be out-voted by other countries on new EU laws, would cost us crucial influence in the EU Council of Ministers. This is the 25-member body that makes EU laws based on proposals from the Commission. On it each Member State has one Minister out of 25 and has a percentage of the EU's total population weight.

Influence is based on power - without the power to veto EU laws, we can make our views about them known but there is no reason why they should be taken into account. The proposed shift to a mainly population-based system for EU law-making would make it easier for Big States to get their way, especially if they combine, as France and Germany continually do, and would reduce the relative voting strength of medium-sized States. It would make EU laws easier to pass,which means there would be more of them. Ministers claim this would be an increase in efficiency, but more EU laws do not necessarily mean better ones.

The Constitution would also create a full-time EU President for up to five years by majority vote of the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers(Art.I-22). This new EU President would be a considerably more powerful figure than the existing rotating Council presidents and would preside over EU "summit" meetings, yet would not be directly elected by voters or even the European Parliament. The Constitution also provides for a rotating EU Commission so that individual Member States would have no representative for one-third of the time on this body that proposes EU laws to the Council of Ministers,
which then makes them(Art.I-26).


The Constitution would give the new Union sole and "exclusive" legal power to decide policy as regards trade tariffs and quotas, monetary policy for the eurozone, competition rules for the internal market,fisheries conservation and trade agreements with other countries(Art.I-13). The EU's sole power to sign international treaties with other States in these areas would be extended to cover international agreements arising from other Union policies (Art.I-13.2). Together with the treaties to be signed under the Common Foreign and Security Policy or by the new EU Foreign Minister (see Point 6 below), the Constitution would deprive Member States of most of their present treaty-making powers (Art.III-323).


The Constitution lists a wide range of government policies where power is stated to be "shared" between the EU and its Member States(Art.I-14). These include the internal market, social policy, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport, energy, the area of freedom, security and justice,and "common safety concerns in public health matters".

This is a peculiar kind of sharing,for as the new Union is constitutionally primary or superior, the power of elected governments to make laws unless the EU decides not to is essentially residual and on sufferance.Thus Article I-12 provides: "The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising,its competence."


The Constitution would give the EU the power to take "supporting, co-ordinating or complementary action" in a further range of vaguely-defined areas including the "protection and improvement of human health", industry, culture,tourism, education, youth, sport, vocational training, civil protection and administrative co-operation (Art.I-17).

It would give the EU new powers to "co-ordinate" economic, employment and social policies(Arts.I-15). A Federal cooordinator would be superior to the constituent states it coordinates and the new EU would be constitutionally required to coordinate all policies by which the Member States aim to achieve the very wide objectives and values they have in common (Arts.I-1,second sentence, and I-3). Article III-210 lists the many areas of social policy where the EU would have the right to "support and complement" the activities of Member States. Article III-147 would allow the EU to enforce the "liberalisation" and privatisation of "services",which would include public services like health, education, social security and housing, as well as cultural services.


The Constitution would give the new Union the power to "define and implement" a common foreign and security policy which would "cover all areas of foreign policy" and which Member States would be required to "actively and unreservedly support in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity". It would impose on Member States a new obligation to "comply with" the Union's actions in foreign policy, as against the existing treaty requirement to "support" these (Art.I-16;ex-Art.11TEU).

A State could be referred to the EU Court of Justice for breach of its obligations under this Article, as the Court is not excluded from acting in relation to it(Art.III-376).

Member States would be constitutionally obliged to consult one another in the EU Council "on any foreign and security policy issue which is of general interest in order to determine a common approach" and "before undertaking any action on the international scene or any commitment which could affect the Union's interests" (Art.I-40). These provisions clearly rule out an EU Member State pursuing an independent foreign policy.

