Part 3

Don’t we already have a Constitution in the UK?

Yes we have, and it has served us well for many centuries. It is known as an “unwritten” Constitution but this is not strictly true as it is contained in several fundamental important documents rather than a single one.

These together with others and with Statute law passed by Parliament comprise our Constitution -e.g. The Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, Habeas Corpus Act and most important the Bill of Rights [Including the Declaration of Rights]. All of these are still in force [except Habeas Corpus -suspended for a year in the last Parliament] and are the fundamental protections of our rights and liberties.

An essential element of our Common law system embedded in the Constitution is that we can do virtually anything we wish providing there is no law against it, whilst in Europe you can do what the law says you can.

Our Constitutional tradition means the State and its servants are always answerable to the people, whereas in continental countries the individual is answerable to the State. [Which would you rather keep-a system where the subject is the boss or have the European system which tells you what you can do?]

Part 4

What is the European Union Constitution?

It is a project of the EU political elite, which would if adopted, fundamentally changes Britain’s relationship with the European Union. Already about 70-75% of British law emanates from the EU in one form or another, under the [New EU] Constitution this would not only increase but would be almost irreversible.

Following its signing in Rome in October 2004, it must be ratified by all 25 EU Member States by November 2006. Some ten countries will hold referendums on it, but it cannot legally come into force if any one of them says’ No’. though past experience suggests that if a small country failed to ratify it would come under pressure to think again. [They’ve never taken a ‘No’ -Yet.]

Instead of providing a framework of law, on examination the EU document appears to be more like an instrument of government, or a rolling legislative programme.

In effect it will provide a new set of rules for the governance of the whole of Europe under a single bureaucracy, with legislative power centralised in Brussels

As the “capital” of a new State in its own right, in a word, it makes law, rather than providing a framework for law making.

It would cancel all previous EU treaties creating an entirely new source of legal authority, which would be supreme over all the member states.

Once agreed it would entail an unprecedented transfer of power away from our elected politicians to those who are unelected, and unaccountable to the British electorate at any time. Its importance therefore cannot be over estimated for our future and that of our children and generations to come.

In effect, Parliament in Westminster would become a rubber stamp for legislation created in Brussels.

If the Constitution is ratified, the EU member states would constitutionally and legally become provinces within a European federal state with their national democracy, sovereignty and political independence abandoned, as they agree formally to subordinate themselves to the superior ‘umbrella’ of a new State federation.

The very existence of an EU wide Constitution which may be incorporated into our own raises the fundamental question that we thought we had settled some 300 years ago, in 1689 with our own Bill of Rights (un-repealed) -

‘How, and by whom, do we wish to be governed?’

*

Part 5

Do we really need the EU Constitution?

It is important to remember that no political party

or British people

has ever received a mandate from the British people

to abolish our own Constitution for another.

Additionally, apart from groups within the political parties in the UK, nobody actually asked for it! Indeed, national polls consistently show a large against adopting it.

Constitutions must reflect the will and consent of the people, and it is important to realise that the whole movement for UK/EU integration over the past 35 years or so has come from a relatively small political ‘elite’ within the political parties, but NOT from the People.

The advent of the EU Constitution is the climax of a long, but largely unknown, steady transfer of power away from our own elected representatives to a self-perpetuating bureaucracy.

The accumulative result of a series of EU treaties signed by successive governments has meant that in effect a slow motion, political coup d’etat has now taken place.

Acceptance of the EU Constitution would only serve to increase EU control over our affairs to an incalculable degree, and then setting it in concrete so that we could only leave the EU in future with extreme difficulty.

*

Part 6

What are the things we should worry about in the EU Constitution?

There are many, but let’s summarise some of the main concerns. The most important is the fact that the political landscape would be changed as a massive transfer of power normally exercised by nation States would continue to pass into the hands of a small, but powerful elite.

These new powers would be in the hands of three EU Council and Commission, neither of which are directly accountable to the British electorate, whilst the EU Commission is unelected, being made up of political appointees. Some main points to note are:

·                One President for the whole of the European Union (present membership -25 states) elected through the EU Qualified Majority voting system.

·                One Foreign and Defence policy, and eventually one single Army, Navy and Air Force -with one Union Minister for Foreign Affairs appointed by the Council of Ministers.

·                One Single Justice system replacing our own, but without Trial by Jury and without the protection of Habeas Corpus [now in May 2005 suspended for one year]

·                One Currency (the Euro) as the only currency of the EU.

