Saturday, April 30, 2005

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

Argentina, no EU shoulder to cry on

Merco press the South Atlantics News Agency reports Argentina’s protest receives no EU presidency response, because EU’ position in the matter “has not changed”, according to European diplomatic sources.

The same sources indicated that they could not confirm if the EU had received a protest letter on the issue which was sent last week by the Argentine Embassy in Brussels.

“There will be no official declaration from the EU Luxembourg presidency”.

So what is the EU position? anybody know?

Friday, April 29, 2005

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

Argentina rejects EU Constitution

Argentina officially rejected the inclusion of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands as “British Antarctic Territory” in the European Union Constitutional Treaty and has informed European institutions of its “reservations” about the case.

Argentina Foreign Minister Rafael Bielsa said "We are perturbed, we reject this thoroughly, but it is not a new issue and we will have to fight about it for years to come,"

According to Title IV of Part III of the European Constitution, extra continental territories belonging to Denmark, France, Netherlands and United Kingdom, as well as Antarctic areas, are recognized as areas of EU constitutional sovereignty. In Part III-286 Annex II Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich and British Antarctic territories come under the description of “EU countries and overseas territories”, which apparently is further confirmed in Part IV-440.

Part III-286 says that “Non European countries and territories which have special relations with Denmark, France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom shall be associated with the Union. These countries and territories, hereinafter called the “countries and territories”, are listed in Annex II . The purpose of association will be to promote the social and economic development of the countries and territories and to establish close economic relations between them and the Union. Association shall serve primarily to further the interests and prosperity of the inhabitants of these countries and territories in order to lead them to the economic, social and cultural development to which they aspire.

As to the listed United Kingdom Overseas Countries and Territories to which Title IV of Part III of the Constitution applies: Anguilla, Cayman Island, Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena and Dependencies, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territories, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands and Bermuda.

"Just rejoice at that news. . ."


Friday, April 22, 2005

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

Jeremy Paxman :o)


Thursday, April 21, 2005

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

Margot Wallström and the Volksempfänger

Napoleon spoke of the "press as the seventh great power." Its significance became politically visible with the beginning of the French Revolution

Joseph Goebbels using Napoleon's phrase spoke of the "radio as the eighth great power". He said "The November Regime [the Nazi term for the Weimar Republic] was not able to understand the full significance of the radio. Even those who claimed to have awakened the people and gotten them involved in practical politics were without exception almost blind to the possibilities of this modern method of influencing the masses"

Margot Wallström obviously thinks like Goebbels, but in this instance, Television is the 9th great power. In a speech today she said ....The newspapers people read and the TV and radio programmes they consume are almost always produced for a national or regional audience..... European issues, if they are seen at all, are seen through the filter of national-tinted spectacles. No wonder it is hard to get Europeans to agree what Europe is all about! .......How could this ‘Europe-wide arena’ or ‘European public space’ be created? Through Europe-wide TV and radio carrying programmes in several languages........

"One People, one Reich, one will and a glorious European Union future!"

In a speech given on 18 August 1933, Goebbels develops his thinking on the directions German radio would take (read here)

Margot's speech can be read from this link (Here)


Tuesday, April 19, 2005

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

Mandelson, duplicitous, corrupt, mendacious, treacherous

The duplicitous and mendacious Mandelson, is at his corrupt and treacherous ways again. As reported first on Richard North's Eureferendum blog, and then again this morning under the heading Beyond comprehension It has come to light that Peter Benjamin Mandelson (Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead) was at the centre of a row about secrecy in Brussels last night after he declined to say who hosted a private New Year's holiday he took on the back of an official trip to the Caribbean from Dec 30 to Jan 3.

Mandelson's holiday plans were unexpectedly thrust into the spotlight by a row over open government when the 25 commissioners closed ranks and refused to answer a question about hospitality in a parliamentary question tabled by Nigel Farage, the Ukip MEP.

Commissioners are obliged to report all gifts valued at more than 350 euros. Hospitality was covered by the right to privacy, said Françoise le Bail, the spokesman of the Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso. There was "a complete difference" between a present or gift from someone a commissioner did not know personally, and hospitality from old friends.

Well we know Geoffrey Robinson, the Ex Paymaster General (report here) and the Hinduja Brothers (report here) are old friends of Mandelson

Mandelson is a traitor, Sack him as a commissioner and send him back here for trial.