The Constitution would create an EU Foreign Minister, who would be responsible for conducting the common foreign and security policy and would preside over the Council of national Foreign Ministers. These nationally elected politicians would come and go while the EU Foreign Affairs Minister presided for five years (Art.I-28). The Constitution also provides that "When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position"(Art.III-305). The Constitution would also create an EU diplomatic service (Art.III-296). It would clear the way for the EU to negotiate, sign and ratify international treaties on foreign policy and security matters on behalf of its Member States(Arts.III-323 and 325). It would delete the clause in the current treaties which allows Member States to opt out of international agreements if their constitutions require them to be ratified by national parliaments (Art.III-325;ex-Art.24.5TEU).

The Constitution would require all Member States, including the neutral ones, to "make civilian and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy" and to "undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities"(Art.I-41) This provision amounts to a constitutional obligation on Member States to work towards a more militarized EU.

The provision in the Nice Treaty that the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy "MIGHT LEAD to a common defence, SHOULD the European Council so decide" (Art.17TEU), becomes in the Constitution that it "WILL LEAD to a common defence, WHEN the European Council,acting unanimously, so decides" (Art.I-41). The formal ending of the neutrality of the neutrals is clearly only a matter of time.

The Constitution would permit a sub-group of Member States to be formed by qualified majority vote in the military and defence area, even though some EU Members may be opposed to that (Art.III-312). Such a sub-group, to be known as "permanent structured cooperation", would be empowered to make special military arrangements among themselves, establish EU "battle-groups" and undertake military missions abroad without involving other EU members "in accordance with the principle of a single set of
forces" (Protocol No.23). This "principle of a single set of forces" clearly points to an emerging EU army under "structured cooperation". This mechanism would be a way for the EU's military heavyweights to get around the slowness of the neutrals to embrace EU militarization.

The Constitution also includes the EURATOM Protocol(No.36) which amends the European Atomic Energy Treaty that supports nuclear power and continues the EURATOM Community in being indefinitely under the Constitution's provisions.


The Constitution would allow movement towards an EU criminal justice system on the continental model, which does not have juries or "habeas corpus",i.e.the right to be brought before a judge to have one's detention legally and publicly justified. This is to be done through harmonisation of national laws and mutual recognition of judicial and extra-judicial decisions(Arts.I-42,III-260,269,270) and giving the new EU the power to set down common definitions of criminal offences and sanctions for serious crime with a cross-border dimension (Art.III-271).

The role of Eurojust, which links justice systems across the EU, would be extended from "co-ordination" of criminal prosecutions to include also their "initiation", and the extension of Eurojust's "structure, operation, field of action and tasks" would be permitted(Art.III-273). An EU Public Prosecutor's Office is proposed(Art.III-274),to undertake EU prosecutions in national courts,initially for offences of fraud against the new EU, but open to extension by unanimous agreement of the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers to cover any serious crime with a cross-border dimension.

Europol,the EU's embryonic federal police force, whose officers enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution(Protocol 7), would be given new powers, including the collection and processing of information and "the coordination, organisation and implementation of investigative and operational action carried out jointly with the Member States' competent authorities or in the context of joint investgative teams" (Art.III-276;ex-Art.30TEU).


The EU Constitution would for the first time give the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our rights. This would be in all areas covered by EU law, which is now vast and growing. Most EU policies and decisions can be construed as having a human rights dimension. It would remove the final say on rights issues in these areas from national Constitutions and Supreme Courts,or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is independent of the EU Court.

It does this by including the EU's "Charter of Fundamental Rights" as Part II of the four-part Constitution, making it legally binding and giving the EU Court the power to apply it. EU rights law in these areas would override national law and have direct effect. This includes Article II-112 which sinisterly allows "limitations" of basic rights in the general interests of the EU. The Preamble to the Charter in the Constitution states that it will be interpreted in the light of the "Explanations" set out in Declaration 12. One of these allows the death-penalty to be imposed "in time of war or during the immediate threat of war",even though all Member States have abolished the death penalty nationally.

Article II-114 would forbid any political campaigning to reverse any aspects of the Charter. Giving the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our rights does not strengthen or improve them one iota. This is more about power than rights,for it would give wide scope for reaching into some of the most intimate areas of our lives to a Court that is notorious for using its case-law to extend EU powers to the utmost. This development would also instal a new tier of expensive lawyers and judges between citizens and the final court of appeal that would decide their rights.


