http://igst.blogspot.com/2007/12/europe-in-vice.html
The structure of the European Union is such that power will ebb inexorably away from national governments and flow to Brussels. European Union laws supersede national laws and can be enacted to some degree free of control by national legislatures. This bodes ill for Europe.
Any hope that there are strong constituencies within the European Union willing to safeguard democratic control of government cannot but be dashed when there is such evident contempt for voters in European political circles as evidenced by the manner in which they are attempting to implement the defunct E.U. Constitution.
First, the structure of the E.U. that facilitates centralization:
[L]aws in the EU are made by the Council of Ministers, i.e. the committee of 27 ministers for whichever subject is being voted on, EU integration means that governments receive wide-ranging law-making powers.
This is, of course, incompatible with the principle of the separation of powers. According to that principle, the executive power (the government) should be separate from, and accountable to, the legislature (the national parliament) and of course the judiciary. Dictatorship is precisely the form of government in which the executive is not so constrained, and this is also the case in the EU.
Because the EU represents a dramatic and constant transfer of legislative power from national legislatures to national executives (sitting in the Council of Ministers), it can also be dubbed “a permanent coup d’état”. . . . The fact that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s legislature, meets and votes in secret only makes the fundamentally anti-democratic character of the European construction even clearer.[1]
The structure of the European Union thus favors a dangerous transfer of power to a Council of Ministers meeting and voting in secret.
The conduct of the E.U.'s proponents, as opposed to its structure, shows similar contempt for democratic governance. Witness the underhanded way in which the previously rejected-by-voters E.U. constitution is being foisted back on the people of Britain and Europe by merely breaking apart the same constitution and attaching those parts to existing treaties. This is being done by a process of amendment, which amendments deliberately use impenetrable hypertechnical language and require the interested observer to plough back through the extant treaties to understand how a disembodied amending provision relates back.
Then there's always the aboveboard contempt for European voters. From Valery Giscard d'Estaing, former president of France:
The rejection of the constitution [by the voters in referendums] was a mistake which will have to be corrected [by more sagacious people].[2]
And:
"Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly [...] All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.[3]
This drift toward a powerful and unconstrained executive in the European Union is deathly serious. It is the opposite approach taken by our founding document, which should be as useful a guide to Europeans as it is -- or might be -- to us.
Alas, European political leaders now flirt with centralization of power in a manner demonstrating that the preeminent political lesson of the twentieth century was not learned. They thus risk laying the foundation for an oppressive superstate. How far this process will go before Europe slides back into black fascism or red fascism is no small question.
Tragically, at the same time, these political leaders remain blind to – or cowed by -- the totalitarian menace growing in their midst, but which has its roots not in the twentieth but in the seventh century.
Europe is now effectively caught between the arms of a vice.
Notes
[1] "Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty." By John Laughland, The Brussels Journal, 12/19/07 (emphasis added).
[2] "The Betrayal of Freedom in Europe: Back in the EUSSR." The Brussels Journal, 12/19/07.
[3] Id. (Emphasis added.)
posted by Col. B. Bunny at 12/19/2007
Showing posts with label nonaccountability of government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nonaccountability of government. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Monday, January 14, 2008
In Looney Britain, Citizens Don't Even Have 'Property Rights' in Themselves!!
[Property means] that dominion which one man claims and
exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion
of every other individual. . . . [I]t embraces everything to
which a man may attach a value and have a right; and
which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former
sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called
his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in
his opinions and the free communication of them. . . . He
has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of
his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his
faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ
them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his
property, he may be equally said to have a property in his
rights.
JAMES MADISON, Property, THE NAT’L GAZETTE, Mar. 29, 1792, reprinted in 14
THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 266-67 (Robert A. Rutland et al. eds., 1983) (emphasis added).
British PM Urges No-consent Organ Harvesting
exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion
of every other individual. . . . [I]t embraces everything to
which a man may attach a value and have a right; and
which leaves to every one else the like advantage. In the former
sense, a man’s land, or merchandize, or money is called
his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in
his opinions and the free communication of them. . . . He
has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of
his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his
faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ
them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his
property, he may be equally said to have a property in his
rights.
JAMES MADISON, Property, THE NAT’L GAZETTE, Mar. 29, 1792, reprinted in 14
THE PAPERS OF JAMES MADISON 266-67 (Robert A. Rutland et al. eds., 1983) (emphasis added).
British PM Urges No-consent Organ Harvesting
By Patrick HennessyArticle published Jan 14, 2008 January 14, 2008 \
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH LONDON —
Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday threw his weight behind a move to allow hospitals to remove organs from dead patients without explicit consent.
Writing in the Sunday Telegraph, Mr. Brown said such a move would save thousands of lives and that he hopes such a system can start this year. The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of a national register or family members objected. But patients' groups said they are "totally opposed" to Mr. Brown's plan, arguing it would take away patients' rights over their own bodies.
There are more than 8,000 patients awaiting organ donation in Britain, and more than 1,000 a year die without receiving the organ that could save their lives. The government next week will begin an overhaul of the system, putting pressure on doctors and nurses to identify more "potential organ donors" from dying patients.
Hospitals will be rated for the number of deceased patients they "convert" into donors, and doctors will be expected to identify potential donors earlier and alert donor coordinators as patients approach death. But Mr. Brown, who carries a donor card, made it clear he backs an even-more radical revamp of the system, which would lead to donation by "presumed consent."
The approach is modeled on that of Spain, which has the highest proportion of organ donors in the world. "A system of this kind seems to have the potential to close the aching gap between the potential benefits of transplant surgery in the [United Kingdom] and the limits imposed by our current system of consent," Mr. Brown wrote. He voted against such a system in 2004 — but sources close to the prime minister said Saturday night that the measure proposed at that time did not allow families to have the final say.
Patients' groups said they are appalled by Mr. Brown's intervention. "They call it presumed consent, but it is no consent at all," said Joyce Robin, from the watchdog group Patient Concern.
"They are relying on inertia and ignorance to get the results that they want." She said the government has made little effort to recruit people to donate organs after death. "Where is the big media campaign? Where are the leaflets? Why, when I go to see my [doctor], doesn't he ask me about organ donation? These are the things they should be doing — not taking away our right to decide what happens to our bodies." Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association charity, agreed. "We don't think a private decision, which is a matter of individual conscience, should be taken by the state. If people want to give the gift of life, that is their right, but it must be something that is a voluntary matter."
A task force report to be released tomorrow calls for a senior doctor to be appointed in every hospital as a "champion" of donation, along with a lay person to spread the message about the importance of donation locally. The task force, which is to publish a report on "presumed consent" this summer, hopes its 14 recommendations will lead to 50 percent more donations in five years.
Sarkozy to Make France the 'Soul' of a 'New Renaissance" With 'A Policy of Civilization' Required By Europe's 'Old World.'???
A Union of the West? Balladur says it's time
By John Vinocur
Monday, January 7, 2008
International Herald Tribune
PARIS: And now for something radical. It's an idea that comes from a dour-looking man with an acute political mind whose ecclesiastically scarlet or royally purple socks peak out from under the dark trousers of Savile Row suits.
Here's his notion: The United States and Europe soon risk being overtaken by the rest of the world. To hold on to their place and value system, they ought to form an organic alliance, a Union of the West.
The time to get moving is now.
The idea comes from Edouard Balladur, the former French prime minister whose belly-of-the-beast Gaullist establishment credentials stretch back 40 years. Today, part of his pertinence lies in a close relationship with Nicolas Sarkozy, once his budget minister and spokesman, who a decade ago argued that Balladur would make a better president than Jacques Chirac.
For all its deliberately provocative and spiky aura, Balladur's Union of the West concept is not a bolt out of the blue.
Rather, it extends into a Great Notion a current, but still hesitant, attempt to bring the United States and the European Union closer together.
That project involves the sketchy outlines of a trans-Atlantic economic zone. Pushed by Angela Merkel, and backed in principle by Gordon Brown, it led last year to promising meetings between groups of EU commissioners and U.S. cabinet-level officials aimed at a vast harmonization of trade-related issues.
Worthy stuff, not radical or sexy, yet an undertaking that, an American participant said, "I think has legs."
But its wide, underlying premise has been left without substantial articulation by Merkel and Brown - and avoided by the Bush administration:
Europe and the United States acting in concert can best deal with China and Russia's advance, and the instability brought by radical Islam. Reality insists that alone, the Americans and Europeans have growing disadvantages in a world where the rule of law and democracy are not serving as controls over newly distributed economic and political power.
Balladur confronts the issue. He makes the case that half-measures that fail to bundle the West's strengths won't be a sufficient response. In a 120-page essay titled "Pour une Union occidentale entre l'Europe et les États-Unis," he says:
"History is starting to be made without the West, and perhaps one day it will be made against it.
"There's a simple method for avoiding this. The people of the West must become aware of the risk and convince themselves that the greatest possible solidarity between them is the only means for dealing with it."
For Balladur, there must be "a new alliance between Europe and America, and even more - a true union."
Twenty years ago, he told me, the idea was premature. That was just after the fall of the Berlin Wall and in the midst of the Soviet Union's implosion, when Secretary of State James Baker called for the development of a new, organic relationship between the European Union and the United States.
America was too uniquely all-powerful, and Europe too weak and suspicious of American dominance, for it to happen then. Now, in a new context, with the limits of U.S. power more apparent, and Europe's chances as a go-it-alone superstate limited or rejected, the concept has become actual.
Last autumn, Merkel, heightening the tone of her interest, said Europeans and Americans mistook "the mission of the trans-Atlantic relationship" if they did not to see that "combining our strengths goes in our interests, to our conception of being able to live by certain values."
Now, according to Balladur, France, as a former symbol of anti-Americanism, which realizes a weakened America disserves European interests, must take the initiative in creating a Union of the West.
The practicalities: a permanent Union secretariat to prepare common positions for international meetings; gradual creation of a common trans-Atlantic market; linkage between the dollar and euro; converging policies on energy supply and its security; and the creation of a trans-Atlantic executive council of leaders that would convene every three months.
Balladur won't say if that council should have decision-making powers. But he insists it would represent "immense progress" if it met frequently, and if "neither Europeans nor Americans could decide anything about common problems without having talked them through beforehand."
Drivel born out of desperation? An escapist proposal that excuses the rich and comfortable from looking closer and less indulgently at their own failures?
"Too great an ambition?" Balladur asks the question himself, and sounds Oswald Spengler-ish in providing an answer.
"There aren't any others that will allow the West to escape the decline threatening it." America's indispensability has a 20-year time frame; Europe has to stop "nourishing" its "illusion of power."
Sarkozy's old mentor sent his essay to the president, and he has telephoned Balladur to thank him for it.
For a politician who lives his life and makes policy outside the confines of convention, great ambitions don't confront much inhibition.
Seven months into a five-year term, Sarkozy has already struck a claim to European leadership, proposed a Mediterranean Union for the European and Arab countries along its shores and readied France's reintegration in NATO on the condition it gets its share of prestigious commands.
He plays big.
Sarkozy's New Year's to-do list includes making France the "soul" of a "new renaissance" with "a policy of civilization" required by "our old world."
On a Union of the West, if Sarkozy played a little smaller against the background of a leadership change in America, reaching not so much for effect but for the proposal's nuggets of practicality and general good sense, it might just have a long-shot chance at some success.
By John Vinocur
Monday, January 7, 2008
International Herald Tribune
PARIS: And now for something radical. It's an idea that comes from a dour-looking man with an acute political mind whose ecclesiastically scarlet or royally purple socks peak out from under the dark trousers of Savile Row suits.
Here's his notion: The United States and Europe soon risk being overtaken by the rest of the world. To hold on to their place and value system, they ought to form an organic alliance, a Union of the West.
The time to get moving is now.
The idea comes from Edouard Balladur, the former French prime minister whose belly-of-the-beast Gaullist establishment credentials stretch back 40 years. Today, part of his pertinence lies in a close relationship with Nicolas Sarkozy, once his budget minister and spokesman, who a decade ago argued that Balladur would make a better president than Jacques Chirac.
For all its deliberately provocative and spiky aura, Balladur's Union of the West concept is not a bolt out of the blue.
Rather, it extends into a Great Notion a current, but still hesitant, attempt to bring the United States and the European Union closer together.
That project involves the sketchy outlines of a trans-Atlantic economic zone. Pushed by Angela Merkel, and backed in principle by Gordon Brown, it led last year to promising meetings between groups of EU commissioners and U.S. cabinet-level officials aimed at a vast harmonization of trade-related issues.
Worthy stuff, not radical or sexy, yet an undertaking that, an American participant said, "I think has legs."
But its wide, underlying premise has been left without substantial articulation by Merkel and Brown - and avoided by the Bush administration:
Europe and the United States acting in concert can best deal with China and Russia's advance, and the instability brought by radical Islam. Reality insists that alone, the Americans and Europeans have growing disadvantages in a world where the rule of law and democracy are not serving as controls over newly distributed economic and political power.
Balladur confronts the issue. He makes the case that half-measures that fail to bundle the West's strengths won't be a sufficient response. In a 120-page essay titled "Pour une Union occidentale entre l'Europe et les États-Unis," he says:
"History is starting to be made without the West, and perhaps one day it will be made against it.
"There's a simple method for avoiding this. The people of the West must become aware of the risk and convince themselves that the greatest possible solidarity between them is the only means for dealing with it."
For Balladur, there must be "a new alliance between Europe and America, and even more - a true union."
Twenty years ago, he told me, the idea was premature. That was just after the fall of the Berlin Wall and in the midst of the Soviet Union's implosion, when Secretary of State James Baker called for the development of a new, organic relationship between the European Union and the United States.
America was too uniquely all-powerful, and Europe too weak and suspicious of American dominance, for it to happen then. Now, in a new context, with the limits of U.S. power more apparent, and Europe's chances as a go-it-alone superstate limited or rejected, the concept has become actual.
Last autumn, Merkel, heightening the tone of her interest, said Europeans and Americans mistook "the mission of the trans-Atlantic relationship" if they did not to see that "combining our strengths goes in our interests, to our conception of being able to live by certain values."
Now, according to Balladur, France, as a former symbol of anti-Americanism, which realizes a weakened America disserves European interests, must take the initiative in creating a Union of the West.
The practicalities: a permanent Union secretariat to prepare common positions for international meetings; gradual creation of a common trans-Atlantic market; linkage between the dollar and euro; converging policies on energy supply and its security; and the creation of a trans-Atlantic executive council of leaders that would convene every three months.
Balladur won't say if that council should have decision-making powers. But he insists it would represent "immense progress" if it met frequently, and if "neither Europeans nor Americans could decide anything about common problems without having talked them through beforehand."
Drivel born out of desperation? An escapist proposal that excuses the rich and comfortable from looking closer and less indulgently at their own failures?
"Too great an ambition?" Balladur asks the question himself, and sounds Oswald Spengler-ish in providing an answer.
"There aren't any others that will allow the West to escape the decline threatening it." America's indispensability has a 20-year time frame; Europe has to stop "nourishing" its "illusion of power."
Sarkozy's old mentor sent his essay to the president, and he has telephoned Balladur to thank him for it.
For a politician who lives his life and makes policy outside the confines of convention, great ambitions don't confront much inhibition.
Seven months into a five-year term, Sarkozy has already struck a claim to European leadership, proposed a Mediterranean Union for the European and Arab countries along its shores and readied France's reintegration in NATO on the condition it gets its share of prestigious commands.
He plays big.
Sarkozy's New Year's to-do list includes making France the "soul" of a "new renaissance" with "a policy of civilization" required by "our old world."
On a Union of the West, if Sarkozy played a little smaller against the background of a leadership change in America, reaching not so much for effect but for the proposal's nuggets of practicality and general good sense, it might just have a long-shot chance at some success.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
11/6/07 E-mail Correspondences Between Roger Helmer UK Member of European Parliament & Lawrence Kogan, ITSSD CEO
The following reflects a series of e-mail correspondences between Roger Helmer, UK Member of the European Parliament and ITSSD CEO/President Lawrence Kogan during November 6, 2007:
The Context:
The correspondences arose as the result of a recent UK Telegraph article entitled "Giscard: EU Treaty is the Constitution Rewritten". See: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/destaing-french-father-of-europe-admits.html .
The ITSSD believes it is critical to emphasize to the American people how the EU Brussels institutions and leadership tried to get the renegotiated EU treaty past the electorate without a referendum.
According to ITSSD CEO Lawrence Kogan,
"If, as is apparent, the EU governmental apparatus in Brussels, which includes representatives of the EU member states, would endeavor to deceive its own citizens in this fashion, what do you think it would endeavor to do to the United States as the result of entering into the Faustian bargain it appears to have concluded with the White House concerning the trade-off of EU support for PSI in exchange for US support of UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - See: "UNCLOS Alchemy" at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/11/unclos-alchemy.html ] and other environmental treaties?"
In response to the UK Telegraph article and to this point delivered by an intermediary, Roger Helmer made the following Nov. 6 comment:
"...[A]ny number of EU leaders have been falling over themselves to say that the Treaty is 90%, or 95%, or 98% of the Constitution. It is quite extraordinary that Gordon Brown and his ministers can go round insisting that the Treaty is "a totally different document" in the face of all this publicity. You may like to know that the London think-tank Open Europe has done an excellent line-by-line comparison of the two documents, which makes the case beyond denial.
E-Mail Correspondences:
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 15:10
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: FW: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Helmer:
I was recently forwarded your note in response to our concern about the D'Estaing article appearing in a recent issue of the Telegraph. It is fascinating how, in this day and age of interconnectedness and immediate information that politicians would try to 'pull a fast one' over on the electorate as they seemingly have tried to do on both sides of the pond - the EU as concerns the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution; the White House as concerns the UNCLOS.
We have been tracking the EU constitutional debate most recently since at least June and have concluded that the failure to resolve the constitutional conundrum in the manner desired by the 'fathers of Europe' would deal a death-knell blow to the federalism concept and preserve England's national sovereignty.
We also found that the UN climate change debate which now focuses on preserving the marine environment with the US ratification of UNCLOS serves as another diversion from this constitutional dilemma. It seems that the Brussels' institutions need to 'project outward' their environmental concerns and proposed solutions in order to cure the failings within the union, even if it means infringing on fundamental human/constitutional rights, 'negative' exclusive private property rights chief among them. Please see:
http://www.itssd.org/White%20Papers/Europe_sWarningsonClimateChangeBelieMoreNuancedConcerns.pdf
Lastly, we are curious to know why D'Estaing 'outed' Brussels on the Treaty/Constitution. Was it merely an exercise of 'damage control' given that the information had been publicly 'leaked', or is there more to his confession???
We will soon highlight the parallel of these two situations to the American public.
Thank you for your consideration and interest.
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:13 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Thanks for this: good to hear from you. Thanks also for your interesting comments, and for the link.
On your question about Giscard: we have a bizarre situation where European politicians not under pressure to hold referenda are actually proud of their achievement in retaining most of the failed Constitution. They feel they have solved a problem. On the Open Europe web-site you will find a whole series of comments from them, many containing numerical estimates. They seek to outbid each other, claiming 90%, 95%, 98% of the Constitution "saved". You will also find a point-by-point comparison of the clauses in the Constitution and in the "Treaty".
Giscard himself has a lot of personal capital invested in the Constitution, and its rejection was a huge set-back for him personally. So he is intensely proud that virtually every line has been saved.
But at the same time politicians facing pressure for referenda, like our own Gordon Brown, have no option but to insist that it's a quite different document. Indeed in terms of technical structure they have a point. It is an amending treaty, in kind like earlier treaties. It is not a Constitution, which would have swept away the confused dog's breakfast of the early sequence of treaties, while codifying all their substance into a single text.
But this is a minor technical point. In terms of practical effect, the governance of the EU and the independence of member states, it is identical.
Best regards.
ROGER HELMER
www.rogerhelmer.com
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 16:24
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Thank you for your most thorough reply.
Is there a way to create public demand in Europe for more referenda considering that the 'fundamental' right of Europeans 'to be heard' is being trampled on?
Perhaps we could coordinate some type of campaign on this bringing in an assortment of organizations to expose the old 'form over substance' shenanigan being employed at the expense of individual rights??? Will this be their future under a Brussels-driven technocracy of philosopher kings??
Would this hold any sway with the electorate at this point in history?
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:33 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
I really appreciate your offer of help, but we already have a series of campaigns focussed on demanding referenda both in individual countries and more widely. Anything you can do to raise awareness of the cynical and deceitful disregard of the European élites for public opinion and democratic values would be much appreciated.
Meantime you are right to point out to an America audience how quickly democracy can tip over into authoritarianism.
I never thought I would say this, but there is a fundamental flaw in our democratic process. Because the EU is a cross-cutting issue for our major political parties, it can leave the voter with no clear way of expressing dissent (except in euro-elections, where the share of vote for rejectionist fringe parties goes shooting up).
That is why various non-party organisations and movements are involved in the campaign. See www.tfa.net; www.betteroffout.co.uk .
Best regards. R.
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 18:23
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Would you be willing to permit me to quote any passage within your correspondence to me to show the authenticity of the democratic deficit in the EU and Britain?? If not, I understand and will respect your wishes to keep my comments general as to the issue without reference to you by name or position.
This may help to drive home the seriousness of what is occurring on both sides of the pond.
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger
Sent: Tuesday, 06 November 2007 12:47 PM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Absolutely. Go for it. And also feel free to quote from my blog, which covers these matters in more detail, or to offer a link to the blog.
Best regards. Roger.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/
The Context:
The correspondences arose as the result of a recent UK Telegraph article entitled "Giscard: EU Treaty is the Constitution Rewritten". See: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/destaing-french-father-of-europe-admits.html .
The ITSSD believes it is critical to emphasize to the American people how the EU Brussels institutions and leadership tried to get the renegotiated EU treaty past the electorate without a referendum.
According to ITSSD CEO Lawrence Kogan,
"If, as is apparent, the EU governmental apparatus in Brussels, which includes representatives of the EU member states, would endeavor to deceive its own citizens in this fashion, what do you think it would endeavor to do to the United States as the result of entering into the Faustian bargain it appears to have concluded with the White House concerning the trade-off of EU support for PSI in exchange for US support of UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - See: "UNCLOS Alchemy" at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/11/unclos-alchemy.html ] and other environmental treaties?"
In response to the UK Telegraph article and to this point delivered by an intermediary, Roger Helmer made the following Nov. 6 comment:
"...[A]ny number of EU leaders have been falling over themselves to say that the Treaty is 90%, or 95%, or 98% of the Constitution. It is quite extraordinary that Gordon Brown and his ministers can go round insisting that the Treaty is "a totally different document" in the face of all this publicity. You may like to know that the London think-tank Open Europe has done an excellent line-by-line comparison of the two documents, which makes the case beyond denial.
E-Mail Correspondences:
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 15:10
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: FW: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Helmer:
I was recently forwarded your note in response to our concern about the D'Estaing article appearing in a recent issue of the Telegraph. It is fascinating how, in this day and age of interconnectedness and immediate information that politicians would try to 'pull a fast one' over on the electorate as they seemingly have tried to do on both sides of the pond - the EU as concerns the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution; the White House as concerns the UNCLOS.
We have been tracking the EU constitutional debate most recently since at least June and have concluded that the failure to resolve the constitutional conundrum in the manner desired by the 'fathers of Europe' would deal a death-knell blow to the federalism concept and preserve England's national sovereignty.
We also found that the UN climate change debate which now focuses on preserving the marine environment with the US ratification of UNCLOS serves as another diversion from this constitutional dilemma. It seems that the Brussels' institutions need to 'project outward' their environmental concerns and proposed solutions in order to cure the failings within the union, even if it means infringing on fundamental human/constitutional rights, 'negative' exclusive private property rights chief among them. Please see:
http://www.itssd.org/White%20Papers/Europe_sWarningsonClimateChangeBelieMoreNuancedConcerns.pdf
Lastly, we are curious to know why D'Estaing 'outed' Brussels on the Treaty/Constitution. Was it merely an exercise of 'damage control' given that the information had been publicly 'leaked', or is there more to his confession???
We will soon highlight the parallel of these two situations to the American public.
Thank you for your consideration and interest.
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:13 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Thanks for this: good to hear from you. Thanks also for your interesting comments, and for the link.
On your question about Giscard: we have a bizarre situation where European politicians not under pressure to hold referenda are actually proud of their achievement in retaining most of the failed Constitution. They feel they have solved a problem. On the Open Europe web-site you will find a whole series of comments from them, many containing numerical estimates. They seek to outbid each other, claiming 90%, 95%, 98% of the Constitution "saved". You will also find a point-by-point comparison of the clauses in the Constitution and in the "Treaty".
Giscard himself has a lot of personal capital invested in the Constitution, and its rejection was a huge set-back for him personally. So he is intensely proud that virtually every line has been saved.
But at the same time politicians facing pressure for referenda, like our own Gordon Brown, have no option but to insist that it's a quite different document. Indeed in terms of technical structure they have a point. It is an amending treaty, in kind like earlier treaties. It is not a Constitution, which would have swept away the confused dog's breakfast of the early sequence of treaties, while codifying all their substance into a single text.
But this is a minor technical point. In terms of practical effect, the governance of the EU and the independence of member states, it is identical.
Best regards.
ROGER HELMER
www.rogerhelmer.com
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 16:24
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Thank you for your most thorough reply.
Is there a way to create public demand in Europe for more referenda considering that the 'fundamental' right of Europeans 'to be heard' is being trampled on?
Perhaps we could coordinate some type of campaign on this bringing in an assortment of organizations to expose the old 'form over substance' shenanigan being employed at the expense of individual rights??? Will this be their future under a Brussels-driven technocracy of philosopher kings??
Would this hold any sway with the electorate at this point in history?
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:33 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
I really appreciate your offer of help, but we already have a series of campaigns focussed on demanding referenda both in individual countries and more widely. Anything you can do to raise awareness of the cynical and deceitful disregard of the European élites for public opinion and democratic values would be much appreciated.
Meantime you are right to point out to an America audience how quickly democracy can tip over into authoritarianism.
I never thought I would say this, but there is a fundamental flaw in our democratic process. Because the EU is a cross-cutting issue for our major political parties, it can leave the voter with no clear way of expressing dissent (except in euro-elections, where the share of vote for rejectionist fringe parties goes shooting up).
That is why various non-party organisations and movements are involved in the campaign. See www.tfa.net; www.betteroffout.co.uk .
Best regards. R.
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 18:23
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Would you be willing to permit me to quote any passage within your correspondence to me to show the authenticity of the democratic deficit in the EU and Britain?? If not, I understand and will respect your wishes to keep my comments general as to the issue without reference to you by name or position.
This may help to drive home the seriousness of what is occurring on both sides of the pond.
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger
Sent: Tuesday, 06 November 2007 12:47 PM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Absolutely. Go for it. And also feel free to quote from my blog, which covers these matters in more detail, or to offer a link to the blog.
Best regards. Roger.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/
Roger Helmer - UK Member of EU Parliament - "Straight Talking" Newsletter Nov. 2007
STRAIGHT TALKING November 2007
Roger Helmer's electronic newsletter from Brussels
roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu
Quote of the Month
"(If we came to power after the EU Treaty was ratified) we would be in a situation where we had a new treaty in force that lacked democratic legitimacy ..... this would not be acceptable to a Conservative government, and we would not let matters rest there". William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary, quoted in the Indy of Nov 13th. Well said William. I'll drink to that.
Pro Referendum Rally
Saturday Oct 27th saw public and politicians converge on Westminster to demand a referendum on the Renamed Constitution (pictures on the web-site). Addressing the crowd from an open-topped double-decker bus were Bob Spink MP (Con); Dan Hannan MEP (Con); myself; Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP); and Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish sceptic MEP.
Parliamentarians representing around 30 million people placed voting papers in a symbolic Ballot Box. The message was clear: we demand a referendum. Is Gordon listening? It seems that only he and a few of his ministers still pretend that there's any material difference between the new Treaty and the failed Constitution.
I have recently made a submission to the House of Lords on this issue on behalf of The Freedom Association. See the text here.
Village referenda
Meantime we've been using the 1972 Local Government Act to force village polls demanding a national referendum. I helped at Loughton (Milton Keynes, just over the regional border) where Conservative Councillor Don Hoyle had set up a poll (95% voted in favour). Meantime in Broughton Astley, England's largest village, in Leicestershire, Ron Clements set up a poll on Nov 1st.
CO2 emissions from cars
The EU Commission has been proposing legislation to require average emissions from each car manufacturer to be reduced to 120 gms/km by 2012. I recorded a piece on the national BBC1 Politics Show on Oct 28th.
This proposal would do huge damage to the industry. But it's also rotten value for money. The European Climate Change Panel has established a series of cost effective measure that could more than achieve our Kyoto targets for less than €20 per ton of CO2. But the cost of the Commission's auto proposal is calculated to be between €132 and €233 a ton. It is amazingly wasteful, damaging and inefficient.
There will be those who say that this issue is so important, we should ignore the cost. But put it like this: if you have €200 to spend on the environment, would you rather stop one ton of CO2 with auto legislation, or 10 tons through more efficient projects? Energy conservation is a less glamorous but much more cost effective approach.
There are even initiatives which would save CO2 and money. For example, if we consolidated the European parliament on one site in Brussels, we would save €200 million a year, and 90,000 tons of CO2! If we built more nuclear power stations, we would save CO2 and save money -- because nuclear electricity is now significantly cheaper than power from fossil fuels.
Chris scores a big hit
Before a recent vote in plenary on pesticide legislation, Chris Heaton-Harris got up on a point of order and remarked that we MEPs had all received a flood of lobbying material from an outfit called Pesticide Watch -- an umbrella group for a bunch of environmental NGOs including Friends of the Earth (acronym "FoE", and rightly so!), most of which receive substantial EU funding.
So here we have the Commission spending tax-payers' money to lobby the European parliament to support the Commission's own legislation! How weird and wasteful and incestuous is that? Chris got some good press coverage on the back of it.
Environment spokesman Stavros Dimas responded that in order to remedy the admitted "democratic deficit" in the EU, it was necessary to support NGOs who could represent the public. Trouble is, they don't represent the public. They are mostly run by single-issue zealots whose first objective is to ensure their own future by exaggerating problems. If we're out to cure the democratic deficit, these NGOs are part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is more to democracy that having the Commission talk to pressure groups that it funds itself.
...Book Choice:
THE SKY'S NOT FALLING: Why it's OK to Chill about Global Warming.
By Holly Fretwell. ISBN 9780 9767 26944. Published by "Kids Ahead Books"
This is a great book for kids, if you want to counter the insidious climate hysteria propaganda in our schools. Described as "fact-filled, fun, apolitical, and optimistic about the future of our magnificent planet", it's aimed at the bright 8 to 12 year old -- but it looks like a good read for grown-ups too. See www.worldahead.com
Two other books...
Stuart Clark, a respected science journalist, has written "The Sun Kings". It raises the intriguing story of astronomer William Herschel, who noticed that the cycle of sunspots correlated with the price of wheat -- but was ridiculed because no one could see a connection. We now know that sunspots drive the Sun's magnetic field, which in turn affects the cosmic ray flux in Earth's upper atmosphere, cloud formation, cloud cover, climate, grain crop yields -- and hence the price of wheat. See link.
Meantime Christopher Booker and Richard North have written "Scared to Death", which deals with the psychology of the repeated media scares that emerge. Remember the Millennium Bug? Of course their big target is global warming, but they have fascinating chapters on other subjects -- including the reason why the rise of the speed camera seems to correlate with a rise in traffic accidents and road deaths. See link.
Roger Helmer's electronic newsletter from Brussels
roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu
Quote of the Month
"(If we came to power after the EU Treaty was ratified) we would be in a situation where we had a new treaty in force that lacked democratic legitimacy ..... this would not be acceptable to a Conservative government, and we would not let matters rest there". William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary, quoted in the Indy of Nov 13th. Well said William. I'll drink to that.
Pro Referendum Rally
Saturday Oct 27th saw public and politicians converge on Westminster to demand a referendum on the Renamed Constitution (pictures on the web-site). Addressing the crowd from an open-topped double-decker bus were Bob Spink MP (Con); Dan Hannan MEP (Con); myself; Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP); and Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish sceptic MEP.
Parliamentarians representing around 30 million people placed voting papers in a symbolic Ballot Box. The message was clear: we demand a referendum. Is Gordon listening? It seems that only he and a few of his ministers still pretend that there's any material difference between the new Treaty and the failed Constitution.
I have recently made a submission to the House of Lords on this issue on behalf of The Freedom Association. See the text here.
Village referenda
Meantime we've been using the 1972 Local Government Act to force village polls demanding a national referendum. I helped at Loughton (Milton Keynes, just over the regional border) where Conservative Councillor Don Hoyle had set up a poll (95% voted in favour). Meantime in Broughton Astley, England's largest village, in Leicestershire, Ron Clements set up a poll on Nov 1st.
CO2 emissions from cars
The EU Commission has been proposing legislation to require average emissions from each car manufacturer to be reduced to 120 gms/km by 2012. I recorded a piece on the national BBC1 Politics Show on Oct 28th.
This proposal would do huge damage to the industry. But it's also rotten value for money. The European Climate Change Panel has established a series of cost effective measure that could more than achieve our Kyoto targets for less than €20 per ton of CO2. But the cost of the Commission's auto proposal is calculated to be between €132 and €233 a ton. It is amazingly wasteful, damaging and inefficient.
There will be those who say that this issue is so important, we should ignore the cost. But put it like this: if you have €200 to spend on the environment, would you rather stop one ton of CO2 with auto legislation, or 10 tons through more efficient projects? Energy conservation is a less glamorous but much more cost effective approach.
There are even initiatives which would save CO2 and money. For example, if we consolidated the European parliament on one site in Brussels, we would save €200 million a year, and 90,000 tons of CO2! If we built more nuclear power stations, we would save CO2 and save money -- because nuclear electricity is now significantly cheaper than power from fossil fuels.
Chris scores a big hit
Before a recent vote in plenary on pesticide legislation, Chris Heaton-Harris got up on a point of order and remarked that we MEPs had all received a flood of lobbying material from an outfit called Pesticide Watch -- an umbrella group for a bunch of environmental NGOs including Friends of the Earth (acronym "FoE", and rightly so!), most of which receive substantial EU funding.
So here we have the Commission spending tax-payers' money to lobby the European parliament to support the Commission's own legislation! How weird and wasteful and incestuous is that? Chris got some good press coverage on the back of it.
Environment spokesman Stavros Dimas responded that in order to remedy the admitted "democratic deficit" in the EU, it was necessary to support NGOs who could represent the public. Trouble is, they don't represent the public. They are mostly run by single-issue zealots whose first objective is to ensure their own future by exaggerating problems. If we're out to cure the democratic deficit, these NGOs are part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is more to democracy that having the Commission talk to pressure groups that it funds itself.
...Book Choice:
THE SKY'S NOT FALLING: Why it's OK to Chill about Global Warming.
By Holly Fretwell. ISBN 9780 9767 26944. Published by "Kids Ahead Books"
This is a great book for kids, if you want to counter the insidious climate hysteria propaganda in our schools. Described as "fact-filled, fun, apolitical, and optimistic about the future of our magnificent planet", it's aimed at the bright 8 to 12 year old -- but it looks like a good read for grown-ups too. See www.worldahead.com
Two other books...
Stuart Clark, a respected science journalist, has written "The Sun Kings". It raises the intriguing story of astronomer William Herschel, who noticed that the cycle of sunspots correlated with the price of wheat -- but was ridiculed because no one could see a connection. We now know that sunspots drive the Sun's magnetic field, which in turn affects the cosmic ray flux in Earth's upper atmosphere, cloud formation, cloud cover, climate, grain crop yields -- and hence the price of wheat. See link.
Meantime Christopher Booker and Richard North have written "Scared to Death", which deals with the psychology of the repeated media scares that emerge. Remember the Millennium Bug? Of course their big target is global warming, but they have fascinating chapters on other subjects -- including the reason why the rise of the speed camera seems to correlate with a rise in traffic accidents and road deaths. See link.
Will America Follow the UK Down the 'Slippery Slope' of Unaccountable EU-Driven Global Governance? UK 'I Want a Referendum' Campaign Instructive
IWR Campaigning Across the Country
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/PRDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1137
Press releases
16/10/07
...Why we need a referendum
EU leaders admit the new treaty is the same as the old EU Constitution
In the 2005 election the Government promised to hold a referendum on the proposed EU Constitution. Later that year, French and Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the Constitution in their own referendums.
But EU leaders refused to listen. They are now trying to reintroduce the rejected Constitution in the form of a new treaty. Although they have changed the name, the contents are almost exactly the same. This is a deeply dishonest process.
The author of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, says: “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero admits: “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel says simply: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
To find out more about what people across Europe are saying about the revised EU Constitution download our pamphlet: "They said it".
[ http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf ].
Only 10 out of 250 proposals in the “new” treaty are different from the proposals in the original EU Constitution. In other words, 96% of the text is the same as the rejected Constitution. Of the few changes there are, very few are of any significance – for example, the new version of the Constitutional Treaty no longer mentions the symbols of the Union, like its flag and anthem. However, of course these symbols already exist.
The think-tank Open Europe has produced a side-by-side textual comparison of the old and new versions of the Constitution. You can download a copy here.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case.aspx
They said it: What people are saying about the new EU Constitution
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(2) Weakening our ability to say “no” to EU laws we don’t want
A new voting system would cut Britain’s power to block EU laws it opposes by 30%. The UK’s veto - our right to say no - would be given up in 60 new areas covering everything from employment law to energy policy.
This could mean, for example:
Higher fuel bills. The European Commission has proposed a huge increase in oil reserves, which would have cost the UK up to £3 billion to implement. Previously the UK was able to veto this proposal, but under the Constitution it could go ahead.
The Government was able to water down some of the most damaging aspects of the EU’s Financial Services Action Plan by forming a blocking minority with a number of small member states. Many of the proposals were purely intended to favour other EU countries over the UK, and could have cost the UK billions. With our power to block legislation cut this would not have been possible.
Inevitably even more regulation would be passed. According to the Government’s own figures EU regulation since 1998 has cost the UK £40 billion. The Constitutional Treaty would mean even higher costs. No wonder that polls show that 81% of UK firms want the EU to do less, not more.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case3.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(1) Making it harder to fight crime
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/PRDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1137
Press releases
16/10/07
...Why we need a referendum
EU leaders admit the new treaty is the same as the old EU Constitution
In the 2005 election the Government promised to hold a referendum on the proposed EU Constitution. Later that year, French and Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the Constitution in their own referendums.
But EU leaders refused to listen. They are now trying to reintroduce the rejected Constitution in the form of a new treaty. Although they have changed the name, the contents are almost exactly the same. This is a deeply dishonest process.
The author of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, says: “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero admits: “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel says simply: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
To find out more about what people across Europe are saying about the revised EU Constitution download our pamphlet: "They said it".
[ http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf ].
Only 10 out of 250 proposals in the “new” treaty are different from the proposals in the original EU Constitution. In other words, 96% of the text is the same as the rejected Constitution. Of the few changes there are, very few are of any significance – for example, the new version of the Constitutional Treaty no longer mentions the symbols of the Union, like its flag and anthem. However, of course these symbols already exist.
The think-tank Open Europe has produced a side-by-side textual comparison of the old and new versions of the Constitution. You can download a copy here.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case.aspx
They said it: What people are saying about the new EU Constitution
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(2) Weakening our ability to say “no” to EU laws we don’t want
A new voting system would cut Britain’s power to block EU laws it opposes by 30%. The UK’s veto - our right to say no - would be given up in 60 new areas covering everything from employment law to energy policy.
This could mean, for example:
Higher fuel bills. The European Commission has proposed a huge increase in oil reserves, which would have cost the UK up to £3 billion to implement. Previously the UK was able to veto this proposal, but under the Constitution it could go ahead.
The Government was able to water down some of the most damaging aspects of the EU’s Financial Services Action Plan by forming a blocking minority with a number of small member states. Many of the proposals were purely intended to favour other EU countries over the UK, and could have cost the UK billions. With our power to block legislation cut this would not have been possible.
Inevitably even more regulation would be passed. According to the Government’s own figures EU regulation since 1998 has cost the UK £40 billion. The Constitutional Treaty would mean even higher costs. No wonder that polls show that 81% of UK firms want the EU to do less, not more.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case3.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(1) Making it harder to fight crime
EU judges would gain power over justice and policing for the first time. The European Court of Justice would become the highest court in the land and would begin to set the UK's substantive criminal law. The Government has admitted that this would be a fundamental transfer of “national sovereignty”.
It would become illegal under EU law to try someone twice for the same crime. This would mean that criminals like Billy Dunlop, who was successfully convicted of murdering Julie Hogg when new evidence came to light 15 years after he was originally acquitted, would not have been convicted.
The Constitutional Treaty also states that “the severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence”, which could undermine the discretion of British judges to keep infamous killers like Rosemary West in jail permanently.
EU officials have already told a BBC reporter that they will use their new powers to pass judgement on the UK’s anti-terror laws. The BBC’s Europe Editor reported: “A Commission spokesman was telling me, “Well we’d want to look at things like Belmarsh, can you hold foreign suspects indefinitely?” The Commission don’t like it, so Britain could get hammered.”
The EU would gain other new powers over criminal justice. The EU’s police force, Europol, would be able to initiate investigations on British soil for the first time, making it more like a European version of America’s FBI.
This could have worrying implications. Unlike British police forces, Europol’s officers are largely unaccountable. They cannot be compelled to testify in court and are immune from prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties. Europol also has its own problems with corruption – for example its offices were raided by Belgian police as part of a fraud investigation.
The European Prosecutor “Eurojust” will also get sweeping new powers. Johannes Thuy, a spokesman for Eurojust, confirmed that “We could compel the British police to make a prosecution.”
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case2.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(3) Less control over asylum and migration
The European Court of Justice would gain substantial new powers to determine the rights of migrants. There would be far more rulings like the recent Chindamo case, in which the UK Government found itself powerless to deport the convicted murderer of school headmaster Philip Lawrence.
The Government has admitted that the proposals in the Constitutional Treaty will mean even more costly asylum and immigration appeals. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon said: “there is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would become legally binding under the Constitution, could also complicate attempts to deport terror suspects and other foreign criminals. This could lead to increased costs for UK taxpayers as migrants claim benefits while they wait for their case to be heard. It currently takes two years before the ECJ even begins to hear an appeal.
New rights set out in the Constitution are likely to erode the current strict limits stopping EU migrants from claiming benefits in the UK if they have not worked. A new “burden sharing” requirement means that UK taxpayers will have to pay for the upkeep of migrants even in other countries. The UK Government initially opposed most of these new EU powers – but it later gave way.
While there are a range of views about all these issues, most people think they should be decided in the UK by accountable politicians. But under the Constitutional Treaty the European Court of Justice would end up making what are essentially political decisions. If British politicians disagreed with these judges, it would be impossible to get the rulings overturned.
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case4.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(4) More EU powers over our foreign policy and defence
The Constitution sets up an EU Foreign Minister, an EU Diplomatic Service, and gives the EU the right to sign treaties – just like a single country. It introduces majority voting into all kinds of foreign policy questions.
The Spanish Prime Minister has predicted that “We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.” The British Government opposed many of these proposals, including the automatic right of the new EU Foreign Minister to speak on our behalf in the UN Security Council, but later gave in.
The Constitutional Treaty also sets up a “structured cooperation” group, in which the UK will participate. It states that members will have to achieve “approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment” and “bring their defence apparatus into line with each other”. A research paper by the European Federalists notes that “Structured Co-operation in the field of Defence is a significant step towards a Single European Army.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel also said earlier this year that “Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army.”
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has said “When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it ‘Margaret’, you can call it ‘Mary Ann’, you can call it any name.”
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero has said that “Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power… The Constitution is an important step in this direction.”
What this grandiose vision means in practice is that while British soldiers are being undermined in Iraq and Afghanistan for want of basic equipment, the EU wants us to divert billions of pounds to wasteful projects like the Galileo satellite system - because of its desire to play the role of a “superpower”. Regardless of what you think about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is bad for our armed forces.
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case5.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(5) New EU powers over our public services
Health and education:
The Constitutional Treaty puts the EU in charge of public health, and ends the right of veto in this area. The EU would in future regulate medical standards. A new “right to preventative healthcare” could open the NHS up to a slew of costly ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The Constitution ends the veto over trade agreements in public services like health and education. So our Parliament would no longer have a say over deals which determine how these services are managed.
Public spending rules:
The UK Government has rightly criticised the EU’s public spending rules for discriminating against long term investment. But instead of fixing this problem the Constitution means that the EU’s guidelines on public spending would be more tightly enforced, as no member state will be able to vote against being censured under the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines.
Transport:
Under the Constitution, Britain gives up the veto in transport. Jacques Barrot, EU Transport Commissioner, recently said that the EU wants to run EU wide road-pricing operations. The AA have warned that this would lead to a loss of privacy.
Public service management:
Equally importantly, the Constitutional Treaty does nothing to rein in the European Court of Justice, which in recent years has produced a string of rulings which make it difficult to prioritise NHS spending, and allows those who are willing to threaten legal action to jump the queue.
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case6.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(6) It doesn’t sort out the EU’s chronic problems: cost and waste continue
Cost:
Britain is paying £10.5 billion a year into the EU – more than we spend on the police. We have to pay in roughly twice as much as we get back, while countries that are richer than Britain take more out than they put in.
High prices:
The EU’s farm subsidies and trade barriers cost the average family of four £1,500 a year in higher prices and tax. The Constitution could make reform even more difficult by giving the European Parliament new powers over spending.
Fraud:
The new treaty does nothing to sort out the EU’s chronic problems with fraud. According to its own figures, the EU loses £1 million every working day to fraud. Its budget has not been signed off by its own auditors for twelve years in a row.
Hurting poor countries:
The EU’s protectionist trade barriers and farm subsidies cost the poorest countries in the world billions every year.
Waste:
The EU now has 63,000 civil servants working full time churning out new laws. It spends £200 million a year just ferrying euro-MPs back and forth between its two parliament buildings in Strasbourg and Brussels every month.
Help us make politicians keep their promises
Gordon Brown is determined to stop you having a vote on the EU Constitution – despite being elected on a manifesto that promised the British people a referendum. If we are going to persuade him to change his mind, we need your help. This is your last chance to have a say…
Unlike previous treaties, the Constitutional Treaty would be self-amending. This means that in future the powers of the EU could be increased further without the need for any new treaty. Further vetoes could be given up by the Government without the permission of our Parliament.
Because EU leaders could vote to incrementally give the EU more powers, the constitutional treaty would reduce the level of scrutiny of future changes. If the Constitutional Treaty goes through, this could be the last ever opportunity to call for a referendum.
... so sign up to support us.
Your support is vital to us. Please register your details with us and email your friends, family and colleagues to tell them about the campaign. If you can help by getting involved with our campaigns at a local level please go to the get involved page and email your local organiser.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case7.aspx
German Court Affirms Existence of Only Positive Rights in Germany: Support Governments Denial of Public Referendum on EU Constitution
German Bid for EU Vote Rejected
BBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, 28 April, 2005
Germany's highest court has rejected an attempt by a centre-right politician to stop the German parliament ratifying the EU constitution next month.
Peter Gauweiler of the opposition Christian Social Union wanted a German referendum on the EU constitution.
But the court threw out his challenge, clearing the way for the upper house to conclude the ratification on 27 May.
Germany, like many EU states, will vote on the EU treaty in parliament. Its own constitution prohibits referendums.
Mr Gauweiler argued that the EU constitution - which is aimed at streamlining decision-making in the enlarged EU - would supersede important elements of the German constitution.
But referendums are banned in Germany because of the way they were abused by the Nazis. All 25 member states must approve the EU treaty for it to become law.
Six countries have backed it so far, with only Spain using the referendum method.
There are concerns within the Yes campaign that the French referendum on 29 May could prove a stumbling block, as opinion polls suggest the majority of voters will say No.
Germany's conservatives are broadly in favour of the EU treaty and the lower house of parliament is expected to ratify it on 12 May. It would then go to the upper house, or Bundesrat, on 27 May.
BBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, 28 April, 2005
Germany's highest court has rejected an attempt by a centre-right politician to stop the German parliament ratifying the EU constitution next month.
Peter Gauweiler of the opposition Christian Social Union wanted a German referendum on the EU constitution.
But the court threw out his challenge, clearing the way for the upper house to conclude the ratification on 27 May.
Germany, like many EU states, will vote on the EU treaty in parliament. Its own constitution prohibits referendums.
Mr Gauweiler argued that the EU constitution - which is aimed at streamlining decision-making in the enlarged EU - would supersede important elements of the German constitution.
But referendums are banned in Germany because of the way they were abused by the Nazis. All 25 member states must approve the EU treaty for it to become law.
Six countries have backed it so far, with only Spain using the referendum method.
There are concerns within the Yes campaign that the French referendum on 29 May could prove a stumbling block, as opinion polls suggest the majority of voters will say No.
Germany's conservatives are broadly in favour of the EU treaty and the lower house of parliament is expected to ratify it on 12 May. It would then go to the upper house, or Bundesrat, on 27 May.
By Preventing Public Referendum on EU Constitution, Berlin Government Denied German People their Constitutional Right to Public Accountability
German MP Calls for EU Referendum
By Kate Connolly in Berlin
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:13am BST 22/04/2005
The European Union constitution faces a legal challenge in Germany's highest court after an MP questioned the Berlin government's refusal to call a treaty referendum.
Peter Gauweiler, of the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union, who will make his case to the constitutional court in Karlsruhe on Monday, claimed that a referendum rather than a vote in parliament should decide the issue.
According to Mr Gauweiler, whose case is being brought by a constitutional expert, Karl Albrecht Schlachtschneider, a bundestag vote on the charter, rather than a vote by the people, contravenes Germany's ''basic law'' or constitution.
"The bundestag cannot give away to the EU more rights than it has itself. Such a far-reaching constitutional law can only be based on a referendum of the German people," he said yesterday in a statement, which he claimed had the backing of many other MPs.
Prof Schlachtschneider has be reported as saying that the EU charter goes beyond the limits set by Germany's constitutional court in a ground-breaking 1993 ruling on the institution's Maastricht treaty.
The German government, has ruled out a referendum, arguing that Germany's basic law does not allow for one. Referenda are banned in Germany due to the perception that they allowed Hitler to change the law in his quest for power.
• French opposition to the European Union constitution soared to its highest point yesterday as a new poll showed that 58 per cent of prospective voters in a referendum next month would reject the treaty.
- AFP
By Kate Connolly in Berlin
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:13am BST 22/04/2005
The European Union constitution faces a legal challenge in Germany's highest court after an MP questioned the Berlin government's refusal to call a treaty referendum.
Peter Gauweiler, of the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union, who will make his case to the constitutional court in Karlsruhe on Monday, claimed that a referendum rather than a vote in parliament should decide the issue.
According to Mr Gauweiler, whose case is being brought by a constitutional expert, Karl Albrecht Schlachtschneider, a bundestag vote on the charter, rather than a vote by the people, contravenes Germany's ''basic law'' or constitution.
"The bundestag cannot give away to the EU more rights than it has itself. Such a far-reaching constitutional law can only be based on a referendum of the German people," he said yesterday in a statement, which he claimed had the backing of many other MPs.
Prof Schlachtschneider has be reported as saying that the EU charter goes beyond the limits set by Germany's constitutional court in a ground-breaking 1993 ruling on the institution's Maastricht treaty.
The German government, has ruled out a referendum, arguing that Germany's basic law does not allow for one. Referenda are banned in Germany due to the perception that they allowed Hitler to change the law in his quest for power.
• French opposition to the European Union constitution soared to its highest point yesterday as a new poll showed that 58 per cent of prospective voters in a referendum next month would reject the treaty.
- AFP
German Parliament Denied Citizens Right to Public Referendum on EU Constitution: Issue Deemed too Important for the People
Germany Rejects EU Constitution Referendum
Deutsche Welle
DW.World.de
Germany 28.05.2004
Germany's parliament rejected a plan to put the draft of the EU Constitution up for a public referendum, sending a strong message to other countries two weeks before EU leaders are to adopt the treaty.
Politicians from the ruling Social Democratic and Green party as well as the opposition Christian Democratic Union rejected a proposal by the liberal FDP party to change Germany's constitution to allow the referendum.
The liberals had argued that a plebiscite would spark interest in the European Union among Germans and support for the European Constitution.
"We should work to make Europe not only an issue for heads of governments but for the people on the ground," FDP head Guido Westerwelle said.
The draft of the treaty, which serves as a rough blueprint on the course the EU will take, is set to be adopted in its final form at an EU summit on June 17-18.
Referendums could doom constitution draft
Following the summit attended by the EU's 25 member states, Britain, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic will put the treaty to a public referendum in their own countries before ratifying the treaty. France is reportedly mulling a similar move.
The decisions have reaped criticism from some European leaders, among them German leaders, who fear national referendums would reject the constitution, scuttling two years of painstaking work. France and Germany were reportedly planning to go ahead with the current draft even if it wasn't ratified by every EU member, according to reports.
Peter Hintze of the conservative Christian Democratic Union said Germans would most likely use such a referendum as an occasion to voice their anger at Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's domestic reforms rather than make a sober decision on the EU's future.
"The problem with plebiscites is that people virtually never vote on the issue in question," Hintze said.
A growing number of politicians in Germany are coming out in favor for an EU-wide referendum rather than separate national referendums. Bundestag president Wolfgang Thierse said the concept of the EU's 450 million citizens voting was a "fascinating idea," and could produce a "new, and possibly emotional sense of community."
But Denmark has already come out against such a referendum, and other countries are expected to follow.
"I do not want to initiate a Europe-wide poll, because it is a national Danish decision," Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said recently.
DW staff (dre)
Deutsche Welle
DW.World.de
Germany 28.05.2004
Germany's parliament rejected a plan to put the draft of the EU Constitution up for a public referendum, sending a strong message to other countries two weeks before EU leaders are to adopt the treaty.
Politicians from the ruling Social Democratic and Green party as well as the opposition Christian Democratic Union rejected a proposal by the liberal FDP party to change Germany's constitution to allow the referendum.
The liberals had argued that a plebiscite would spark interest in the European Union among Germans and support for the European Constitution.
"We should work to make Europe not only an issue for heads of governments but for the people on the ground," FDP head Guido Westerwelle said.
The draft of the treaty, which serves as a rough blueprint on the course the EU will take, is set to be adopted in its final form at an EU summit on June 17-18.
Referendums could doom constitution draft
Following the summit attended by the EU's 25 member states, Britain, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic will put the treaty to a public referendum in their own countries before ratifying the treaty. France is reportedly mulling a similar move.
The decisions have reaped criticism from some European leaders, among them German leaders, who fear national referendums would reject the constitution, scuttling two years of painstaking work. France and Germany were reportedly planning to go ahead with the current draft even if it wasn't ratified by every EU member, according to reports.
Peter Hintze of the conservative Christian Democratic Union said Germans would most likely use such a referendum as an occasion to voice their anger at Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's domestic reforms rather than make a sober decision on the EU's future.
"The problem with plebiscites is that people virtually never vote on the issue in question," Hintze said.
A growing number of politicians in Germany are coming out in favor for an EU-wide referendum rather than separate national referendums. Bundestag president Wolfgang Thierse said the concept of the EU's 450 million citizens voting was a "fascinating idea," and could produce a "new, and possibly emotional sense of community."
But Denmark has already come out against such a referendum, and other countries are expected to follow.
"I do not want to initiate a Europe-wide poll, because it is a national Danish decision," Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said recently.
DW staff (dre)
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Pushes His Pen Through the Heart of Democracy & Economic Freedom
Today Gordon Brown Signs the EU Treaty - Britain Joins the EU Superstate
Daily Referendum Blogspot
December 13, 2007
Today, out of sight of the cameras Gordon Brown will break a manifesto promise made by his party. A promise that facilitated Labours victory in the last General Election. Gordon does not want to be photographed signing the EU Treaty, which for all intents and purposes IS the same EU Constitution that was rejected by the people of France and Holland in 2005. If Gordon Brown is so sure that this Treaty will be beneficial for Britain, then he should have no problem being photographed signing it. His claims that he can't make the signing due to being double booked are just pathetic - the Commons liaison committee have said they don't mind re-appointing the hearing he is to attend instead.
Why am I so opposed to Britain signing the EU Treaty? Well first an foremost is the fact that we were promised a referendum. Gordon Brown has stated that we don't need a referendum because this Treaty is not the same as the rejected Constitution. Well I'm afraid that is simply not true. In a leaked letter penned by German Chancellor to the other EU heads, Angela said that wanted to push through a Treaty. To achieve this Merkel tells her fellow EU heads of government that they will have to: "use different terminology without changing the legal substance".
There can be no doubt that the proposed Treaty is the same Constitution we were not given a Referendum on. Merkel makes this crystal clear when she wishes to preserve intact the content of the constitution, making only "the necessary presentational changes."
"The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained," says Angela Merkel."The great part of the European Constitution is in the new treaty," agrees José Luis Zapatero. "Thankfully they haven’t changed the substance; 90 per cent of it is still there," echoes Bertie Ahern.
I say: If a Beefburger only contains 90% Beef, it is still a bloody Beefburger.
William Hague pointed out the following facts to show the public why this EU Treaty is the same as the EU Constitution we were promised a referendum on:
. 240 of the 250 provisions are exactly the same.
. The creation of permanent President of the European Council.. The appointment of an EU foreign minister in all but name.
. The abolition of 60 of our national vetoes.. For the first time, provision for the abolition of almost every remaining veto without any further treaty negotiation or proper ratification by parliament.
The following is taken from the European Scrutiny Committee's conclusions:
"We wish to emphasise that the proposals in the Reform Treaty raise a serious difficulty of a constitutional order in as much as they appear to impose, whether by accident or design, a legal duty on national parliaments "to contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by taking part in various described activities. National parliaments, unlike the European Parliament, are not creations of the Treaties and their rights are not dependent on them. In our view, the imposition of such a legal duty on the Parliament of this country is objectionable as a matter of principle and must be resisted." Committee member James Clappison told David Miliband that: "The red lines are in tatters - somewhere along the line someone has been, quite frankly, asleep at the wheel."
Today a man who has not been elected to the position of Prime Minister will sign a Treaty that the people of Britain do not want. He will skulk away from the cameras, and in some shady Portuguese corner he will put his traitorous mark upon a document that will steal Britain's sovereignty.
There is only one reason that Gordon Brown does not want us to have a referendum:WE WILL VOTE NO. When Gordon Brown signs that Treaty today, he will be pushing his pen through the heart of democracy.
Daily Referendum Blogspot
December 13, 2007
Today, out of sight of the cameras Gordon Brown will break a manifesto promise made by his party. A promise that facilitated Labours victory in the last General Election. Gordon does not want to be photographed signing the EU Treaty, which for all intents and purposes IS the same EU Constitution that was rejected by the people of France and Holland in 2005. If Gordon Brown is so sure that this Treaty will be beneficial for Britain, then he should have no problem being photographed signing it. His claims that he can't make the signing due to being double booked are just pathetic - the Commons liaison committee have said they don't mind re-appointing the hearing he is to attend instead.
Why am I so opposed to Britain signing the EU Treaty? Well first an foremost is the fact that we were promised a referendum. Gordon Brown has stated that we don't need a referendum because this Treaty is not the same as the rejected Constitution. Well I'm afraid that is simply not true. In a leaked letter penned by German Chancellor to the other EU heads, Angela said that wanted to push through a Treaty. To achieve this Merkel tells her fellow EU heads of government that they will have to: "use different terminology without changing the legal substance".
There can be no doubt that the proposed Treaty is the same Constitution we were not given a Referendum on. Merkel makes this crystal clear when she wishes to preserve intact the content of the constitution, making only "the necessary presentational changes."
"The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained," says Angela Merkel."The great part of the European Constitution is in the new treaty," agrees José Luis Zapatero. "Thankfully they haven’t changed the substance; 90 per cent of it is still there," echoes Bertie Ahern.
I say: If a Beefburger only contains 90% Beef, it is still a bloody Beefburger.
William Hague pointed out the following facts to show the public why this EU Treaty is the same as the EU Constitution we were promised a referendum on:
. 240 of the 250 provisions are exactly the same.
. The creation of permanent President of the European Council.. The appointment of an EU foreign minister in all but name.
. The abolition of 60 of our national vetoes.. For the first time, provision for the abolition of almost every remaining veto without any further treaty negotiation or proper ratification by parliament.
The following is taken from the European Scrutiny Committee's conclusions:
"We wish to emphasise that the proposals in the Reform Treaty raise a serious difficulty of a constitutional order in as much as they appear to impose, whether by accident or design, a legal duty on national parliaments "to contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by taking part in various described activities. National parliaments, unlike the European Parliament, are not creations of the Treaties and their rights are not dependent on them. In our view, the imposition of such a legal duty on the Parliament of this country is objectionable as a matter of principle and must be resisted." Committee member James Clappison told David Miliband that: "The red lines are in tatters - somewhere along the line someone has been, quite frankly, asleep at the wheel."
Today a man who has not been elected to the position of Prime Minister will sign a Treaty that the people of Britain do not want. He will skulk away from the cameras, and in some shady Portuguese corner he will put his traitorous mark upon a document that will steal Britain's sovereignty.
There is only one reason that Gordon Brown does not want us to have a referendum:WE WILL VOTE NO. When Gordon Brown signs that Treaty today, he will be pushing his pen through the heart of democracy.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Fails to Honor Promises Made to British Citizens for Public Referendum on EU Constitutional Treaty
British Treaty Snub Fuels PM's Eurosceptic Image
13 December 2007, 18:35 CET
AFP
(LONDON) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown voiced hope Thursday that the European Union can put institutional wrangling behind it, but faced more charges of euroscepticism for his failure to sign a new treaty with EU allies.
Brown cited diary conflicts for his delayed arrival in Lisbon, meaning he could not join fellow EU leaders at a grand signing ceremony for the new Reform Treaty, which replaces the defunct EU constitution.
The British premier eventually signed the treaty, but hours later than his EU counterparts after he spent much of the morning grappling with questions from lawmakers at a parliamentary committee meeting in London.
"There is no better manifestation of his lack of interest in Europe than his thinking that missing the signature would not be a big deal," said Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank.
"It's a piece of very ham-fisted diplomacy on the part of Brown," he added.
The Financial Times commented: "The prime minister's half-in, half-out appearance in the Portuguese capital is an apt metaphor for the government's approach to the EU."
"It recalls the behaviour of an observer, not a player, at Europe's top table," the FT added, condemning the "muddle-headed ambivalence of a man who doesn't know which gallery to play to."
Brown, who has resisted growing pressure for a referendum on the new treaty, rejected criticism that his late-show in Lisbon was a cowardly attempt to distance himself from the EU pact, widely unpopular here.
"I think you can see the priority I attach to attending this committee," he told the House of Commons' Liaison Committee, laughing off suggestions that he was snubbing the EU meeting.
Brown defends the EU treaty by noting that Britain negotiated opt-outs in key policy areas, meaning its sovereignty is not threatened by what the eurosceptic press says is an increasingly powerful "EU superstate."
But as finance minister, which he was until June, Brown had a reputation for being less keen on Europe than prime minister Tony Blair and reportedly vetoed Blair's plans to take Britain into the European single currency.
At regular meetings with his EU counterparts in Brussels, he was notorious for giving them lectures on the benefits of British-style free market reform -- that is, if he bothered to turn up at all.
Even before Thursday's awkward handling of the Lisbon treaty signing, commentators had already noted that Brown has not yet travelled to Brussels, nearly six months after taking office.
Brown maintains that a popular vote on the treaty is unnecessary as Britain has secured opt-outs, or "red lines" in key areas, safeguarding the country's rights and laws from Brussels.
But critics say the document is virtually identical to the EU constitution, which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Blair promised a referendum on the constitution in Labour's 2005 general election manifesto.
Brown's "refusal to offer the people of this country a referendum on the Reform Treaty flies in the face of the electorate's wishes and his manifesto commitment," said Ruth Lea of eurosceptic group Global Vision.
In an interview with the Times newspaper Thursday, Brown said he hoped the signing of the new EU treaty will shift the bloc's focus away from an "institutional debate". "I think you'll find on the debate about global Europe, we are leading the way," he said.
He voiced hope "for the foreseeable future that the focus of Europe is now on economics, security, trade, economic reform, climate change and not on institutional debate."
Copyright 2007 AFP.
13 December 2007, 18:35 CET
AFP
(LONDON) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown voiced hope Thursday that the European Union can put institutional wrangling behind it, but faced more charges of euroscepticism for his failure to sign a new treaty with EU allies.
Brown cited diary conflicts for his delayed arrival in Lisbon, meaning he could not join fellow EU leaders at a grand signing ceremony for the new Reform Treaty, which replaces the defunct EU constitution.
The British premier eventually signed the treaty, but hours later than his EU counterparts after he spent much of the morning grappling with questions from lawmakers at a parliamentary committee meeting in London.
"There is no better manifestation of his lack of interest in Europe than his thinking that missing the signature would not be a big deal," said Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank.
"It's a piece of very ham-fisted diplomacy on the part of Brown," he added.
The Financial Times commented: "The prime minister's half-in, half-out appearance in the Portuguese capital is an apt metaphor for the government's approach to the EU."
"It recalls the behaviour of an observer, not a player, at Europe's top table," the FT added, condemning the "muddle-headed ambivalence of a man who doesn't know which gallery to play to."
Brown, who has resisted growing pressure for a referendum on the new treaty, rejected criticism that his late-show in Lisbon was a cowardly attempt to distance himself from the EU pact, widely unpopular here.
"I think you can see the priority I attach to attending this committee," he told the House of Commons' Liaison Committee, laughing off suggestions that he was snubbing the EU meeting.
Brown defends the EU treaty by noting that Britain negotiated opt-outs in key policy areas, meaning its sovereignty is not threatened by what the eurosceptic press says is an increasingly powerful "EU superstate."
But as finance minister, which he was until June, Brown had a reputation for being less keen on Europe than prime minister Tony Blair and reportedly vetoed Blair's plans to take Britain into the European single currency.
At regular meetings with his EU counterparts in Brussels, he was notorious for giving them lectures on the benefits of British-style free market reform -- that is, if he bothered to turn up at all.
Even before Thursday's awkward handling of the Lisbon treaty signing, commentators had already noted that Brown has not yet travelled to Brussels, nearly six months after taking office.
Brown maintains that a popular vote on the treaty is unnecessary as Britain has secured opt-outs, or "red lines" in key areas, safeguarding the country's rights and laws from Brussels.
But critics say the document is virtually identical to the EU constitution, which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Blair promised a referendum on the constitution in Labour's 2005 general election manifesto.
Brown's "refusal to offer the people of this country a referendum on the Reform Treaty flies in the face of the electorate's wishes and his manifesto commitment," said Ruth Lea of eurosceptic group Global Vision.
In an interview with the Times newspaper Thursday, Brown said he hoped the signing of the new EU treaty will shift the bloc's focus away from an "institutional debate". "I think you'll find on the debate about global Europe, we are leading the way," he said.
He voiced hope "for the foreseeable future that the focus of Europe is now on economics, security, trade, economic reform, climate change and not on institutional debate."
Copyright 2007 AFP.
D'Estaing - French Father of Europe - Admits to Brussels Commission of Constitutional Fraud
Giscard: EU Treaty is the Constitution Rewritten
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:23am GMT 30/10/2007
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.
The statement by the former French President - who chaired the body of more than 100 European politicians that framed the original constitution - has led to new calls for Gordon Brown to grant the British people a vote.
In an open letter to the French newspaper Le Monde, Mr D'Estaing sought to clarify his view on the differences - if any - between two treaties. "Looking at the content," he wrote "the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty….are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties.."
He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.
"Above all, it is to avoid having referendums thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed," he added.
Less than two weeks ago Gordon Brown gave his blessing to the EU Reform Treaty at a meeting of European heads of state and government in Lisbon.
He said there was no need for the Government to honour its 2005 election manifesto promise to hold a referendum because the redrafted version was much less far reaching than the defunct Constitutional Treaty.
Labour never had to honour its pledge to hold a referendum because before it could hold one, the Constitutional Treaty had already been rejected by voters in both France and the Netherlands.
To come into force a new European Treaty has to be ratified in each member state - either in a referendum or in a vote in the national parliament.
While Mr Brown and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, have stuck to the line that many of the big changes have been removed from the text, a string of other top EU politicians have confessed that it is the same as the constitution in all but name.
Mark Francois, the Tory spokesman on Europe said that Mr d'Estaing had "let the cat out of the bag."
"The man who chaired the body which drafted the original EU Constitution has now confessed that its revived version, the so-called Reform Treaty, was deliberately drafted to try and avoid the people of Europe having their say on it.
"The French people were allowed a vote in 2005 as were the Dutch, and the Irish will now get a vote on the revived version - so why can't the British people have their say too. "
More than 110,000 have signed The Daily Telegraph's "Let the People Decide" campaign for a referendum.
The latest YouGov poll for this paper showed almost twice as many people would vote "No" (38 per cent) as "Yes" (20 per cent) if a referendum were held. 43 per cent said they were undecided.Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 931 2921 or email syndication@telegraph.co.uk
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:23am GMT 30/10/2007
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.
The statement by the former French President - who chaired the body of more than 100 European politicians that framed the original constitution - has led to new calls for Gordon Brown to grant the British people a vote.
In an open letter to the French newspaper Le Monde, Mr D'Estaing sought to clarify his view on the differences - if any - between two treaties. "Looking at the content," he wrote "the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty….are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties.."
He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.
"Above all, it is to avoid having referendums thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed," he added.
Less than two weeks ago Gordon Brown gave his blessing to the EU Reform Treaty at a meeting of European heads of state and government in Lisbon.
He said there was no need for the Government to honour its 2005 election manifesto promise to hold a referendum because the redrafted version was much less far reaching than the defunct Constitutional Treaty.
Labour never had to honour its pledge to hold a referendum because before it could hold one, the Constitutional Treaty had already been rejected by voters in both France and the Netherlands.
To come into force a new European Treaty has to be ratified in each member state - either in a referendum or in a vote in the national parliament.
While Mr Brown and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, have stuck to the line that many of the big changes have been removed from the text, a string of other top EU politicians have confessed that it is the same as the constitution in all but name.
Mark Francois, the Tory spokesman on Europe said that Mr d'Estaing had "let the cat out of the bag."
"The man who chaired the body which drafted the original EU Constitution has now confessed that its revived version, the so-called Reform Treaty, was deliberately drafted to try and avoid the people of Europe having their say on it.
"The French people were allowed a vote in 2005 as were the Dutch, and the Irish will now get a vote on the revived version - so why can't the British people have their say too. "
More than 110,000 have signed The Daily Telegraph's "Let the People Decide" campaign for a referendum.
The latest YouGov poll for this paper showed almost twice as many people would vote "No" (38 per cent) as "Yes" (20 per cent) if a referendum were held. 43 per cent said they were undecided.Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 931 2921 or email syndication@telegraph.co.uk
Blair Ironically Destined to Commit Ultimate Act of Deception Against British People as He Burnishes Historical Legacy
How Blair Plans to Resurrect the EU Constitution
By TIM SHIPMAN
Daily Mail
Tony Blair was yesterday accused of preparing to usher in a European Constitution by the back door.
He is expected to sign a declaration of intent next month which will pave the way for elements of the constitution, rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands, to be reintroduced.
Senior Cabinet sources last night warned that the Prime Minister is pushing hard for Brussels to be given a full-time unelected president,who would serve a fiveyear term and speak as the voice of Europe on the world stage.
This would end the current arrangement where each country holds the title on a revolving basis for six months at a time.
Whitehall insiders say he is also prepared - without consulting the Cabinet - to endorse full-time defence and foreign ministers for the whole EU, undermining the independence of Britain's foreign and defence policy.
Reforms to strengthen the European Parliament could undermine the ability of member states to opt out of EU laws, as Britain does at present.
Mr Blair is expected to sweeten the pill for voters by pressing France to accept a cut in the £72billion funnelled to farmers through the Common Agriculture Policy - which sucks up around half the total EU budget. Government sources exposed a rift at the heart of the Government over the future of Europe.
Cabinet Ministers, including Gordon Brown, are concerned that Mr Blair will attempt to secure an eye-catching deal on European integration in an attempt to burnish his legacy before he quits Downing Street.
The first step will be taken at a summit in Berlin on March 25. Germany, which holds the EU presidency, wants leaders to sign a document celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome called Declaration on the Future of Europe, which will call for new 'institutional reforms'.
While it will not be legally binding, critics believe that will pave the way for a new watered down treaty, which would bypass the need for a referendum in Britain and other EU nations.
This would be introduced at a Council of Ministers meeting on June 22, in the final weeks of Mr Blair's premiership.
Allies of Mr Brown are concerned that Mr Blair will saddle the more eurosceptic Chancellor with a new treaty and leave him to pick up the pieces when he wins the keys to No 10, probably in July.
A Cabinet source said: 'This has not been discussed by the Cabinet but it is clearly the direction that Blair and many in the Foreign Office want to go. Gordon could be left trying to sell something he doesn't like.'
An insider said: 'This is the European Constitution by the back door.' Europe Minister-Geoff Hoon has been touring European capitals at the rate of a country a week, to find out what other EU states want to do.
Neil O'Brien, director of the eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe, said: 'The meeting on March 25 is all about teeing up an agreement to be finalised at the end of June.
'Things are going to move incredibly quickly after the French presidential election in May and we could have a new treaty before we know it.'
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said: 'The constitution was thrown out by the voters of France and the Netherlands and would have been thrown out here if the British people had been given the chance.
'There should be no cunning plans to bring bits and pieces of the constitution through the back door.'
A Downing Street spokesman said: 'The meeting on March 25 is nothing to do with the constitution. It is to celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. The constitution won't be discussed until after the French election.'
By TIM SHIPMAN
Daily Mail
Tony Blair was yesterday accused of preparing to usher in a European Constitution by the back door.
He is expected to sign a declaration of intent next month which will pave the way for elements of the constitution, rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands, to be reintroduced.
Senior Cabinet sources last night warned that the Prime Minister is pushing hard for Brussels to be given a full-time unelected president,who would serve a fiveyear term and speak as the voice of Europe on the world stage.
This would end the current arrangement where each country holds the title on a revolving basis for six months at a time.
Whitehall insiders say he is also prepared - without consulting the Cabinet - to endorse full-time defence and foreign ministers for the whole EU, undermining the independence of Britain's foreign and defence policy.
Reforms to strengthen the European Parliament could undermine the ability of member states to opt out of EU laws, as Britain does at present.
Mr Blair is expected to sweeten the pill for voters by pressing France to accept a cut in the £72billion funnelled to farmers through the Common Agriculture Policy - which sucks up around half the total EU budget. Government sources exposed a rift at the heart of the Government over the future of Europe.
Cabinet Ministers, including Gordon Brown, are concerned that Mr Blair will attempt to secure an eye-catching deal on European integration in an attempt to burnish his legacy before he quits Downing Street.
The first step will be taken at a summit in Berlin on March 25. Germany, which holds the EU presidency, wants leaders to sign a document celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome called Declaration on the Future of Europe, which will call for new 'institutional reforms'.
While it will not be legally binding, critics believe that will pave the way for a new watered down treaty, which would bypass the need for a referendum in Britain and other EU nations.
This would be introduced at a Council of Ministers meeting on June 22, in the final weeks of Mr Blair's premiership.
Allies of Mr Brown are concerned that Mr Blair will saddle the more eurosceptic Chancellor with a new treaty and leave him to pick up the pieces when he wins the keys to No 10, probably in July.
A Cabinet source said: 'This has not been discussed by the Cabinet but it is clearly the direction that Blair and many in the Foreign Office want to go. Gordon could be left trying to sell something he doesn't like.'
An insider said: 'This is the European Constitution by the back door.' Europe Minister-Geoff Hoon has been touring European capitals at the rate of a country a week, to find out what other EU states want to do.
Neil O'Brien, director of the eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe, said: 'The meeting on March 25 is all about teeing up an agreement to be finalised at the end of June.
'Things are going to move incredibly quickly after the French presidential election in May and we could have a new treaty before we know it.'
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said: 'The constitution was thrown out by the voters of France and the Netherlands and would have been thrown out here if the British people had been given the chance.
'There should be no cunning plans to bring bits and pieces of the constitution through the back door.'
A Downing Street spokesman said: 'The meeting on March 25 is nothing to do with the constitution. It is to celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. The constitution won't be discussed until after the French election.'
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Caught in Double Deception Over Controversial EU Treaty/Constitution: British People Demand Promised Referendum
Tories Attack Gordon Brown Over Treaty Signing
By Melissa Kite and Justin Stares
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:39am GMT 12/12/2007
Gordon Brown will be the only leader absent from the signing of the EU Reform Treaty this week, it has emerged.
The Prime Minister is citing a diary clash as the reason for his failure to attend the ceremony, but campaigners against the treaty are claiming that the Prime Minister does not want to be associated with it because of its unpopularity.
Mr Brown has been invited to Lisbon by the Portuguese government, which holds the EU presidency, along with the leaders of the other 26 EU member states. Officials in Lisbon last night said all other national leaders had said they would attend.
Downing Street denied that Mr Brown wanted to avoid the ceremony.
A spokesman said he was due to face the Commons liaison committee - made up of senior MPs - on Thursday morning, just hours before the ceremony takes place in Lisbon.
The spokesman for No 10 said: "He does want to go but it may not be possible."
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, is likely to fly to Portugal to sign the document. The spokesman said there were precedents for prime ministers not signing key EU Treaties, pointing out that the then foreign secretary Robin Cook signed the Nice Treaty in 2001.
The EU Reform Treaty, which critics say is virtually identical to the rejected EU Constitution, still has to be ratified by MPs at Westminster before coming into force.
With opposition among Labour MPs growing, the battle could be the most gruelling the Government has yet experienced.
The Tories are hinting that they will offer a referendum on the changes even if the document is ratified.
The Conservatives accused the Prime Minister of running scared on the issue after repeatedly refusing widespread, cross-party demands for a referendum despite promising one on the proposed constitution.
John Redwood, the head of the Tories' competitiveness commission, said: "Brown is ashamed of selling Britain down the river and has once again done his vanishing act.
"It is not good enough to leave it to the office boy when you have done something so bad for Britain. It is time he owned up to how much power this treaty is transferring and gave the British people a vote."
More than 110,000 people have signed The Telegraph's petition demanding that the Government stands by its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum.
By Melissa Kite and Justin Stares
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:39am GMT 12/12/2007
Gordon Brown will be the only leader absent from the signing of the EU Reform Treaty this week, it has emerged.
The Prime Minister is citing a diary clash as the reason for his failure to attend the ceremony, but campaigners against the treaty are claiming that the Prime Minister does not want to be associated with it because of its unpopularity.
Mr Brown has been invited to Lisbon by the Portuguese government, which holds the EU presidency, along with the leaders of the other 26 EU member states. Officials in Lisbon last night said all other national leaders had said they would attend.
Downing Street denied that Mr Brown wanted to avoid the ceremony.
A spokesman said he was due to face the Commons liaison committee - made up of senior MPs - on Thursday morning, just hours before the ceremony takes place in Lisbon.
The spokesman for No 10 said: "He does want to go but it may not be possible."
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, is likely to fly to Portugal to sign the document. The spokesman said there were precedents for prime ministers not signing key EU Treaties, pointing out that the then foreign secretary Robin Cook signed the Nice Treaty in 2001.
The EU Reform Treaty, which critics say is virtually identical to the rejected EU Constitution, still has to be ratified by MPs at Westminster before coming into force.
With opposition among Labour MPs growing, the battle could be the most gruelling the Government has yet experienced.
The Tories are hinting that they will offer a referendum on the changes even if the document is ratified.
The Conservatives accused the Prime Minister of running scared on the issue after repeatedly refusing widespread, cross-party demands for a referendum despite promising one on the proposed constitution.
John Redwood, the head of the Tories' competitiveness commission, said: "Brown is ashamed of selling Britain down the river and has once again done his vanishing act.
"It is not good enough to leave it to the office boy when you have done something so bad for Britain. It is time he owned up to how much power this treaty is transferring and gave the British people a vote."
More than 110,000 people have signed The Telegraph's petition demanding that the Government stands by its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum.
Continentals & UK Government Continued During '07 to Deceive the British Public About Contents And Sovereign Reach of EU Constitution
Tories Attack 'Rushed' EU Treaty
BBC News Last Updated: Tuesday, 7 August 2007
The Conservatives have accused Prime Minster Gordon Brown of trying to push the "unreadable" revised EU treaty through "on the quiet".
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said there would be only nine Parliamentary days after MPs' summer holiday to discuss the treaty.
He said: "I think in a way [he] wants to get this out of the way with as little public attention as possible."
The government has rejected Tory calls for a referendum on the treaty.
The Conservatives say the EU treaty is almost identical to the failed EU constitution so the government must keep the promise they made to hold a referendum on that document.
But the government insists the treaty is different because all mention of a constitution has been dropped.
Britain's voice
Speaking earlier at a press conference, Mr Hague sought to disprove the government's claims, quoting the Spanish foreign minister who said 98% of the content of the constitution is in the new draft.
Mr Hague claims the treaty would make Britain's voice in the world less important and could usher in an era where EU judges decide more of our law.
He said the government is trying not to attract attention to the treaty, but a public vote must be granted.
The government says that although dozens of vetoes are being given up, the treaty does not transfer major powers to the EU.
Campaign plan
Mr Hague hit back at claims by Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the Conservative Party was returning to its "old agenda" of focussing on Europe.
If an early election was called by Mr Brown, an EU treaty referendum would be key to the Conservatives campaign.
"Upholding the commitment to a referendum on the EU constitution will obviously feature in the campaign in any early election.
"By all the standards of the past the commitment to a referendum should be upheld."
Among Conservative concerns were the creation of a European Union president and a "high representative" acting as a foreign minister.
Mr Hague said the revised treaty would lessen the UK's sovereignty, losing vetoes in about 60 policy areas, with the union being given the legal status to sign international treaties.
Launching a pamphlet explaining the treaty in "plain English", Mr Hague suggested that the document had been made deliberately "unreadable" to hinder opposition.
BBC News Last Updated: Tuesday, 7 August 2007
The Conservatives have accused Prime Minster Gordon Brown of trying to push the "unreadable" revised EU treaty through "on the quiet".
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said there would be only nine Parliamentary days after MPs' summer holiday to discuss the treaty.
He said: "I think in a way [he] wants to get this out of the way with as little public attention as possible."
The government has rejected Tory calls for a referendum on the treaty.
The Conservatives say the EU treaty is almost identical to the failed EU constitution so the government must keep the promise they made to hold a referendum on that document.
But the government insists the treaty is different because all mention of a constitution has been dropped.
Britain's voice
Speaking earlier at a press conference, Mr Hague sought to disprove the government's claims, quoting the Spanish foreign minister who said 98% of the content of the constitution is in the new draft.
Mr Hague claims the treaty would make Britain's voice in the world less important and could usher in an era where EU judges decide more of our law.
He said the government is trying not to attract attention to the treaty, but a public vote must be granted.
The government says that although dozens of vetoes are being given up, the treaty does not transfer major powers to the EU.
Campaign plan
Mr Hague hit back at claims by Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the Conservative Party was returning to its "old agenda" of focussing on Europe.
If an early election was called by Mr Brown, an EU treaty referendum would be key to the Conservatives campaign.
"Upholding the commitment to a referendum on the EU constitution will obviously feature in the campaign in any early election.
"By all the standards of the past the commitment to a referendum should be upheld."
Among Conservative concerns were the creation of a European Union president and a "high representative" acting as a foreign minister.
Mr Hague said the revised treaty would lessen the UK's sovereignty, losing vetoes in about 60 policy areas, with the union being given the legal status to sign international treaties.
Launching a pamphlet explaining the treaty in "plain English", Mr Hague suggested that the document had been made deliberately "unreadable" to hinder opposition.
UK Tories Wise Years Ago to False Brussels Representations About Sovereignty-sapping EU Constitution
Tories Attack 'Dangerous' EU Blueprint
Epolitix - Published: Tue, 29 Oct 2002
A blueprint setting out the future shape of the EU is "very dangerous", the Conservatives have warned.
David Heathcoat-Amory, who is a member of the European convention, believes the draft constitutional treaty is the first step to united states of Europe.
"This draft constitution is a very dangerous document indeed," he told the BBC.
"We are only about halfway through this convention on the future of Europe, but already they have produced what they call a constitution for Europe, it is going to be organised on a federal basis and they are offering us all dual citizenship.
He said the document amounts to "an embryonic European state".
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the convention's chairman, published draft document on Monday outlining the future shape of Europe's political institutions.
The former French president - who has compared his constitutional role to the US founding fathers - caused controversy by calling for the EU to be renamed the United States of Europe. Angered by his remarks, British officials said there was "not a cat in hell's chance" of the UK agreeing to the name change.
"If anything, it will be called the European Union," said one.
The former Europe minister, Peter Hain, welcomed the draft document but downplayed the name change debate.
"United States of Europe was one option. Europe United was another - Europe United sounds like a football team to me. United States of Europe frankly is not on, we won't accept that," he told the BBC.
"I think we will end up with where we are - something which people know, which is the European Union."
Elsewhere the 46 section draft - the work of a convention of 105 of Europe's great and good - has been welcomed guardedly as a cautious beginning to a "skeleton" constitution for Europe.
Hain believes that the proposals are a step in the right direction despite the controversy.
"The substance of the issue is not the labels. We are encouraged by this report ... the reality is that this is a draft which anchors the European Union to the nation state, a union of sovereign nation states not the federal superstate," he said.
The blueprint seeks to put the EU on a "federal basis" but will retain national sovereignty throughout the union. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ****]
"A Union of European States which, while retaining their national identities, closely coordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal basis," article one of the document states. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The new proposals would give the EU a single legal personality for the first time.
Article three of the draft envisages a new treaty merging justice and home affairs and foreign and security policy under one framework.
"This article establishes the general objectives [including] creation of an area of liberty, security and justice [and] development of a common foreign and security policy, and a common defence policy, to defend and promote the union's values in the wider world," says the document.
The Conservatives welcome the move towards a new treaty - which requires unanimous agreement - but have attacked plans for a common European defence policy. Timothy Kirkhope, the Conservative MEP and member of the convention, described the development as "dangerous".
"I suppose the good news is that this is to be a new treaty and not a constitution, and at present allows for a re-naming of the European Union which could again become the European Community - a distinct advantage in the preservation of the individual nation states," he said.
"The bad news is that the treaty wishes to pursue a European Common Defence Policy which would be an irresponsible folly and, if implemented, a dangerous and unmitigated threat to our security and the future of NATO."
Plans to establish a system of "dual citizenship" - where voters in member states retain national citizenship along with European citizenship - have also sparked controversy.
Peter Hain, the government's representative on the convention, expressed his surprise at the suggestion. "Nobody knows where this came from, it hasn't been discussed," he said. Britain will oppose the plan "if it means a sort of super, over-arching European citizenship that is not acceptable to us and won't be acceptable to the convention" promised Hain. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The draft also trails "the possibility of establishing a Congress of the Peoples of Europe" but fails to determine "its composition. the procedure for appointing its members, and define its powers".
But for member states not happy with the future direction and shape of the EU, Article 46 of the blueprint will provide an exit route "for voluntary withdrawal from the union".
Epolitix - Published: Tue, 29 Oct 2002
A blueprint setting out the future shape of the EU is "very dangerous", the Conservatives have warned.
David Heathcoat-Amory, who is a member of the European convention, believes the draft constitutional treaty is the first step to united states of Europe.
"This draft constitution is a very dangerous document indeed," he told the BBC.
"We are only about halfway through this convention on the future of Europe, but already they have produced what they call a constitution for Europe, it is going to be organised on a federal basis and they are offering us all dual citizenship.
He said the document amounts to "an embryonic European state".
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the convention's chairman, published draft document on Monday outlining the future shape of Europe's political institutions.
The former French president - who has compared his constitutional role to the US founding fathers - caused controversy by calling for the EU to be renamed the United States of Europe. Angered by his remarks, British officials said there was "not a cat in hell's chance" of the UK agreeing to the name change.
"If anything, it will be called the European Union," said one.
The former Europe minister, Peter Hain, welcomed the draft document but downplayed the name change debate.
"United States of Europe was one option. Europe United was another - Europe United sounds like a football team to me. United States of Europe frankly is not on, we won't accept that," he told the BBC.
"I think we will end up with where we are - something which people know, which is the European Union."
Elsewhere the 46 section draft - the work of a convention of 105 of Europe's great and good - has been welcomed guardedly as a cautious beginning to a "skeleton" constitution for Europe.
Hain believes that the proposals are a step in the right direction despite the controversy.
"The substance of the issue is not the labels. We are encouraged by this report ... the reality is that this is a draft which anchors the European Union to the nation state, a union of sovereign nation states not the federal superstate," he said.
The blueprint seeks to put the EU on a "federal basis" but will retain national sovereignty throughout the union. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ****]
"A Union of European States which, while retaining their national identities, closely coordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal basis," article one of the document states. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The new proposals would give the EU a single legal personality for the first time.
Article three of the draft envisages a new treaty merging justice and home affairs and foreign and security policy under one framework.
"This article establishes the general objectives [including] creation of an area of liberty, security and justice [and] development of a common foreign and security policy, and a common defence policy, to defend and promote the union's values in the wider world," says the document.
The Conservatives welcome the move towards a new treaty - which requires unanimous agreement - but have attacked plans for a common European defence policy. Timothy Kirkhope, the Conservative MEP and member of the convention, described the development as "dangerous".
"I suppose the good news is that this is to be a new treaty and not a constitution, and at present allows for a re-naming of the European Union which could again become the European Community - a distinct advantage in the preservation of the individual nation states," he said.
"The bad news is that the treaty wishes to pursue a European Common Defence Policy which would be an irresponsible folly and, if implemented, a dangerous and unmitigated threat to our security and the future of NATO."
Plans to establish a system of "dual citizenship" - where voters in member states retain national citizenship along with European citizenship - have also sparked controversy.
Peter Hain, the government's representative on the convention, expressed his surprise at the suggestion. "Nobody knows where this came from, it hasn't been discussed," he said. Britain will oppose the plan "if it means a sort of super, over-arching European citizenship that is not acceptable to us and won't be acceptable to the convention" promised Hain. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The draft also trails "the possibility of establishing a Congress of the Peoples of Europe" but fails to determine "its composition. the procedure for appointing its members, and define its powers".
But for member states not happy with the future direction and shape of the EU, Article 46 of the blueprint will provide an exit route "for voluntary withdrawal from the union".
Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Behind Loss Of UK Sovereignty to EU Continentals
Everyone must love the EU... says Tony Blair
Thisislondon.co.uk - The Entertainment Guide
From the Evening Standard
Last updated at 22:22pm on 02.12.06
A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister, it has been revealed.
The operation to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften them up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting.
Details of the plan, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, show how the Prime Minister is so frustrated at his failure to persuade voters that the EU is a good thing, he is to spend a fortune from public funds in a final attempt to brainwash them before he resigns next year.
They include banning Ministers and officials from referring to unpopular EU institutions like the European Commission, places such as Brussels and Strasbourg, the euro currency, terms like 'Eurocrat' and 'EU directive' and controversial policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU constitution.
Instead they have been ordered to try to promote the 'EU brand' by linking to popular European events and institutions such as the Eurovision song contest, the Cannes Film Festival and the UEFA soccer organisation that runs the Champions League tournament - even though none of them has anything to do with the EU.
Every Whitehall department is to appoint a spin doctor responsible for promoting the EU. And Downing Street will draw up an 'EU Grid' to make sure stories portraying Brussels in a good light are leaked to the media on a regular basis.
The leaked plans state that propaganda must be tailored to win over all groups by encouraging them to think that 'as a tourist, as a mother, as a birdwatcher, as an entrepreneur... the EU is relevant and can make a difference.'
More controversially, it suggests Ministers should not waste their energies trying to win over the elderly and people with few academic qualifications.
It says the 'young and educated' have much more appetite for learning about Europe than 'the old and uneducated'.
The plans were drawn up on Mr Blair's instructions by Whitehall's £180,000-a-year head of communications Howell James, a close friend of EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
Mr James had a relationship with Mr Mandelson's partner, Brazilian Reinaldo da Silva, before Mr Mandelson met him.
Mr Howell's links with Mr Mandelson are thought to have been a factor when he was appointed as Whitehall's first permanent secretary in charge of media relations two years ago.
At last week's Cabinet meeting where the EU propaganda campaign was approved, Ministers were told it was needed because of a growing expectation that Brussels would revive plans for an EU constitution, further reducing Britain's ability to govern itself.
The constitution was abandoned last year after it was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.
They will shortly receive a 'new core script and toolkit' suggesting that issues such as climate change, Blue Flag beaches, cheap flights and cheap mobile calls when abroad should be emphasised with the EU downplayed.
The paper presented to the Cabinet by Mr James complained of the continuing 'negativity and euro scepticism' among British voters, adding: "Indifference and apathy remains significant." Ministers must claim victories for Brussels, not Britain. "There is a risk of overplaying the UK's role and achievements at the expense of the EU,' it stated.
The new pro-EU message will be dumbed down, using a 'reframed and compelling narrative with accessible and "friendly" themes, wherever possible steering away from institutions, politics and legislation'. And pro-European politicians should be replaced by pro-European celebrities with a 'range of non political voices'.
In one of the most controversial sections on 'rebranding the EU', the Cabinet paper provides a chart showing the most unpopular aspects of the EU: the constitution, the commission, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Common Agricultural Policy, Eurocrats and the euro, described as issues towards which the public feels 'cold'.
They are contrasted with popular - or 'warm' - aspects of Europe, including UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, the Cannes Film Festival and Liverpool, Europe's "Capital of Culture' for 2008, though none have EU links. The best-known 'warm' EU topics were its Pet Travel Scheme and the EU-sponsored "Blue Flag' clean beaches.
Titled Reframing The Debate, the paper says Ministers must use 'themes with a "natural" European dimension to maximise impact and increase familiarity with Europe'.
The objective is to 'realign the EU brand via alliances with familiar, trusted organisations and brands'.
A new network of Whitehall spin doctors with orders to promote the EU has been created, with one senior "Press co-ordinator' in all 23 Government departments.
They will help No 10 draw up a 'rolling grid of upcoming EU issues' to ensure British voters are fed with a constant diet of pro-EU news.
Mr James told Ministers Press releases about the EU must be censored, removing references to the EU and its directives.
Instead they would refer to 'Europe' - which Mr James describes as 'a European sub brand' which people warm to.
Thisislondon.co.uk - The Entertainment Guide
From the Evening Standard
Last updated at 22:22pm on 02.12.06
A multi-million pound propaganda war to force the British people to love the European Union and Brussels bureaucrats is to be launched by Tony Blair as part of his legacy as Prime Minister, it has been revealed.
The operation to overcome strong opposition to the EU in Britain and soften them up in the event of fresh moves to forge closer links with Brussels was secretly agreed by Mr Blair and his Ministers at last week's Cabinet meeting.
Details of the plan, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, show how the Prime Minister is so frustrated at his failure to persuade voters that the EU is a good thing, he is to spend a fortune from public funds in a final attempt to brainwash them before he resigns next year.
They include banning Ministers and officials from referring to unpopular EU institutions like the European Commission, places such as Brussels and Strasbourg, the euro currency, terms like 'Eurocrat' and 'EU directive' and controversial policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU constitution.
Instead they have been ordered to try to promote the 'EU brand' by linking to popular European events and institutions such as the Eurovision song contest, the Cannes Film Festival and the UEFA soccer organisation that runs the Champions League tournament - even though none of them has anything to do with the EU.
Every Whitehall department is to appoint a spin doctor responsible for promoting the EU. And Downing Street will draw up an 'EU Grid' to make sure stories portraying Brussels in a good light are leaked to the media on a regular basis.
The leaked plans state that propaganda must be tailored to win over all groups by encouraging them to think that 'as a tourist, as a mother, as a birdwatcher, as an entrepreneur... the EU is relevant and can make a difference.'
More controversially, it suggests Ministers should not waste their energies trying to win over the elderly and people with few academic qualifications.
It says the 'young and educated' have much more appetite for learning about Europe than 'the old and uneducated'.
The plans were drawn up on Mr Blair's instructions by Whitehall's £180,000-a-year head of communications Howell James, a close friend of EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.
Mr James had a relationship with Mr Mandelson's partner, Brazilian Reinaldo da Silva, before Mr Mandelson met him.
Mr Howell's links with Mr Mandelson are thought to have been a factor when he was appointed as Whitehall's first permanent secretary in charge of media relations two years ago.
At last week's Cabinet meeting where the EU propaganda campaign was approved, Ministers were told it was needed because of a growing expectation that Brussels would revive plans for an EU constitution, further reducing Britain's ability to govern itself.
The constitution was abandoned last year after it was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.
They will shortly receive a 'new core script and toolkit' suggesting that issues such as climate change, Blue Flag beaches, cheap flights and cheap mobile calls when abroad should be emphasised with the EU downplayed.
The paper presented to the Cabinet by Mr James complained of the continuing 'negativity and euro scepticism' among British voters, adding: "Indifference and apathy remains significant." Ministers must claim victories for Brussels, not Britain. "There is a risk of overplaying the UK's role and achievements at the expense of the EU,' it stated.
The new pro-EU message will be dumbed down, using a 'reframed and compelling narrative with accessible and "friendly" themes, wherever possible steering away from institutions, politics and legislation'. And pro-European politicians should be replaced by pro-European celebrities with a 'range of non political voices'.
In one of the most controversial sections on 'rebranding the EU', the Cabinet paper provides a chart showing the most unpopular aspects of the EU: the constitution, the commission, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Common Agricultural Policy, Eurocrats and the euro, described as issues towards which the public feels 'cold'.
They are contrasted with popular - or 'warm' - aspects of Europe, including UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, the Cannes Film Festival and Liverpool, Europe's "Capital of Culture' for 2008, though none have EU links. The best-known 'warm' EU topics were its Pet Travel Scheme and the EU-sponsored "Blue Flag' clean beaches.
Titled Reframing The Debate, the paper says Ministers must use 'themes with a "natural" European dimension to maximise impact and increase familiarity with Europe'.
The objective is to 'realign the EU brand via alliances with familiar, trusted organisations and brands'.
A new network of Whitehall spin doctors with orders to promote the EU has been created, with one senior "Press co-ordinator' in all 23 Government departments.
They will help No 10 draw up a 'rolling grid of upcoming EU issues' to ensure British voters are fed with a constant diet of pro-EU news.
Mr James told Ministers Press releases about the EU must be censored, removing references to the EU and its directives.
Instead they would refer to 'Europe' - which Mr James describes as 'a European sub brand' which people warm to.
Fathers & Sons of Europe Sought to Deceive European Public by Pretending that Rejected EU Constitution Was Revised
Rebranding plan for failed EU constitution
By Nicholas Watt,
Guardian Unlimited, European editor
Monday May 29, 2006
European leaders may embark on one of the EU's greatest rebranding exercises by changing the name of the European constitution to "basic law".
Today is the first anniversary of the rejection of the constitution by French voters, and support is growing for a German plan to revive the measure with a name change.
Erkki Tuomioja, the Finnish foreign minister whose country takes over the EU's rotating presidency in July, said: "Everybody agrees it was a mistake to call it a constitution, so that would be a very sensible change if that were needed."
The name change is likely to be attacked by Eurosceptics who will argue that European leaders should accept that the constitution was emphatically rejected by French voters. Three days later, voters in the Netherlands also rejected it.
Supporters of the rebranding said that changing the name was designed to acknowledge the concerns of voters who felt uncomfortable with grand talk of a constitution. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, said: "We in Germany live with a 'basic law' which does not carry the title 'constitution' but has the same legal quality. It's a possible starting point."
Mr Steinmeier was at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Austria. The ministers agreed the "period of reflection" on the constitution would have to be extended for at least another year until France has elected a new president.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, said: "Our position is that we should keep the constitutional issue alive but avoid any kind of paralysis."
European leaders know the EU cannot function indefinitely on current rules. The constitution would have linked a country's voting strength to the size of its population and reformed the system of rotating presidencies. Mr Steinmeier believes the rebranded constitution would retain these changes.
The talks came as a poll found that a majority of respondents in France and the Netherlands still oppose the constitution. According to the poll, more than half of French voters (55.5%) would vote no if the referendum were held again, compared with 54.5% last year; in the Netherlands, nearly two-thirds would vote no (65%), compared with 61.5% last year.
Neil O'Brien, director of the Eurosceptic Open Europe group which commissioned the survey, said: "The poll suggests that if EU leaders continue their current attempts to side-step the no votes and implement parts of the constitution by the back door, they will further antagonise voters."
By Nicholas Watt,
Guardian Unlimited, European editor
Monday May 29, 2006
European leaders may embark on one of the EU's greatest rebranding exercises by changing the name of the European constitution to "basic law".
Today is the first anniversary of the rejection of the constitution by French voters, and support is growing for a German plan to revive the measure with a name change.
Erkki Tuomioja, the Finnish foreign minister whose country takes over the EU's rotating presidency in July, said: "Everybody agrees it was a mistake to call it a constitution, so that would be a very sensible change if that were needed."
The name change is likely to be attacked by Eurosceptics who will argue that European leaders should accept that the constitution was emphatically rejected by French voters. Three days later, voters in the Netherlands also rejected it.
Supporters of the rebranding said that changing the name was designed to acknowledge the concerns of voters who felt uncomfortable with grand talk of a constitution. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, said: "We in Germany live with a 'basic law' which does not carry the title 'constitution' but has the same legal quality. It's a possible starting point."
Mr Steinmeier was at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Austria. The ministers agreed the "period of reflection" on the constitution would have to be extended for at least another year until France has elected a new president.
Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, said: "Our position is that we should keep the constitutional issue alive but avoid any kind of paralysis."
European leaders know the EU cannot function indefinitely on current rules. The constitution would have linked a country's voting strength to the size of its population and reformed the system of rotating presidencies. Mr Steinmeier believes the rebranded constitution would retain these changes.
The talks came as a poll found that a majority of respondents in France and the Netherlands still oppose the constitution. According to the poll, more than half of French voters (55.5%) would vote no if the referendum were held again, compared with 54.5% last year; in the Netherlands, nearly two-thirds would vote no (65%), compared with 61.5% last year.
Neil O'Brien, director of the Eurosceptic Open Europe group which commissioned the survey, said: "The poll suggests that if EU leaders continue their current attempts to side-step the no votes and implement parts of the constitution by the back door, they will further antagonise voters."
German Citizens Have Only Positive, Conditional Civil Rights Granted By Government; Not Negative Natural Rights Recognized By Government
German High Court Has More Power Over Legislature, Grimm Says
Reported By Elizabeth Katz
Posted March 9, 2006
Although the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany follow many similar principles, they differ in that the U.S. court determines what Congress may do, while the German court dictates what Parliament must do, said Humboldt University law professor Dieter Grimm at a lecture co-sponsored by the Law School and the American Constitution Society March 1.
Grimm, who is also the director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin, served as a justice of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany from 1987 to 1999. In his talk he addressed the historical and ideological differences between the legal systems in the United States and Germany.
Both courts had similar findings regarding whether broadcasters are obligated to give reply time to persons who have been attacked on station programs, Grimm explained, noting that the cases reveal key differences among the two systems. The Supreme Court found that because the purpose of the First Amendment is to create an educated public that can conduct its own affairs, the rights of the viewers and listeners are paramount to the rights of the broadcasters.
The German decision used very similar language and “even went so far as to call freedom of broadcasting a serving freedom, namely a freedom that serves the free formation of opinions of the individual and society as a whole as well.” But the courts came to different conclusions. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the power to regulate broadcasting, while the German court determined that Parliament must regulate broadcasting.
The deviation may be seen even more clearly in pairing the first German abortion case and the U.S. DeShaney case, Grimm said. In 1975 the German court determined the state’s obligation to furnish the protection of free rights is comprehensive and includes the protection and promotion of developing life, such as fetuses.
In contrast, in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled in DeShaney that nothing in the due process clause requires the state to protect life, liberty, and property against the action of private actors. Instead, the purpose of the 14th Amendment is just to protect people from the state. In other words, the U.S. Bill of Rights only has negative rights, which restrict the government from encroaching on individuals’ fundamental rights, whereas Germany also has positive rights, which requires the government to safeguard the rights of the people.
“‘What is the explanation for this difference?’ is, I think, the question to be asked,” Grimm said.
The answer is rooted in the ways fundamental rights developed historically, he explained. Although both American and European laws are rooted in enlightenment theory, they diverged in the “circumstances to which the bills or rights applied at the time of their origin.”
In the late 18th century, the American colonies were under English law, which was considered very liberal at the time. When Americans felt their fundamental rights regarding taxation were being violated, they learned that under British rule their fundamental rights were not supreme because “supremacy belonged to parliament.”
One purpose of the American Revolution, therefore, was to strengthen and protect the people’s fundamental rights. Consequently, fundamental rights “could from the very beginning be negative rights” that served primarily to protect individuals from the government.
In contrast, although Germany did not have a revolution during the same period, the monarchs of many German states granted the enactment of constitutions with bills of rights to “attempt self-preservation of the dynasty.” The old feudal laws remained in place and could not be overridden by the new constitutions. The bills of rights “were interpreted as… obligations of the legislature to do what these fundamental rights promised, reform the old feudal systems and turn them into a legal order.” The reforms largely failed, though, because they had to be approved by a majority vote in parliament in addition to receiving the consent of the monarch and the non-elected chamber.
The inclusion of positive rights in German law can be traced to the fact that European constitutions, unlike the U.S. Constitution, did not establish an entirely new political entity because the nation-state existed before the constitutions emerged. This meant “they never changed the tradition of the state,” and part of this saved tradition, especially in Germany, was that “the state always retained the role of being the representative of the higher aspirations of society.” Thus, Grimm said he views the embracement of the duty to protect in 1975 as a “revival of tradition,” rather than as something new.
This revival began and was rooted in the 1958 Lüth decision, which Grimm considers the landmark case in German constitutional history. The case, which originated in civil law, was sparked by an individual who advocated for a boycott against movie theaters that were showing a movie directed by a man who had made anti-Semitic films during the Nazi era. The movie companies won in civil court due to a German civil code that legislates that if someone causes damage to another party in an immoral way, he is liable for the damages. After the civil decision, the boycott advocate appealed to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the state had an obligation to protect his freedom of speech. Prior to this case, civil rights were considered vertical, meaning they only applied to the government’s encroachment on civil rights.“So the question that was at stake was the question, ‘Is there horizontal application of fundamental rights?’”
The court determined that fundamental rights are both subjective rights against government intrusion and “objective values.” Values that society finds extremely important “are entrenched in the constitution” and are not limited to public law.
“The solution of the court is that wherever the application of a private law affects in a limiting way a fundamental right, this fundamental right has to be taken into account in the interpretation and application of that law,” Grimm said.
The sole addressee of fundamental rights remains the state, but the state has to uphold them in private law through its courts. Lüth was the first in a constructive line of jurisprudence that culminated in the duty to protect.
“It was… the long forgotten other side of fundamental rights,” Grimm said. The state draws a lot of its legitimacy from how well it protects citizens from both vertical and horizontal risks to their fundamental rights, according to Grimm, and it accomplishes this protection through legislation.
“The purpose is not to limit liberty and freedom, …to create an overall freedom,” he said, noting that curtailing one person’s freedom may be necessary to enable another person to make use of his freedom. “The ‘if’ decision is decided by the constitution… The ‘how’ question is left to the legislature.”
Although some might see the interaction between the German court and legislature as a problematic separation of powers, Grimm dismissed such concerns because the legislature should not be free to not comply with court decisions. And, the court’s justices realize that forcing legislative acts increases their vulnerability, so self-interest keeps them from being too aggressive.
“Legislature loses the power to be inactive… or it loses the power when it legislates to grossly disadvantage one constitutionally protected interest in favor of another,” Grimm said.
Reported By Elizabeth Katz
Posted March 9, 2006
Although the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany follow many similar principles, they differ in that the U.S. court determines what Congress may do, while the German court dictates what Parliament must do, said Humboldt University law professor Dieter Grimm at a lecture co-sponsored by the Law School and the American Constitution Society March 1.
Grimm, who is also the director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Berlin, served as a justice of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany from 1987 to 1999. In his talk he addressed the historical and ideological differences between the legal systems in the United States and Germany.
Both courts had similar findings regarding whether broadcasters are obligated to give reply time to persons who have been attacked on station programs, Grimm explained, noting that the cases reveal key differences among the two systems. The Supreme Court found that because the purpose of the First Amendment is to create an educated public that can conduct its own affairs, the rights of the viewers and listeners are paramount to the rights of the broadcasters.
The German decision used very similar language and “even went so far as to call freedom of broadcasting a serving freedom, namely a freedom that serves the free formation of opinions of the individual and society as a whole as well.” But the courts came to different conclusions. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the power to regulate broadcasting, while the German court determined that Parliament must regulate broadcasting.
The deviation may be seen even more clearly in pairing the first German abortion case and the U.S. DeShaney case, Grimm said. In 1975 the German court determined the state’s obligation to furnish the protection of free rights is comprehensive and includes the protection and promotion of developing life, such as fetuses.
In contrast, in 1989 the Supreme Court ruled in DeShaney that nothing in the due process clause requires the state to protect life, liberty, and property against the action of private actors. Instead, the purpose of the 14th Amendment is just to protect people from the state. In other words, the U.S. Bill of Rights only has negative rights, which restrict the government from encroaching on individuals’ fundamental rights, whereas Germany also has positive rights, which requires the government to safeguard the rights of the people.
“‘What is the explanation for this difference?’ is, I think, the question to be asked,” Grimm said.
The answer is rooted in the ways fundamental rights developed historically, he explained. Although both American and European laws are rooted in enlightenment theory, they diverged in the “circumstances to which the bills or rights applied at the time of their origin.”
In the late 18th century, the American colonies were under English law, which was considered very liberal at the time. When Americans felt their fundamental rights regarding taxation were being violated, they learned that under British rule their fundamental rights were not supreme because “supremacy belonged to parliament.”
One purpose of the American Revolution, therefore, was to strengthen and protect the people’s fundamental rights. Consequently, fundamental rights “could from the very beginning be negative rights” that served primarily to protect individuals from the government.
In contrast, although Germany did not have a revolution during the same period, the monarchs of many German states granted the enactment of constitutions with bills of rights to “attempt self-preservation of the dynasty.” The old feudal laws remained in place and could not be overridden by the new constitutions. The bills of rights “were interpreted as… obligations of the legislature to do what these fundamental rights promised, reform the old feudal systems and turn them into a legal order.” The reforms largely failed, though, because they had to be approved by a majority vote in parliament in addition to receiving the consent of the monarch and the non-elected chamber.
The inclusion of positive rights in German law can be traced to the fact that European constitutions, unlike the U.S. Constitution, did not establish an entirely new political entity because the nation-state existed before the constitutions emerged. This meant “they never changed the tradition of the state,” and part of this saved tradition, especially in Germany, was that “the state always retained the role of being the representative of the higher aspirations of society.” Thus, Grimm said he views the embracement of the duty to protect in 1975 as a “revival of tradition,” rather than as something new.
This revival began and was rooted in the 1958 Lüth decision, which Grimm considers the landmark case in German constitutional history. The case, which originated in civil law, was sparked by an individual who advocated for a boycott against movie theaters that were showing a movie directed by a man who had made anti-Semitic films during the Nazi era. The movie companies won in civil court due to a German civil code that legislates that if someone causes damage to another party in an immoral way, he is liable for the damages. After the civil decision, the boycott advocate appealed to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the state had an obligation to protect his freedom of speech. Prior to this case, civil rights were considered vertical, meaning they only applied to the government’s encroachment on civil rights.“So the question that was at stake was the question, ‘Is there horizontal application of fundamental rights?’”
The court determined that fundamental rights are both subjective rights against government intrusion and “objective values.” Values that society finds extremely important “are entrenched in the constitution” and are not limited to public law.
“The solution of the court is that wherever the application of a private law affects in a limiting way a fundamental right, this fundamental right has to be taken into account in the interpretation and application of that law,” Grimm said.
The sole addressee of fundamental rights remains the state, but the state has to uphold them in private law through its courts. Lüth was the first in a constructive line of jurisprudence that culminated in the duty to protect.
“It was… the long forgotten other side of fundamental rights,” Grimm said. The state draws a lot of its legitimacy from how well it protects citizens from both vertical and horizontal risks to their fundamental rights, according to Grimm, and it accomplishes this protection through legislation.
“The purpose is not to limit liberty and freedom, …to create an overall freedom,” he said, noting that curtailing one person’s freedom may be necessary to enable another person to make use of his freedom. “The ‘if’ decision is decided by the constitution… The ‘how’ question is left to the legislature.”
Although some might see the interaction between the German court and legislature as a problematic separation of powers, Grimm dismissed such concerns because the legislature should not be free to not comply with court decisions. And, the court’s justices realize that forcing legislative acts increases their vulnerability, so self-interest keeps them from being too aggressive.
“Legislature loses the power to be inactive… or it loses the power when it legislates to grossly disadvantage one constitutionally protected interest in favor of another,” Grimm said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