·                One Tax System under a progressive plan to harmonise national tax systems [That is why tax has been rising under dear old New Labour so as to bring it into line with the EU]

·                One Single and Supreme organisation to negotiate Treaties or Trade Agreements with World bodies such as the UN and WTO (World Trade Organisation) for all its member states, depriving them of control over key economic decisions.

·                One Single Economic policy for the EU as a whole, irrespective of all other national, political, or economic considerations.

*

Part 7

What are some of the essential points to note in the Constitution?

These are too many to look at in detail, but here are some of the main provisions it contains, all of which give cause for serious concern for the future of democracy.

Before we look at these there is one key question which should have been asked of each of them, and indeed the whole Constitution- ‘How would any of these effect our right to govern ourselves in accordance with the wishes of the electorate, the people, through our own democratic institutions? [What’s left of them in May 2005]?

*

Part 8

What about the ‘superiority’ of EU Law?

Article 1-7 states “EU Law shall have primacy over the Law of member-states”

This is as comprehensive a ‘catch all’ clause as it is possible to get, and confirms that national law is to be subservient to EU Law.

This clause, unlike most of the Articles, is clear and unambiguous, but its adoption would give EU institutions an authority higher than that of the Westminster Parliament itself. This means that the will of the people expressed through a General Election could be overridden at any time.

In effect the people lose their hard-won right to vote

for polices they want.

Part 9

Could we still exercise our veto if we wish?

Yes-but it would be largely irrelevant for the [New] Constitution will make Qualified Majority Voting the general rule in EU legislation.

The national veto will be abolished in 63 important policy making areas so that Britain can be increasingly out-voted by the other countries on new EU laws.

This represents a serious loss of political power and influence, not only within the EU, but of course for the ordinary British voter who will have no say in deciding these and other policy areas.

*

Part 10

Would we still keep our own Foreign & Defence Policy?

The Constitution would give to the EU the power to “define and implement” a Common Foreign and Defence Policy, to cover all areas of foreign policy.

Article 1-16: “Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s Common and Foreign policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity, and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area” Also, a new position of an EU Foreign Minister will be created and he will be responsible for conducting the policy.

Clearly, for a State to give up its capacity to form and implement its own independent polices is an immensely serious step.

It would rob the people of any substantial guarantee of protection by its own government in times of international tension or war, and national interest would then be secondary to the interest of the Union.

*

Part 11

Would we keep the right to make our own laws?

Only in relatively minor areas and in much curtailed way.

In some areas of policy the EU would have “exclusive competence”, which means exclusive powers. In other areas the right of a government to make laws would be removed unless the EU decides not to legislate in those areas of “shared competence” -e.g. in Social policy. The Internal Market, Agriculture and Fisheries, Environment and Consumer Protection, Transport, Energy, Freedom, Security and Justice. In most of these areas the EU already exercises, rather than shares, power.

So, once again the power remaining for UK Government to exercise a mandate given to it in any General Election would be abolished and severely diminished.

*

Part 12

Does this mean control over our economy would be affected?

With the EU having produced 101,811 regulations since Britain joined in 1973, this flood of red tape “directives” has a stranglehold on British business and severely affects the competitiveness of our economy.

We have already mentioned the effect of the EU’s right to exclusive or shared “competence” over many areas of public policy. Under Article 1-15 the Union would have new powers to “co-ordinate the economic, employment, and social policies of the member states”.

The British Treasury commented.

“This could have far reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies whether they are part of the euro areas or not”

The British economy has been drained of more than £180,000,000,000 (£180 billion) since we joined, equivalent to £7,500 per household, or three years spending on the NHS (House of Lords EU Select Committee Report 2005)

Even the contributions we receive back from the EU (British Rebate of £3.6 billion) have to be spent as the EU directs, or require matching spending by our government.

*

Part 13

What about the EU’s “Charter of Fundamental Rights? Isn’t that good for us?

No! In the first place it gives us no rights we did not receive when we were born British subjects. In the second place, because for the first time ever this gives the EU Court of Justice the power to decide our human rights in all areas covered by EU Law.

(The ECJ in Luxembourg should not be confused with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is not connected to the EU, and has over 40 States as members)

It is important, in that the Constitution could create new rights or take away existing ones, if it is in the interests of the Union.

It would supersede our national Constitution, which is clear about rights, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, in areas affected by EU Law. We don’t need a EU court to “grant” rights, which are already ours in our Constitution!