The Constitution would give the EU power to extend its own powers by two devices which avoid the need for new treaties and having to get these approved by citizens in constitutional referendums.

Firstly, the Escalator or "passerelle" clause(Art.IV-444) would allow the European Council of Presidents and Prime Ministers to move EU law-making for many policy areas from unanimity to majority voting, as long as they agree unanimously among themselves and no national Parliament objects; and these days governments determined on a course of action can usually get their way with national parliaments. This provision would allow the Constitution to be amended and the powers of the EU to be significantly extended without further treaty ratification.

Secondly,the Flexibility Clause(Art.I-18) provides that if the Constitution has not given the EU sufficient powers to attain its very wide objectives, the Council of Ministers "shall adopt the appropriate measures" on the basis of unanimity. The Constitution replaces an existing Community treaty article which applies only to the internal market, and extends its scope to all policy areas of the new EU, economic policy, monetary policy for the eurozone, civil and criminal law matters, foreign policy, social policy, industry, culture, education, public health etc. These two clauses would mean that the Constitution is not a full guide to its own provisions. The EU's powers are not restricted by the explicit terms of the Constitution and would be likely in time to be extended by these two articles.


The Constitution would give all the above powers to the new EU while setting in stone the EU's current undemocratic structure. The unelected European Commission would keep the sole right to propose new EU laws (Art.I-26). The European Central Bank would stay politically unaccountable through a commitment by all MEPs, EU officials and national governments "not to seek to influence the ... European Central Bank" (Art.III-188). With increased use of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers, the chances of being out-voted on EU laws and their being imposed on a country regardless of whether its Government, Parliament and people all oppose them, would increase.


Article I-8 provides that "The currency of the Union shall be the euro." This is so even though at present 13 of the 25 Member States still retain their national currencies and the Constitution enshrines the legal opt-outs of Britain and Denmark from the euro(Protocols 13 and 14). The non-euro countries are regarded as "Member States with a derogation". This includes Sweden, which is legally committed to adopting the euro even though its citizens voted by referendum to retain the Swedish crown as their national currency by 56% to 42% in 2003. The Accession Treaties of the 10 new EU Members commit them to adopting the euro. By ratifying the Constitution all EU States would accept an implicit obligation to do this in time, regardless of the legal opt-outs of the UK and Denmark. The Protocol on the Euro-Group, which is a full part of the Constitution, legally binding on all and signed up to by the 25 Governments, refers to special arrangements among the eurozone countries "pending the euro becoming the currency of all Member States of the Union". Articles III-198 to 202 deal with the transition to the euro for the 23 Member States with a derogation. For example they are required to treat their exchange rate as "a matter of common interest" and the Commission will periodically report on their progress in moving towards adopting the euro.


The Constitution of any normal State lays down the rules and institutional framework for making laws, but it leaves the ideological content of those laws to political debate between parties of the Left, Right and Centre. The EU Constitution is different in that while it lays down decision-making rules, it also lays down an economic ideology which those rules must implement.

This is economic neo-liberalism mixed with the corporatist traditions of Big States like Germany and France, whose population size would give them disproportionate influence on EU law-making under the new voting system proposed in the Constitution. Article III-185 makes the deflationary economic policy of the European Central Bank constitutionally mandatory and has contributed to the high unemployment levels of the continental eurozone economies. Article III-166 would permit the EU to decide by majority vote what counts as a public service, which could affect health,education and cultural services, as the Constitution makes "liberalisation" of services constitutionally manadatory(Art.III-147). Article III-156 provides that there shall be no control on the movement of capital either within the Union or between the Union and the rest of the world, although such controls may be called for on occasion to serve the public interest. The Stability and Growth Pact, which imposes rules on national budgets, has been regularly flouted by the Big States but has led to smaller States like Portugal and Ireland being censured (Art.III-194).


One positive change is that the Council of Ministers must meet in public when deliberating and voting on draft EU laws, but the negotiating and bargaining leading up to the laws would still be in private (Art.I-24). A second change is that national Parliaments must be told of new laws the Commission proposes. If one-third of the 25 Parliaments think these laws go too far, they can object. The Commission must then review its proposal, but can still decide to go ahead with it(Protocol No.2 on Subsidiarity). As David Heathcoat-Amory MP, one of the two House of Commons representatives on the Convention, said of this provision: "This is not new; we can object already. It is certainly not a power, as we can object all we like, and the Commission can go on ignoring us. All that we get in this Constitution is a new right to be ignored." A third change is that one million EU citizens could petition the Commission to propose a new EU law to the Council of Ministers, but neither the Commission nor Council need accede to such a petition(Art.I-47). A fourth change is that the Constitution would permit a Member State to withdraw from the new Union, a provision that has featured in other Federal Constitutions, although the arrangements for doing so here would tend to discourage withdrawals (Art.I-60). These are positive proposals, but they could all be introduced without setting up a new European Union in the form of a Federal European State, as described in Point 1 above.


Far from being a "tidying-up exercise" of existing treaties and powers, as governments claim, this constitutional proposal adds up to a fundamental change in the nature of the EU.

In this new Union in Federal constitutional form,the Member States would substantially lose their national independence and democracy and would find themselves reduced to provincial or regional status.

If the proposed Constitution is rejected, the EU will continue on the basis of the Treaty of Nice, with the voting arangements that treaty laid down for an EU of 27 States. The Convention that drafted the Constitution failed to do the job it was set up to do by the Laeken Declaration. By saying No to this EU Constitution citizens can force a proper debate on the kind of Europe that people really want - a more democratic EU,and the restoration of powers from Brussels to the Member States,as was mooted in the Laeken Declaration that established the Convention. The Convention on the Future of Europe should be recalled, put on a more democratic basis and told to make proposals for an EU of this kind. That would be a Europe with National Parliaments and citizens in the lead, not the tiny but powerful political and bureaucratic elites who are pushing this Constitution at national and supranational levels because it gives them personally more power.


There are some 60 articles in the proposed Constitution that would either give the EU new powers to make laws and take decisions by qualified majority voting(QMV), or would abolish a veto Member States currently have over EU laws in particular policy areas by moving from unanimity to majority vote. Each veto lost increases the powers of the 25-member Council of Ministers in their capacity as EU legislators and decision-makers, as well as the powers of the non-elected Commission by extending its monoply in proposing supranational legislation. This abolition of 60 further national vetoes would be a more extensive transfer of new powers to the EU than the 35 areas in which national Parliaments and citizens lost their right to legislate under the 2003 Treaty of Nice, or the 19 areas lost under the 1998 Treaty of Amsterdam. EU Governments should be urged to publish a detailed White Paper listing and describing these fully.

The following are 49 of the more important vetoes lost. There are some 15 other less important ones. The numbers of the existing Union Treaty(TEU) or Community Treaty(TEC) Articles which the proposed changes refer to are given in brackets where relevant.


1. DELEGATING LAW-MAKING POWERS TO THE COMMISSION to issue regulations for implementing "non-essential elements" of EU legislation (Art.1-36).The
Council decides what is essential and non-essential.

2. THE ESCALATOR OR "PASSERELLE CLAUSE" whereby all Part III provisions of
the Treaty-cum-Constitution that require unanimity may be switched to qualified majority vote by unanimous agreement of the European Council of Presidents and Prime Ministers, as long as a national Parliament does not object and the European Parliament agrees - military and defence matters
excepted (Art.IV-444).

3. ELECTING THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL of Presidents and Prime Ministers, effectively the EU Head of State, for up to five years by qualified majority vote (Art.I-22).


5. ELECTING THE NEW UNION MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS to "conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy"(Art.I-28).

6. FOREIGN POLICY IMPLEMENTING DECISIONS on the basis of the strategic policies and positions of the European Council of Presidents and Prime Ministers adopted unanimously, or based on proposals of the EU Minister for Foreign Affairs (Art.III-300).

7. CREATING A EUROPEAN EXTERNAL ACTION SERVICE(EU diplomatic corps), whose organisation and functioning will be based on proposals by the EU Minister
for Foreign Affairs (Art.III-296).


9. HUMANITARIAN AID TO THIRD COUNTRIES within the framework of the external action of the Union, including the establishment of a European Voluntary Humanitarian Aid Corps (Art.III-321).

10. STATUTE, SEAT AND OPERATIONAL RULES OF THE EUROPEAN DEFENCE AGENCY, an "agency in the field of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments” (Art.III-311).

11. ESTABLISHING MILITARY SUB-GROUPS empowered to make special military arrangements among themselves, establish EU "battle-groups" and undertake military missions abroad "in accordance with the principle of a single set of forces" without involving other EU members(Protocol No.23,recitals);to be known as "permanent structured cooperation" (Art.III-312).

12. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES UNDER THE TERRORISM AND DISASTER SOLIDARITY CLAUSE (Art.I-43),including terrorist prevention but excluding measures with defence implications, which require unanimity(Art.III-329).


14. PROTECTION OF PERSONAL DATA BY EU INSTITUTIONS AND MEMBER STATES WHEN IMPLEMENTING EU LAW, which under the Constitution would encompass police and justice matters, and foreign policy matters(Art.I-51; ex-Art.286TEC).





19. APPOINTING A PRESIDENT OF THE EUROZONE FINANCE MINISTERS FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS "pending the euro becoming the currency of all Member States of the Union"(ProtocoL No.12).

20. PUBLIC HEALTH INCENTIVE MEASURES: European laws may be made by majority vote "to establish incentive measures designed to protect and improve public health and in particular to combat the major cross-border health scourges, as well as measures which have as their direct objective the protection of public health regarding tobacco and the abuse of alcohol, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States"(Art.III-278.5;ex-Art.152TEC).


22. EUROPEAN ENERGY POLICY: EU laws to ensure functioning of the energy market and security of energy supply, promote energy efficiency and saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy, with possibly significant implications for national budgets, e.g. energy reserve requirements (Art.III-256).

23. TOURISM: EU laws to complement action by the Member States to promote the competitiveness of Union undertakings in the tourism sector, encourage a favourable environment for their development, and promote exchanges of good practice between Member States (Art.III-281).

24. SPORT: A new policy area is given to the EU here, in addition to "Education, Youth and Vocational Training" where incentive measures may already be adopted by QMV(Art.III-282): "The Union shall contribute to the promotion of European sporting issues, while taking account of the specific nature of sport, its structures based on voluntary activity and its social and educational function." EU laws "shall establish incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the Member States." The 25-Member Council shall also adopt recommendations. "Union
action shall be aimed at Š developing the European dimension in sport, by promoting fairness and openness in sporting competitions and cooperation between bodies responsible for sports, and by protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen, especially young sportsmen and sportswomen."

25. CIVIL PROTECTION:"Union action shall aim to support and complement Member States' action at national, regional and local level in risk preventionŠ" and promote operational cooperation within the Union between national civil-protection services. EU laws in this area could allow EU powers to spill over and affect national emergency services more generally (Art.III-284).

26. PUBLIC SERVICE TRAINING COURSES AND EXCHANGES directed at improving civil service administrative capacities at national level for implementing Union laws. Mamber States would not be obliged to avail of such support (Art.III-285).

27. EUROPEAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: EU laws to provide uniform intellectual property rights throughout the EU and set up "centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements" (Art.III-176). Majority voting may also replace unanimity in conferringn jurisdiction on the Court of Justice in this area (Art.III-364;ex-Art.229aTEC).

28. VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE UNION(Art.I-60): The Union's terms for the withdrawal agreement would be negotiated by majority vote among the remaining members,with the withdrawing State excluded.



30. DEFINITION OF PUBLIC SERVICES, known as "services of general economic interest",where majority voting could decide what counts as a public service and the boundaries between public and private elements therein (Art.III-122;ex-Art.16TEC). See also Articles III-147 and 148 on liberalisation of services.

31. TRADE AGREEMENTS IN SERVICES AND THE COMMERCIAL ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY under the Common Commercial Policy, including agreements covering social, health and education services, unless Member States can prove that such agreements would "risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them" (Arts.III-315;ex-Art.133TEC). Trade agreements in cultural and audiovisual services become subject to QMV unless they "risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity". Article III-315 opens the way for the EU to use trade agreements in services to pressurise less developed countries to abolish national controls on foreign investment as well as on their health, education and cultural services, and encourage privatisation of the latter in such countries.

32. SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS, which could spill over in ECJ case law and affect social security systems generally(Art.III-136;ex-Art.42TEC).


34. LAW ON SELF-EMPLOYMENT AND MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF QUALIFICATIONS,something that could also spill over and affect wider employment law (Art.III-141;ex-Art.47TEC).

35. IMPLEMENTING MEASURES FOR THE EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA,which is designed to coordinate scientific research in the EU(Art.III-251.4;ex-Art.166TEC).

36. JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS: EU laws to govern mutual recognition of judgements and judicial decisions relating to cross-border crime, and the approximation of laws and regulations of Member States relating to police and judicial matters with a cross-border dimension, including rules on the admissibility of evidence, the rights of individuals in criminal procedure and the rights of victims of
crime (Art.III-270;ex-Art.31TEU).

37. EU LAWS INCREASING THE POWERS OF EUROJUST, which links Member State prosecuting authorities, including the initiation of criminal investigations, proposing the initiation of prosecutions and the coordination of such investigations and prosecutions (Art.III-273;ex-Art.31TEU).

38. EU LAWS TO ENHANCE CROSS-NATIONAL POLICE COOPERATION,including "the collection,storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information", and supporting staff training and exchanges etc. (Art.III-275;ex-Art.30TEU).

39. EU LAWS TO DETERMINE EUROPOL'S STRUCTURE, OPERATION, FIELD OF ACTION AND TASKS, including the collection and processing of information and "the coordination, organisation and implementation of investigative and operational action carried out jointly with the Member States' competent authorities or in the context of joint investigative teams" (Art.III-276;ex-Art.30TEU).

40. COMBATING FINANCIAL FRAUD AGAINST THE UNION (Art.III-415;ex Art.280TEC): The Constitution proposes to expand the scope of European laws in this area, which is already decided by QMV, to cover relevant national criminal law by deleting the phrase in the present treaty that measures against fraud "shall not concern the application of national criminal law or the national administration of justice".

41. BORDER CONTROLS (Arts.III-265 and 268;ex-Art.62TEC);

42. COMMON ASYLUM POLICY (Art.III-266 and 268;ex-Arts.63-64TEC);

43. COMMON IMMIGRATION POLICY (Arts.III-267 and 268;ex-Art.63 TEC);

44. CULTURE: majority voting to replace unanimity for incentive measures on
many aspects of cultural policy, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of Member States. "Action by the Union shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and complementing their action in the following areas:(a)improvement in the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples; (b) conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance; (c) non-commercial cultural exchanges; (d) artistic and literary creation, including in the audiovisual sector"(Art.III-280;ex-Art.151TEC).

45. CHANGES TO VARIOUS POWERS OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK relating to open market and credit operations, setting mininum reserve requirements, fining financial institutions, conducting foreign exchange operations and regulating bank clearance systems. The changes give the Commission the right to propose that they be made by QMV, whereas previously only the Bank itself could propose that (Art.III-187.3;Protocol No.4;ex-Art.107TEC).

BANK(Art.III-382; ex-Art.112TEC). This important group, consisting of the President,Vice-President and four others, runs the day-to-day operations of the Bank. The Constitution substitutes appointment by majority vote for appointment "by common accord" of the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers.


48. ADVISORY PANEL FOR CHOOSING CANDIDATES FOR JUDGES AND ADVOCATES-GENERAL OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE, the operating rules for which would be laid down by majority vote, which could mean less say by Member States over how ECJ judges are chosen (Art.III-357; ex-Art.223 TEC).


End ... February 2005
Listed on BlogShares