In November 2004 Pursuant to Article 213 (2) (ex157(2)) of the treaty establishing the European Community, Peter Benjamin Mandelson; Crown Steward and Bailiff of the manor of Northstead not being a person compelled to do so, took an engagement in the nature of an oath intending to bind the said accused to commit an offence namely treason. He freely gave a solemn Oath before the Court of Justice of the European Union "To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or any other body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties."

This being treason and misconduct in a public office in direct contradiction to the Oaths he swore as a Member of Parliament for Hartlepool and that, which he swore as a member of Her Majesties Privy Council.

Parliamentary Oath
I ………. swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Privy counsellors Oath;

You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen's Majesty as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors you will not reveal it unto him but will keep the same until such time as, by the consent of Her Majesty or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty so help you God.

Juramentum est indivisibile, et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. (An oath is indivisible; it cannot be in part true and in part false).

Ignorance is no excuse and Halsbury's Laws of England confirms that a breach of Magna Carta is an offence at common law. This provision is the reason why Crown servants take Oaths. The Bill of Right 1689 specifies the form of the oath and the current wording of the parliamentary oath was established in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.

Archbold, Section 25, dealing with "High Treason". There, the Treason Act 1351 is cited. In Section 25.9, the following is a quotation from the case of Fost.C.L. (183): "High Treason, being an offence committed against the duty of allegiance, it may be proper to consider from whom and to whom allegiance is due. With regard to natural born subjects, there can be no doubt. They owe allegiance to the Crown at all times and in all places natural allegiance is founded on the relation every man standeth in to the Crown considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a member the duty of allegiance ariseth out of it and is inseparably connected with it." The commentary in Archbold continues: "The subjects of the King owe him allegiance".

The offence of misconduct in public office was defined in Russell On Crime, 12th Edition (1964) (J W Cecil Turner) in this way: "Where a public officer is guilty of misbehaviour in office by neglecting a duty imposed upon him either at common law or by statute, he commits a misdemeanour and is liable to indictment unless another remedy is substituted by statute. The liability exists whether he is a common law or a statutory officer; and a person holding an office of important trust and of consequence to the public, under letters patent or derivatively from such authority, is liable to indictment for not faithfully discharging the office."


Monday, April 18, 2005

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

‘no’ don’t you understand

SAIC told Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt it was not interested in a joint venture with Rover three months ago, a company source has told Scotland on Sunday .

The Shanghai-based company’s concerns about Rover’s solvency were followed up with three official letters in the past month - on March 29, April 4 and April 5 - stating it was categorically not interested in investing in MG Rover.

"There is a big difference between ‘possible’ and ‘highly unlikely’," one source close to SAIC said. "There were concerns about the long-term solvency of MG Rover. No company in the world would go into a joint venture with a partner who could be insolvent within weeks."

The government and MG Rover itself continued to insist, until the company was put into administration on April 8, that a deal with the Chinese was its best hope of survival.

And ministers continued to claim there was hope until the firm pulled out on Friday. "It became a case of which part of the word ‘no’ don’t you understand," a source close to the drawn-out proceedings said.

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

BritRoundup Blog

Britblog Roundup # 9 No more, no less.


Friday, April 15, 2005

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

No more Openness from Wallström

Shortly after the fragrant Margot launched her blog, she was asked by JACKIE HAYDEN of Hotpress "Your web diary shows you to be a very open, perhaps even unguarded, politician, answering questions about your own life as well as arguing about key issues. From our experience of politicians this is very unusual. Why have you chosen to take this route"?

MARGOT WALLSTROM: "We have to change the attitude of the European Union and our way of communicating, to do what we preach so as to be credible. But then this is also my personality. If I couldn't be true to myself I wouldn't be able to do it".

she further stated "The culture in Sweden and the Nordic countries is absolutely different. For centuries we have a principle of openness and making everything public. We are not hurt by that. We are used to it and I've tried to argue for this in Europe. What do we have to fear? When I suggested we should allow the letters we receive to be read by others there was this reaction against it, but why not, so long as the people who wrote to you know this? It is good to create this debate".

Well, it seems that The Swedish vice-president for the Commission, Margot Wallström can't deliver upon that "principle of openness and making everything public"

The Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde is having a good whinge at the fragrant one in his latest Newsletter He has been trying to get information about the 3000 secret working groups, that work for the Commission. He states that the list has now been made public. But we can still not get the list over the members in the working groups, and the working documents are only available on request. Accordingly, we must know what we want, and that is exactly the knowledge we can't get. Only the chairmen of the committees will have the access to collect information on the members in a certain committee. Ordinary members don't have this right.

The EU-Parliament will still be kept out of the main part of the legislative procedure.

So there you go, we bloggers are quite used to being ignored by Wallström , none of our points or questions are ever answered or responded to and it looks as if the EU parliament have joined the club.

Thursday, April 14, 2005

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

Beware the Leaven of the Pharisees

Members of the European Parliament, meeting in their first plenary session since the demise of Pope John Paul II, observed a minute of silence as Parliament president Josep Borrell paid tribute to the late Pontiff.

Pope John Paul II was "a great man and a great European", Mr Borrell said.

It might be worth pointing out what Pope John Paul II wrote in his book the The Theology of the Body he notes that both the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexuality as a sinful act and that Church teachings have consistently "held that homosexual acts are immoral."

I think Mr Borrell needs to read Luke - Chapter 12
In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Does Borrell, not recall the treatment dished out to Italy's nominee for the EU Justice Commission. The European Parliament voted against the Popes friend, Rocco Buttiglione, after comments made in Parliament, referring to homosexuality as a "sin"

At that time Josep Borrell, added his voice to the opposition to Mr Buttiglione's candidature, saying: "It does not seem to me that in this day and age we can have people in charge of justice - especially justice - who think like that".

Yesterday, He recalled the Pope's speech to the European Parliament on the reunification of Europe when John Paul II had said that "Europe must breathe with both its lungs".

OKchaps, all together now, take big deep breath "hypocrisy is a sin"


Tuesday, April 12, 2005

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

Six men of Euroland

There were six men of Euroland,
to learning much inclined,
Who went to see an elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl,
"This mystery of an elephant
is very like a wall."

"There will not be a referendum. The reason is that the constitution does not fundamentally change the relationship between the UK and the EU." Tony Blair, British Prime Minister, October 2003

The second, feeling of the tusk,
cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an elephant
is very like a spear."

'I think the EU constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe,' 'It is not the end point of integration, but the framework for - as it says in the preamble - an ever closer union.' Hans Martin Bury, Germany's Europe minister.

The third approached the elephant,
and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
thus boldly up and spake,
"I see," quoth he,
"the elephant is very like a snake."

I never said that it was just a tidying-up exercise; I said that it was a tidying-up exercise and a process of reform and modernisation. Given that more than three quarters of the clauses in the new constitutional treaty come from the existing four treaties, how else would one describe the reform other than to say that those clauses are tidied up into the new constitutional treaty? Peter Hain Hansard

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."

“The constitution will create a political and institutional framework from which no one will be be able to withdraw. It is a big step towards a more Social Europe” Jacques Chirac.

The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
said, "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
deny the fact who can;
This marvel of an elephant
is very like a fan."

“It lays down the EU's values and political objectives and makes clear that member states confer powers on the EU, not the other way round”. Jack Straw.

The sixth no sooner had begun
about the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
that fell within his scope;
"I see," said he, "the elephant
is very like a rope."

"[The EU Constitution] embodies the French vision of Europe. A 'yes' vote will reinforce the French model in Europe, a 'no' vote will weaken it." Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin (AP, 29 and 30 March)

So six blind men of Euroland
disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
exceeding stiff and strong;
Though each was partly in the right,
they all were in the wrong!

We should render unto poets that which poets can do and render unto the responsibility of good government that which we have to do. Mr. MacShane Hansard

Never stand behind an Elephant. Anoneumouse
Hat tip John Godfrey Saxe


Monday, April 11, 2005

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

Springtime in Britain

Peter Sain ley Berry writes in the EuObserver

"It is my contention that should the British electorate decide to elect a Conservative Government in defiance of the opinion polls and the virtually unanimous view of political commentators, then the British Presidency could be in serious danger".

"Possibly it might even have to be cancelled altogether"

Now we know why the fragrant Margot , in her latest blog, on returning to the treadmill, writes "springtime seems to bring out the best or the depression of people about choosing between buying a new skirt or a shot gun?"

Margot, It's all SYMBOLICS. Buy the dress, shooting swans is illegal in the UK


Sunday, April 10, 2005

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

Roundup Blogging Brits

BritBlog Roundup # 8 just click the link and read. Worst of all, It does just what it says on the TIM.
Feel free to copy, there is no copyright on an Anoneumouse montage. (click on image to enlarge)


Advocates of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe contend that in the new Union it would establish, the Member States would still have primacy of authority because it is they that would have conferred powers on the Union, under the so-called "principle of conferral" (Art.I-11) . They forget that this is how classical-type Federal States have historically developed: by smaller political units coming together and transferring powers to a superior, e.g. 19th century Germany , the USA, Canada, Australia. This contrasts with Federations that have been formed by originally unitary States adopting federal form and devolving power to provinces or regions, e.g. post-War Germany, Russia, Austria, India, Nigeria. Where else after all could Brussels get its powers if not from its Member States, just as the Federal States whose capitals were 19th century Berlin, Washington, Ottawa and Canberra did before it? In the latter cases however the political units that came together to form a Federal State belonged wholly or mainly to one nation, with a common culture, language and history. This gave these Federations a popular democratic basis, and with it a natural legitimacy and authority, in total contrast to the EU Federation-in-the-making, with its many nations, peoples and languages. Therefore the provision of " (Art.I-11) of the EU Constitution: "The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral", does no more than state the obvious.

Once power is conferred on the Federal level under the EU Constitution, however, there is no provision for a Member State to get it back short of withdrawing from the Union. The EU Constitution would indeed allow for this (Art.I-60), as the Constitutions of other Federations have done before it. Joseph Stalin's 1936 Constitution for the USSR contained a provision permitting states to leave it. The southern Confederate states of the USA thought they possessed a right of withdrawal until their attempt to exercise it in practice precipitated the 1860s American civil war. It is hard to find historical examples of individual provincial states exercising a constitutional right of withdrawal from a Federal State. Much more common is for the multinational Federations themselves to break up, so that everyone leaves, as it were, e.g. the USSR, Czechslovakia, Yugoslavia, the West Indies Federation. The historical tendency seems to be for multinational, multilinguistic Federal States to break up, as the international community of States continues to increase. The number of States in the world has gone from some 60 when the United Nations was established in 1945, to nearly 200 today, and the 21st century will certainly see many more new States formed out of existing multinational ones as the process of Nation State formation gets under way in Africa, South Asia and the Middle East.

Those seeking to play down the fact that the proposed EU Constitution is envisaged by its drafters as the fundamental law of another multinational Federation point to the provision of "(Art.I-11) that "Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution." They claim that this puts real restraint on Union power. But again this provision does no more than state the obvious: that the Constitution lays down that the Union and its Member States should respect their mutual powers and functions, as should the authorities of all States governed by law. The real political issue is who would interpret what the EU and Member State powers are? Who would decide in the event of disputes between the Federal and provincial state levels as to their respective fields of competence? The answer is the European Court of Justice, that supranational body that would be the new Union's Supreme Court. A Constitution means what the Supreme Court established to interpret it says it means. The European Court of Justice has been notorious for decades for seeking to expand European supranational power to the utmost through its case-law. The experience of the USA and other Federations has shown that historically their Supreme Courts have exercised an enormous federalizing influence by imposing common legal standards on their different political sub-units. There is no comfort for concerned democrats or "sovereignists" in "(Art.I-11) .

Nor is there in the further provision of the same Article: "Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States". Again this states the obvious. It is very similar to the 10th amendment to the American Constitution, adopted in 1791, which provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This 10th Amendment has not prevented the USA from becoming a fully-fledged Federal State, although in several respects it is less centralised than the present EC/EU. "(Art.I-11) offers no reassurance against similar further centralisation in the new European Union. The defining characteristic of Federations as compared with Unitary States is precisely the division of law-making, executive and judicial powers between Federal and provincial state levels, with the former being constitutionally primary or superior, but with each level supposed to respect the competences of the other - as the Constitution lays down for the proposed new European Union.

There is no reassurance for concerned democrats either in Article I-5.1, which requires the Union to respect the "national identities" of its Member States and "their essential State functions." "Identity" is not the same as independence and is not a justiciable category. A people keeps its identity in servitude as well as freedom - Kurds, Chechyns and Palestinians for example. As for "respect (for) essential state functions", again any law-governed Federation and its constituent states should naturally respect the governmental functions carried out at its different levels. So this provision is another tautology, without potential for practically affecting the actual distribution of powers between the Union and its Member States should the Constitution come into force.

Come on chaps, dont take my word for it, read the EU Constitution

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

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



The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe would give the EU the constitutional form of a European State in five logical legal steps:

STEP ONE to an EU Federation would be 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 would be to establish in their place what would be 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..." The plain meaning of these words is that the new European Union would be a different Union from that which currently exists. A Constitution in this context, as distinct from a Treaty, is an independent source of legal authority for a State. The Constitution lays down that the new Union would be the legal successor of the existing Union and Community and that it would take on board the 100,000 or so pages of existing Community law, as the European Community would be henceforth defunct (Art.IV-438). Those pushing the Constitution may well have the hope that because the same name, "European Union", is used before and after, people will not notice the profound legal-political significance of the change being proposed.

STEP THREE to an EU State would be to lay down that the Constitution of this new Union and the laws made under it shall have primacy over the law, including the constitutional law, of its Member States, just as in any Federation, without any qualifications or exclusions that would reserve some policy areas for "intergovernmental" action among States that still retained some sovereignty. If that had been done, as in the original Maastricht Treaty, it would have kept such policy areas beyond the reach of supranational Federal law. 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 policy areas - as the "pillar structure" of the Maastricht Treaty shows - the proposed Constitution would bring all areas of government policy within the scope of either the direct laws or the coordinating powers of the new European Union. The Constitution rather than a series of treaties would become the fundamental source of legal authority for this new EU, supplanting the national constitutions of the Member States in that respect, although these constitutions would still continue to exist. This would be the same as in the Federal USA, where individual states still retain their state constitutions, in some cases from their pre-Federal Union days. National constitutions and laws would however have to be changed in the course of ratifying the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, precisely in order to recognise the constitutional primacy of the new Union. The ratification process of this Treaty is therefore a process whereby the 25 Member States formally strip themselves of their constitutional sovereignty as States and subordinate themselves to the authority of a supranational entity that possesses all but two of the key features of a fully-developed Federation.(For these two features see Step 5 below.)

If Article I-6 gives the proposed new European Union direct federal authority and power, Article I-1 gives it indirect coordinating power. The constitutional and political superiority of the EU over its Member States is first asserted in the important second sentence of Article I-1 , which establishes the new EU: “The Union shall coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to achieve these objectives (i.e. the objectives they have in common), and shall exercise on a Community basis the competences they confer on it.” Convention Chairman Valery Giscard d'Estaing has helpfully explained in a press interview (Wall Street Journal Europe, 7-7-2003) what exercising EU powers “on a Community basis” means: “It wasn't worth creating a negative commotion with the British. I rewrote my text with the word federal replaced by communautaire (i.e. “on a Community basis”) which means exactly the same thing.” (also reported in Hansard). So the new Union established by the Constitution would exercise manifest federal authority and powers. This second sentence of Article I-1 makes it constitutionally mandatory (“The Union shall coordinate”) on this new, superior EU entity to coordinate all the policies by which its Member States aim to achieve their common objectives. These objectives are set out in Article I-3 and are about as wide and all-encompassing as could be. They include, inter alia, promoting the Union’s values, which are set out in Article I-2, as well as promoting the well-being of its peoples and its interests vis-a-vis the wider world. This second sentence of Article I-1 has the legal-constitutional effect of giving the proposed new Union sweeping general coordinating powers of government over 450 million people. Legally speaking, Article I-1 is an important indirect buttress of the direct powers of Federal European government provided for in Article I-6 .

STEP FOUR to a Federal EU would be for the EU Constitution to give this new European Union legal personality and its own separate corporate existence for the first time. This would allow it to 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 Federal USA is separate from its constituent member states like Texas, New York, California etc., which retain their own state constitutions but are subordinate to the Federal US Constitution. In the USA local states still have taxation powers, different laws on the death penalty, marriage, education, social security etc., but they do not delude themselves that they are independent states. The Federal USA is sovereign over them and is recognised as such by other States. Likewise in the former Soviet Union such states as Ukraine, Byelorussia etc. had their own foreign ministers, separate seats at the UN, state governments etc., but they recognised their subordination to the sovereign Federal USSR, as did everyone else.

STEP FIVE would be to make us all real citizens of a real European Union with its own legal personality for the first time. Article I-10 provides: "Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union … Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Constitution." This is real citizenship, not a pretend citizenship as at present. For one can only be a citizen of a State, an entity possessing legal personality, whose government and institutions make laws one must obey. Obedience to those laws is the first duty of citizenship. The pre-Constitution EU does not have real citizens. The post-Constitution EU would have. The pretence that we are already EU citizens in some vague honorary sense serves to deceive people into thinking that the proposed Treaty-cum-Constitution would make no real change to their legal-political status, whereas it would fundamentally change it. It is the counterpart of the pretence that a fully-fledged European Union that we are already fully members of already exists, established by the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht), so that people will not notice the transition to a real European Union in the constitutional form of a supranational state by means of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, for it will have the same name the name although its legal-political reality will be profoundly different. "Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship and shall not replace it," states the Article. But our Union citizenship would be our primary citizenship henceforth. It would be made so if the Treaty is ratified so as to make the EU Constitution and law made under it primary and superior over national Constitutions and law - with national Constitutions being amended to recognise this.

By these five legal steps the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe would establish a new European Union in the constitutional form of a European Federation, within which the present sovereign Member States would, by corollary, be reduced to the constitutional status of provincial states or regions. Their citizens in turn would have the new European Union with its Constitution installed over them as their new sovereign ruler and government. This new EU would not yet have all the powers of a fully-fledged Federation. The two principal powers it would lack would be the right to levy taxes and to compel its component Members to go to war against their will, although the new Union would be able to go to war on the basis of a sub-set of its Member States as long as the others "constructively abstained"".

Apart from these two aspects of taxes and war, the new Union would have all the key features of a developed Federal State: a population, a territory, a Constitution, citizenship, a currency, armed forces, a legislature, executive and judiciary, a Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps, some 100,000 pages of federal law, the right to impose fines and other sanctions on its Member States for failing to obey that law, the right to conclude international treaties with other States - and now of course its own flag, anthem and annual public holiday, which would be given a legal basis in the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe for the first time (Art.I-8). If the Constitution is ratified and brings the new Federal EU into being, its advocates are confident that it only a matter of time before it would get these remaining taxation and military powers to complete the structure of a fully-fledged Federation.

For those of you who wish to follow up my suggestion of renouncing EU citizenship, you can find information in my previous posts here renunciation-of-eu-citizenship and here solemn-treaty-obligations and here UN-1503-procedure.

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

"cockbilled"! definitely not

The European Union institutions have agreed to lower flags as a mark of respect for John Paul II, whose funeral is on Friday.

"The vast majority of member states have decided to fly their flags at half mast for different periods in different countries," European Commission spokesman Françoise Le-Bail said yesterday.

"As the Pope was a great European who has contributed to European reunification, the President (of the Commission) considered it be a sign of respect on the day of the Pope's funeral."

Just in case Blair tries to follow suite, I would like to remind you all of Article 37 of the 39 Articles of religion

"The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England".

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, which were drawn up by the church in convocation in 1563. Is still good law in this Kingdom and can be found in any book of common prayer. An Act of Parliament ordered subscription to them by the clergy in 1571. They concern fundamental Christian truths (Articles 1-5), the rule of faith (Articles 6-8), individual religion (Articles 9-18), corporate religion (Articles 19-36), and national religion (Articles 37-39)

The Ratification.
[THIS Book of Articles before rehearsed, is again approved, and allowed to be holden and executed within the Realm, by the assent and consent of our Sovereign Lady ELIZABETH, by the grace of God, of England, France, and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c. Which Articles were deliberately read, and confirmed again by the subscription of the hands of the Archbishop and Bishops of the Upper-house, and by the subscription of the whole Clergy of the Nether-house in their Convocation, in the Year of our Lord 1571.]

The 39 Articles, were confirmed in and by, the Act of Settlement 1701 and they were consolidated, as fundamental and unchangeable by the Treaty of the Union 1707.

let me reiterate, The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

God Save the Queen


Tuesday, April 05, 2005

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

the Biggest Party on Earth

I Joined the Biggest Party on Earth Today

Why not visit my profile Anoneumouse


Monday, April 04, 2005

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

European Union Red Herrings

Do you remember this from Hansard 16 June 2004

The Prime Minister: I will protect the British national interest on tax, foreign policy, defence and all the other issues that we have set out. It is important that Britain remains at the centre of decision making, and I wish to ensure that it does so. I believe that that is in the interest of this country, and that the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or of those who explicitly want to withdraw from Europe, is totally wrong and contrary to our national interest.

Well it looks as thought those things ("we have set out") i.e.Red Lines as set out in the Foreign Office White Paper are "Red Herrings"

In today's Times Online it is reported that, THE European Court of Justice is set to blow a billion-pound hole in the Governments finances this week with an early ruling on Britain's corporation tax

As usual Richard North pickes it up on this, in his blog eureferendum and concludes with:

Thus, in the week that the general election is to be kicked off, you can bet your sweet life that none of the main parties is going to be too keen to flag this one. And what is the betting that the BBC does not even report it?

Come to think of it, why is it being reported only in the business section of The Times? Hey folks, £5 billion is a hell of a lot of money – a massive amount of money, a truly gigantic slug of money, an amount of money that it is almost impossible to visualise and no single mortal could conceive of spending.

Well come on chaps send an email to pm@bbc.co.uk


Sunday, April 03, 2005

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

Roundup # 7 BritBlog

Here we are again BritBlog Roundup # 7 by Tim Worstall. Amongst this weeks recommendations there are two blogs, which I have not come across before alfred the ok and Xen of Phobe .


Saturday, April 02, 2005

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

Reminder to Blair

The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

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

I see no European Union

On this day in 1801 Admiral Horatio Nelson, aboard HMS Elephant, put his telescope to his blind eye at the Battle of Copenhagen, and so did not see the signal from Admiral Parker to cease fighting.

Lord Nelson's object in sending on shore a Flag of Truce is humanity. He therefore consents that hostilities shall cease till Lord Nelson can take his prisoners out of the Prizes and he consents to land all the wounded Danes, and to burn or remove his prizes. Lord Nelson, with humble duty to his Royal Highness, begs leave to say that he will ever esteem it the greatest victory he ever gained if this Flag of Truce may be the happy forerunner of a lasting and happy union between my most Gracious Sovereign and His Majesty the King of Denmark.

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

Smoking Bolkestein

Today, the world is contemplating the imminent death of a Head of State, for let us not forget, that the Vatican City was established as an independent State by the Lateran Treaties in 1929. The concordat between the Holy See and the kingdom of Italy was signed in the Lateran Palace, Rome, by Cardinal Gasparri for Pius XI and by Benito Mussolini for Victor Emmanuel III.

Now being the cynic that I am, it crossed my mind that the economy of the Vatican City is based upon services. Essentially services with a small amount of industry; (note - dignitaries, bishops, priests, nuns, etc.) This unique, non-commercial economy is supported financially by an annual contribution from Roman Catholic dioceses throughout the world, as well as by special collections, known as Peter's Pence; the sale of postage stamps, coins, medals, and tourist mementoes; fees for admission to museums; and the sale of publications. Investments and real estate income also account for a sizeable portion of revenue and they are also involved in world-wide banking and financial activities.

Now, if my memory is correct, the Vatican City is not a member of the EU, so how is it, being a third state, able to provide these Services to EU member States. (I thought Bolkestein was dead)

It has also occurred to me, that when the time comes to select the next Vatican City head of state, they may breach their international treaty obligations. The Vatican City are signatories to 1979 International Convention on Long Range Transboundary Pollution: which was Introduced to control the transboundary effects of acid rain and to limit emission of acidifying pollutants.

Think about it, the world will soon be watching for the black or white smoke, which will billow from a chimney to the right of the basilica.


Friday, April 01, 2005

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


The British Declaration of Independence

54, Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RP

www.bdicampaign.org Email: info@bdicampaign.org

Patrons: Rodney Atkinson, Lord Deramore, Lady Fieldhouse, Professor Antony Flew, Frederick Forsyth CBE, Toby Horton, Lady Neill of Bladen, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Leolin Price CBE QC, Sir Alfred Sherman, Lord Stoddart of Swindon,

The late Norris McWhirter CBE MA and the late Sir Julian Hodge K.St.G.,K.St.J., LLD were Founding Patrons



The British Declaration of Independence is the most powerful constitutional and electoral tool yet developed. It commits election candidates to legislation to assert the Sovereignty of the British people. It prevents sovereignty candidates in different parties wiping each other out at this election.

It is vital that we maximise the number of PETITIONERS on our website

PLEASE GO TO www.bdicampaign.org AND PETITION NOW

Candidates of the parliamentary parties must know how many votes they can gain by signing the Declaration and committing to sovereignty legislation.



Listed on BlogShares