More worrying is the prospect of the removal of our ‘Trial by Jury’ system to be replaced by decisions made by EU professional judges, and even the imprisonment of any criminal suspect, but without the existing safeguards of ‘habeas corpus’. This ancient constitutional right under our British justice system means that the police cannot detain suspects longer than 24 hours without being brought before a Court of Law, and where the Police have to prove they have an arguable case.

(Remember the plight of British ‘plane-spotters’ held for weeks in Greece in 2003?)

Article 11-114 is sinister in that it forbids any political campaigning to reverse any aspects of the Charter.

Other Articles under this section are equally disturbing-e.g. the creation of an EU wide criminal justice system through harmonisation of national laws, together with a Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the right to extend the powers of its own police force - which would enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, as do the employees and their spouses of all EU institutions at present.

[In other words we have the re-emergence of a Supreme Presidium on the old Soviet pattern with a few million EU citizens living the good-life at the expense of the expected largely supine and brainwashed flock of the majority.]

*

Part 14

Are there other things that should worry us about the Constitution?

Here are five main points summarising why these proposals must be rejected in the referendum:

1.             The main issue is the completely undemocratic nature of the EU institutions, and these proposals in the Constitution. Giving these powers to the EU would entrench permanently the current undemocratic structure of the EU as it exists already, including the scandal of endemic fraud and financial corruption, which has prevented the EU, accounts from being passed for ten successive years - by its own auditors.

For example: how is it possible for the EU to keep financial control within its £73 billion budget, over its own 662 bank accounts in 45 banks all over the world, together with its dealings with another [We are not joking the figure is as stated] 214,000 bank accounts?

2.             Article 1-26 would ensure that the un-elected EU Commission would keep the sole right to propose new EU Laws.

3.             The European Central Bank will stay politically unaccountable to national electorates.

4.         The Constitution will ensure increased majority voting in the Council of Ministers, and the chances of being outvoted on the imposition of EU law on the UK would increase also - whether or not the British public, Parliament, or government wished to oppose them.

5.         Lastly, there is the problem of what is known as the ‘Passerelle’, or ‘flexibility’ clause in the Constitution which provides that the European Council of Presidents and Ministers, acting unanimously, may authorise the Council of Ministers to act by qualified majority voting in areas where unanimity is currently required. This cannot be done if a national parliament objects, but the formal approval of national parliaments is not required.

This means that policy areas where States still retain a NATIONAL VETO can henceforth be put under EU majority voting without the need for new treaties, formal parliamentary approval, or ratification by popular referendums.

*

Part 15

What if we vote ‘No’ in the Referendum?

If either the UK or any other member state votes ‘no’ to the EU Constitution won’t that mean that the Constitution will be scrapped?

This is an interesting question, and in theory if any one-member state does reject it then the Constitution falls entirely for all other countries too.

It is important to remember that the Constitution is not an end in itself, but part of A WIDER STRATEGY FOR FULL INTEGRATION OF ALL MEMBER STATES INTO ONE POLITICAL ENTITY - A SUPERSTATE, to counter the economic and political might of the USA, with political power centred in Brussels.

Too much political (and personal vested!) interests at stake for the EU to allow this long term strategy to fail at any point, and rejection of the Constitution therefore would be very serious for the EU establishment, but not final.

Past experience of the EU’s known methods indicates that it already anticipated ‘no’ votes by member states, and that a ‘Plan B’ would most certainly be implemented.

At present Spain has already voted ‘Yes’, and it looks increasingly likely that France may vote ‘No’; whilst in the UK there is a strong, and growing, cross party opposition to further EU integration policies. This trend may emerge in other countries also.

It may be asked - what then will happen to the Constitution? Two likely scenarios emerge.

Firstly, it may be simply re-packaged in another form although possible remaining substantially unaltered, and then re-negotiated with other member states.

Secondly, and meanwhile, the treaty of Nice will be re-established as the governing document for Europe, and the main elements of the Constitution will be gradually, if not stealthily, [as is their usual cunning method] introduced through the existing powers vested in the European Union by National governments - which is happening already!

In one form or another therefore, we will still get the EU Constitution. Clearly, the only way in which we will be able to retain our democracy, our political and economic self -governing status, together with the return of our freedoms and liberties, is to leave the EU.

*

[Font altered-bolding &underling used-comments in brackets.]

MAY/05

*

13th October,2007

MAY/07

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin