The New
European
Constitution
proposes to give the
EU
the constitutional form
of a
State
by four logical legal steps:
(1) It repeals the existing EU and EC treaties and thereby
abolishes the
existing European Union and
Community (Article IV-437);
(2) It establishes in their place what
would constitutionally, legally and
politically be quite a new European
Union, based like any State upon its
own Constitution (Article I-1);
(3) It asserts the primacy of this
Constitution and laws made under it
over
the Constitutions and laws of its
Member States (Article I-6);
(4) It gives this new Union legal
personality for the first time so that
it
may conduct itself as a State amongst
the international community of
States (Article I-7).
The Constitution also proposes
important changes in the rules of running the EU. It would surrender some
60 further areas of national policy or decision-making to Brussels. It would
take significant steps towards
militarizing the EU. It would give the
new Union the power to decide our
basic rights for the first time in all
areas covered by EU law, which is
now vast and growing.
Most national political leaders can be
expected to take a wholly
uncritical
view of the EU Constitution because the
more national powers are
transferred to Brussels, the more power
accrues to themselves personally,
as
they make supranational laws for 450
million people on the 25-member EU
Council of Ministers. However
citizens lose their power to decide their
own
laws thereby. They lose their
right to political self-determination and
their national independence and
democracy.
Every effort has been made to ensure
that the legal facts on the proposed Constitution in this 12-point Summary are
correct.
The political judgements are
of course a matter of opinion.
In the comments below on the national
vetoes abolished we have drawn on the
valuable legal notes on the
Constitution carried on the web-site of the
British Vote No Campaign, www.vote-no.com, as well as on
material
published
by the
Democracy Movement.
This document has been prepared by a
small EU-critical research and
information centre in Dublin. We
receive no public funds and our work is
entirely financed out of our own
pockets, apart from occasional private
donations. We would like to publish
this and related material in properly
printed form for dissemination across
the EU through TEAM, the European
Alliance of EU-critical Movements, to
which we are affiliated.
If you think this work merits
supporting, my colleagues and I would ask
you
to consider sending us a donation to
the address below. Any such
assistance
would be used solely to further our
EU-critical work and would of course
be
acknowledged.
With good wishes for your own work for
British and international democracy
and against the proposed EU
Constitution in the period ahead . . .
Yours faithfully
Anthony Coughlan
Secretary
The National Platform EU Research and
Information Centre
24 Crawford Ave.
Dublin 9
Ireland
Tel: 00-353-1-8305792
PS. On another matter entirely: the
Irish Minister for Justice stated
recently that if identity cards were
introduced in the UK, they would be
introduced in the Republic of Ireland
also so as to safeguard the
Anglo-Irsh travel area. Mr Tony Blair's
policy on identity cards in
Britain
stems ultimately from his commitment to
EU integration. When citizens in
all EU countries carry identity
cards, these would doubtless be
"harmonized"
like passports, and all carry the EU
flag as part of the new Union's
"common area of freedom and
justice". It is disconcerting in these
circumstances to read that it is
Britain's ultra-Europhile Lib-Dems who
are
opposing this policy. One would think
that there should be rich electoral
dividends to be reaped by any UK
politicians who can link opposition to
this assault on traditional British
liberties with criticism of the EU as
its ultimate source?
***************************
12-POINT SUMMARY
of the
New EU
CONSTITUTION
Part 1
WHY IT SHOULD CONCERN US
_____________
WHAT THOSE WHO DRAFTED THE
CONSTITUTION SAY ABOUT IT
·
The
Constitution is the capstone of a European Federal State."
*
·
- Guy Verhofstadt,
Belgian Prime Minister,Financial Times,21-6-2004
*
_________________
* "Our Constitution cannot
be reduced to a mere treaty for co-operation
between governments. Anyone who has not yet grasped this fact deserves
to wear the dunce's cap."
- Valery Giscard-d'Estaing,
President of the EU Convention, Speech in
Aachen accepting the Charlemagne Prize
for European integration, 29-5-2003
________________
* "It wasn't worth creating
a negative commotion with the British. I
rewrote my text with the word federal
replaced by communautaire, which
means exactly the same thing."
- Valery Giscard d'Estaing, Wall
Street Journal Europe, 7-7-2003
_________________
* "We know that nine out of
10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis
of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the
vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be
Yes."
- Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former
Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of
the EU Convention, Irish Times, 2-6-2004
__________________
* "In Europe one needs to
act 'as if' - as if what was wanted was little,
in order to obtain much, as if States
were to remain sovereign to convince
them to concede sovereignty S The
Commission in Brussels, for example,
should act as if it were a technical
instrument, in order to be able to be
treated as a government. And so on by
disguise and subterfuge."
- Giuliano Amato, Italian Prime
Minister and later Vice-President of the EU Convention which drafted the
Constitution,interview with Barbara Spinelli,
La Stampa, 13-7-2000
___________________
* "The Convention brought
together a self-selected group of the European
political elite, many of whom have
their eyes on a career at a European
level, which is dependent on more and
more integration and who see
national parliaments and governments as an obstacle ... Not once in the sixteen
months I spent on the Convention did representatives question whether deeper
integration is what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best
interests or whether it provides the best basis for a
sustainable structure for an expanding
Union. The debates focused solely
on where we could do more at European Union level S None of the existing
policies were questioned ... Consensus was achieved among those who were deemed
to matter and those deemed to matter made it plain that the rest would not be allowed to wreck the final
agreement."
- Gisela
Stuart MP, British Labour
Party representative on the EU
Convention and member of its Praesidium
which drafted the Constitution,in
> "The Making of Europe's Constitution", London, 2003
________________
* "Creating a single
European State bound by one European Constitution is the decisive task of our
time."
- German Foreign Minister
Joschka Fischer, Daily Telegraph, 27-12-1998
______________
·
INTRODUCTION
Below is a 12-point summary of the EU
Constitution, which is contained in
the "Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe" that was signed in October 2004.
·
Some 10 countries will be
holding referendums on this between now and autumn 2006.
·
Download the
"Reader-Friendly Edition of the EU Constitution", which will give you
its full text, together with a useful index, glossary and other information,
from http://www.euabc
The Constitution has 448 Articles and
is divided into four parts,indicated
by Roman numerals.It has 36 Protocols
and 48 political Declarations
attached and is over 400 pages long.
WHERE THE EU CONSTITUTION CAME FROM
In 2001 the Laeken Declaration of EU
Presidents and Prime Ministers set up
the "Convention on the Future of
Europe" to consider the widely
acknowledged problem of the lack of
democracy in the EU, and how to make the EU less centralised and bring it closer
to citizens.
· The Declaration
referred to the possibility of
restoring powers from the EU to its Member
States and mentioned the drafting of a
Constitution only as a possibility
"in the long run". But
instead of making proposals for a more democratic and less centralised EU, the
Euro-federalists who dominated the Convention rushed headlong into drafting a
Constitution which proposes replacing the existing EU by a new Union in the
constitutional form of an EU Federation.
· The Constitution they
drafted does not propose restoring a single power
from Brussels to the Member States, but
instead shifts many more powers
from the Member States to Brussels. One
reason why most national political leaders can be expected to take a wholly
uncritical view of it is that every transfer of national power to Brussels
increases their own personal
power at EU level, where they make laws
for 450 million Europeans on the
EU Council of Ministers.
· At national level Government
Ministers are part of the executive arm of government and require the support
of elected national parliaments for their policies. At EU level these same
people are transformed into supranational legislators for over half a
continent. It is unsurprising that this appeals to Ministers and aspiring Ministers.
· This huge increase in the
power of a tiny number of politicians comes at at the expense of a reduced say
for ordinary citizens, the loss of their right to decide who will make their
laws and with it their national independence
and democracy.
· 12-POINT SUMMARY
1.THE CONSTITUTION WOULD GIVE THE EU THE CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF A STATE:
The "Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe" sets out to create an entirely new, totally
different and vastly more powerful EU entity in the constitutional form of a
Federal European State, without changing the "EU" name.
What is called the "European
Union" at present is a descriptive term for
various forms of cooperation between
its Member States(See Title 1,Article
A, of the Maastricht Treaty on European
Union,1993). One of these forms is the European Community (EC). This
still exists. It has legal personality separate from its Member States, all 25
of which still belong to it.
·
· In the 1960s the EC Court of Justice declared Community(EC)
law to be supranational and to
have primacy over national law in any case of conflict between the two, although this has never been laid down
in any
Treaty.
·
· The European Community(EC) covers mainly the economic
and single
market area, including the
euro-currency. Here the Community Member States are regarded as having
"pooled" their sovereignty and the EC Commission as having the
exclusive right to propose EC laws.
In all other areas of government the EU
Member States have retained their
independence and sovereignty, and
cooperate with one another as free and
equal partners internationally, or
"intergovernmentally" in EU
terminology: in foreign and military matters, crime and justice matters,
and national
policy on health, housing,
education,social security, culture etc.
·
· If the proposed Constitution
were ratified we would stand to lose our
independence from the EU in such areas.
The proposed Treaty-cum-Constitution
would equip the EU with teeth.
· The "European Union" that we are currently
members of refers to all these different forms of cooperation taken together.
· However the present EU does
not have legal personality or an
independent corporate existence in its
own right. There is therefore, strictly
speaking, no such thing as
"European Union" law, only
"European Community" or "EC" law.
· The Constitution's
supporters generally mix up the terms "Union" and
"Community" to prevent people realising that the proposed new
European Union, based on its own Constitution, would in legal and political
terms be fundamentally different from the EU that we are currently members of.
·
·
The new Union would become
our real sovereign. We would be real citizens of it for the first time, not
just honorary ones as we are told we are at
present, and we would owe it and its
institutions real allegiance.
JUST FOUR STEPS TO A SUPERSTATE:
The "Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe" gives the EU the
constitutional form of a European
Federation in four logical legal steps:
STEP ONE is to repeal all
the previous European treaties from the 1957
Treaty of Rome to the 2003 Nice Treaty
and thereby abolish the existing
European Union and European Community.
Article IV-437 provides: "This
Treaty establishing a Constitution for
Europe shall repeal the Treaty
establishing the European Community,
the Treaty on European Union and...
the acts and treaties which have
supplemented and amended them."
STEP TWO is to establish in
their place what is constitutionally,legally
and politically quite a new European
Union,founded like any State upon its
own Constitution. Article I-1 provides:
"Reflecting the will of the
citizens and States of Europe to build
a common future, this Constitution
establishes the European
Union..." A Constitution in this context, as
distinct from a Treaty, is an
independent source of legal authority for a
State. The EU Constitution lays down
that the new Union would be the legal
successor of the existing EU and EC and
that it would take over the
100,000
or so pages of existing Community
law, as the Community would be
henceforth
defunct(Art.IV-438). Those pushing the
Constitution believe that because
the same name,"European
Union",is used before and after, people will not
notice the enormous legal-political
significance of the change being
proposed.
STEP THREE is to lay down
that the EU Constitution and laws made under it
shall have primacy over the law,
including the Constitutional Law,of its
Member States, just as in any Federal
State, without any qualification or
exclusions. Article I-6 provides:
·
·
"The Constitution and
law adopted by the
institutions of the Union in exercising
competences conferred on it shall
have primacy over the law of the Member
States."
·
This primacy of
supranational European law has never
been stated in a European Treaty
before. Unlike the present EU and the
treaties it is based on, which
recognise that Member States remain
independent and sovereign in certain
areas, the proposed Constitution for
this new Union would bring ALL areas of government policy within its scope
either actually or potentially.
·
The EU Constitution would
become the fundamental source of legal authority for the new Union, supplanting
the national constitutions of the Member States
in that respect,and national
constitutions and laws would have to bechanged to recognise this fact.
·
·
The superiority of the EU
over its MemberStates is also evident in the important second sentence of
Article I-1
which establishes the new Union:
"The Union shall coordinate the policies
by which the Member States aim to
achieve these objectives(i.e.the
objectives and values they have in
common), and shall exercise on a
Community basis the competences they
confer on it."
·
As Convention
Chairman
V.Giscard d'Estaing has remarked: "It
wasn't worth creating a negative
commotion with the British. I rewrote
my text with the word federal
replaced by communautaire, which means
exactly the same thing."
STEP FOUR is for the
EU Constitution to give this new European Union legal
personality and its own separate
corporate existence for the first time,
so that
it can make treaties in its own right with other States and conduct
itself as a State in the international
community of States. Article I-7
provides: "The Union shall have
legal personality." This Article would
make the new EU legally separate from
its Members, just as the USA
Federation is separate from its
constituent members states such as Texas or New York, which retain their own
state constitutions but are subordinate
to
the US Constitution.
By these four steps the "Treaty
Establishing a Constitution for Europe"
would establish a new European Union in
the constitutional form of a
Federal European State, within which
the present sovereign Member States
would have the constitutional form of provinces
or regions.
·
·
This new
federal EU would not yet have all the
powers of a fully-fledged
Federation.
The two principal powers it would
lack would be the power to levy taxes
and to compel its component members to
go to war against their will. [YET]
·
But
otherwise it would possess all the
main features of Statehood, including
those set out in the Montevideo
Convention governing the recognition of
States in international law. Those
pushing the EU integration project are
confident the EU will obtain these two
remaining powers in time. The
Constitution gives the EU flag,
anthem, motto and annual Europe Day a
legal
basis in a European treaty for
the first time,as the State symbols of the
EU Federation it establishes(Art.I-8).
2. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES MADE BY THE
EU CONSTITUTION:
The Constitution would replace
the system of weighted voting for making
EU
laws that was agreed in the Nice Treaty
to allow for EU enlargement, by a new "double majority" system of
States and populations(Art.I-25).
·
This
would mean that 55% of the Member
States, at least 15, could outvote 10 as
long as they included 65% of the EU's
total population.
The Constitution would abolish some 60
further national vetoes on areas of
EU public policy-making or decision-taking,
in addition to those already
abolished by the Nice Treaty and
earlier treaties(See the list below).
·
·
The
abolition of the national veto in so
many policy areas, so that countries
can increasingly be out-voted by other
countries on new EU laws, would
cost us crucial influence in the EU Council of Ministers. This is the 25-member
body that makes EU laws based on proposals from the Commission. On it each
Member State has one Minister out of 25
and has a percentage of the EU's
total population weight.
Influence is based on power - without
the power to veto EU laws, we can
make our views about them known but
there is no reason why they should be
taken into account. The proposed shift
to a mainly population-based
system
for EU law-making would make it easier
for Big States to get their way,
especially if they combine, as France
and Germany continually do, and
would
reduce the relative voting strength of
medium-sized States.
·
It would make
EU laws easier to pass,which means
there would be more of them. Ministers
claim this would be an increase in
efficiency, but more EU laws do not
necessarily mean better ones.
The Constitution would also create a
full-time EU President for up to five
years by majority vote of the EU
Presidents and Prime Ministers(Art.I-22).
This new EU President would be a
considerably more powerful figure than
the existing rotating Council presidents and would preside over EU
"summit"
meetings, yet would not be directly
elected by voters or even the European
Parliament. The Constitution also
provides for a rotating EU Commission so
that individual Member States would
have no representative for one-third
of
the time on this body that proposes EU
laws to the Council of Ministers,
which then makes them(Art.I-26).
3. THE NEW EU'S EXCLUSIVE AND
TREATY-MAKING POWERS:
The Constitution would give the new
Union sole and "exclusive" legal power to decide policy as
regards trade tariffs and quotas, monetary policy for the eurozone, competition
rules for the internal market,fisheries
conservation and trade agreements with
other countries(Art.I-13).
·
The EU's
sole power to sign international
treaties with other States in these areas
would be extended to cover
international agreements arising from other Union policies(Art.I-13.2).
Together with the treaties to be signed under
the Common Foreign and Security Policy
or by the new EU Foreign
Minister(see Point 6 below), the
Constitution would deprive Member States of most of their present treaty-making
powers (Art.III-323).
4. THE NEW EU'S SHARED POWERS WITH
ITS MEMBER STATES:
The Constitution lists a wide range of
government policies where power is
stated to be "shared" between
the EU and its Member States(Art.I-14).
These
include the internal market, social policy,
agriculture and fisheries,
environment, consumer protection,
transport, energy, the area of freedom,
security and justice, and "common
safety concerns in public health
matters".
This is a peculiar kind of sharing, for
as the new Union is
constitutionally
primary or superior, the power of
elected governments to make laws unless
the EU decides not to is essentially
residual and on sufferance.Thus
Article I-12 provides: "The Member
States shall exercise their competence
to the extent that the Union has not
exercised, or has decided to cease
exercising, its competence."
5. THE NEW EU'S SUPPORTING,
COORDINATING AND COMPLEMENTARY POWERS:
The Constitution would give the EU the
power to take "supporting,
co-ordinating or complementary
action" in a further range of
vaguely-defined areas including the
"protection and improvement of human
health", industry,
culture,tourism, education, youth, sport, vocational
training, civil protection and
administrative co-operation(Art.I-17).
It would give the EU new powers to
"co-ordinate" economic, employment and
social policies(Arts.I-15). A Federal
cooordinator would be superior to
the
constituent states it coordinates and
the new EU would be constitutionally
required to coordinate all policies by
which the Member States aim to
achieve the very wide objectives and
values they have in
common(Arts.I-1,second sentence, and
I-3). Article III-210 lists the many
areas of social policy where the EU
would have the right to "support and
complement" the activities of
Member States. Article III-147 would allow
the EU to enforce the
"liberalisation" and privatisation of
"services",which would
include public services like health, education,
social security and housing, as well as
cultural services.
6. THE NEW EU'S FOREIGN POLICY AND
MILITARY POWERS:
The Constitution would give the new
Union the power to "define and
implement" a common foreign and
security policy which would "cover all
areas of foreign policy" and which
Member States would be required to
"actively and unreservedly support
in a spirit of loyalty and mutual
solidarity".
·
·
It would impose on Member States a new obligation to
"comply with" the Union's actions in foreign policy, as against the
existing
treaty requirement to "support" these (Art.I-16;ex-Art.11TEU).
A State could be referred to the EU
Court of Justice for breach of its
obligations under this Article, as the
Court is not excluded from acting
in relation to it(Art.III-376).
Member States would be constitutionally
obliged to consult one another in the EU Council "on any foreign and
security policy issue which is of general interest in order to determine a
common approach" and "before undertaking any action on the
international scene or any commitment which
could affect the Union's interests"(Art.I-40). These
provisions clearly rule out an EU Member State pursuing an independent
foreign policy.
The Constitution would create an EU
Foreign Minister, who would be
responsible for conducting the common
foreign and security policy and would preside over the Council of national
Foreign Ministers. These nationally elected politicians would come and go while
the EU Foreign Affairs Minister presided for five years (Art.I-28).
· The Constitution also
provides that
"When the Union has defined a
position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda,
those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the
Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be
asked to present the Union's position"(Art.III-305).
· The Constitution would also
create an EU diplomatic service(Art.III-296). It would clear the way for the EU
to negotiate, sign and ratify international treaties on foreign policy and
security matters on behalf of its Member
States(Arts.III-323 and 325). It would
delete the clause in the current
treaties which allows Member States to
opt out of international agreements
if their constitutions require them to
be ratified by national parliaments(Art.III-325;ex-Art.24.5TEU).
The Constitution would require all Member States, including the neutral
ones, to "make civilian and military capabilities available to the
Union for the implementation of the common security and defence policy"
and to"undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities"(Art.I-41)
·
This provision amounts to a
constitutional obligation on Member States to work towards a more militarized
EU.
The provision in the Nice Treaty that the progressive framing of a
common
EU defence policy "MIGHT LEAD
to a common defence, SHOULD the EuropeanCouncil decide"
(Art.17TEU), becomes in the Constitution that it "WILL LEAD to a
common defence, WHEN the European Council,acting unanimously, so
decides"(Art.I-41). The formal ending of the neutrality of the neutrals is clearly only a
matter of time.
The Constitution would permit a sub-group of Member States to be formed
by qualified majority vote in the military and defence area, even though
some EU Members may be opposed to that(Art.III-312).
·
Such a sub-group, to be known as "permanent
structured cooperation", would be empowered to make special military
arrangements among themselves, establish
EU"battle-groups"
and undertake military missions abroad without involving
other EU members "in accordance with the principle of a single set of
forces"(Protocol No.23).
This
"principle of a single set of forces"clearly points to an
emerging EU army under "structured cooperation". This
mechanism would be a way for the EU's military heavyweights to get around the
slowness of the neutrals to embrace EU militarization.
The Constitution also includes the EURATOM Protocol(No.36) which amends
the European Atomic Energy Treaty that supports nuclear power and continues the
EURATOM Community in being indefinitely under the Constitution's provisions.
7. THE EU'S NEW CRIME,JUSTICE AND
POLICING POWERS:
The
Constitution would allow movement towards an EU criminal justice system on the
continental model, which does not have juries or "habeas
corpus",i.e.the right to be brought before a judge to have one's detention
legally and publicly justified.
·
· This is to be done through
harmonisation of national laws and mutual recognition of judicial and
extra-judicial decisions(Arts.I-42,III-260,269,270) and giving the new EU the
power to set down common definitions of criminal offences and sanctions for
serious crime with a cross-border dimension (Art.III-271).
The role of Eurojust, which links justice
systems across the EU, would be extended from "co-ordination" of
criminal prosecutions to include also their "initiation", and the
extension of Eurojust's "structure, operation, field of action and
tasks" would be permitted(Art.III-273).
·
· An EU Public Prosecutor's
Office is proposed(Art.III-274),to
undertake EU prosecutions in national courts, initially for offences of fraud
against the new EU, but open to extension by unanimous agreement of the EU
Presidents and Prime Ministers to cover any serious crime with a cross-border
dimension.
Europol,the EU's embryonic federal
police force,
whose officers enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution(Protocol 7),
would be given new powers, including the collection and processing of
information and "the coordination, organisation and implementation of
investigative and operational action carried out jointly with the Member
States' competent authorities or in the context of joint investigative
teams"(Art.III-276;ex-Art.30TEU).
8.THE EU'S NEW POWERS TO DECIDE OUR
RIGHTS:
The EU
Constitution
would for the first time give the EU Court of Justice the
power to decide our rights. This would be in all areas covered by EU law, which
is now vast and growing. Most EU policies and decisions can be construed as
having a human rights dimension.
·
· It would remove the final
say on rights issues in these areas from national Constitutions and Supreme
Courts, or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which is independent of the
EU Court.
It does this by including the EU's
"Charter of Fundamental Rights" as Part II of the four-part
Constitution, making it legally binding and giving the EU Court the power
to apply it. EU rights law in these areas would override national law and have
direct effect.
·
·
This
includes Article II-112 which
sinisterly allows
"limitations" of basic rights in the general interests of the EU. The
Preamble to the Charter in the Constitution states that it will be interpreted
in the light of the "Explanations" set out in Declaration
·
·
12. One of these allows the death-penalty to be imposed "in time of war or
during the immediate threat of war",even though all Member States have
abolished the death penalty nationally.
Article II-114 would forbid
any political campaigning to reverse any
aspects of the Charter. Giving
the EU Court of Justice the power to decide
our rights does not strengthen or
improve them one iota.
·
·
This
is more about power than rights, for it would give wide scope for reaching into
some of the most intimate areas of our lives to a Court that is notorious for
using its case-law to extend EU powers to the utmost.
·
·
This development would
also install a new tier of expensive lawyers and judges between citizens and
the final court of appeal that would decide their rights.
* * *
For further details about the EU there are a number of
articles on the Bulletin Board and we list below web-sites which might be of
interest.
www.junepress.comm
www.globalbritain.org
www.vote-no.comm
www.euabc.
www.britishdemocracycampaign.co.uk
www.footrule.org
www.poptel.org.uk/
www.cibhq.co.uk
www.congressfordemocracy.org
www.democracymovement.org.uk
www.eufactsfigures.com
www.tfa.net
www.taylor.co.uk/eu/
www.ukip.org
www.statewatch.org
www.savebritfish.org.uk
www.freenations.freeuk.com
There
are many other worthwhile web-sites shown throughout our essays.
Click Here for Part 2
* * *
MARCH/05
*
*
|
THE PEOPLE HAVE
SPOKEN-IS THE EU COMMISSION LISTENING?
*
Ditch the EU TREATY after IRISH REJECTION
SAY VOTERS
by
Daniel Martin
Political Reporter
[Daily Mail-Wednesday, June 18,2008]
MORE THAN HALF of voters believe Britain should drop the
controversial European Treaty in the wake of its rejection in last
week's
IRISH REFERENDUM'
The poll comes as the Tories launch a last-ditch bid in
the
HOUSE of LORDS
today to delay the
RATIFICATION OF THE
TREATY.
And
10,000 people
have signed a
PETITION
on the
DOWNING STREET- WEBSITE
within the past few days
JUNE16-2008
, calling on the
GOVERNMENT
NOT TO RATIFY THE BILL
[WHY DON'T YOU?]
Downing Street website is
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Abandon-Lisbon/
*
JUNE 18-2008
|
*
*
The abolition of Britain
by The Reform Treaty
- Second Reading-Passed by majority of 138
*
Veteran parliamentarian TONY BENN speaks of the
absolute necessity of a
REFERENDUM
HEAR HIM ON
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o
*
*
* *
[Font Altered-Bolding & Underlining
Used-Comments in Brackets]
*
Veteran parliamentarian
TONY BENN speaks of the absolute necessity
of a
REFERENDUM
HEAR
HIM ON
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o
*
*
13th October,2007
So You Want Out Of The EU
THEN WHY NOT SIGN THE
RENUNCIATION of EU CITIZENSHIP
|
WHY WE ASK YOUR SUPPORT
When we first saw the petition we reasoned that it had no
chance of success from No 10 but we supported it in order to
gauge the number of Britons who would publicly put their
name to a list which stated that they wished to
RENUNCIATE EU CITIZENSHIP and retain only
BRITISH.-THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. Some might say that
to hide behind a negative premise is both cowardly and
playing into the hands of the EU FEDERALISTS. DON'T LET
THEM GET AWAY WITH IT- Place your vote so ALL can see that
YOU CARE. about YOUR COUNTRY and YOUR FREEDOM.
|
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Optout
Details from petition creator
With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty the
people of Britain were given
DUAL CITIZENSHIP
-both
EUROPEAN and BRITISH
The extra tier of citizenship was thrust upon
the people without their consent -and in many cases knowledge.
The PEOPLE of GREAT BRITAIN should be allowed
the option of opting out of the EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP if they so wish. The
GOVERNMENT will then be able to provide those who have opted out with
BRITISH DOCUMENTATION
-only such as British (not EU) passports,
driving licences and other national documents.
EU laws will also NOT APPLY to those who
HAVE OPTED OUT OF EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP
[PETITION OPEN UNTIL OCTOBER 08]
*
| |
|
|
| |
CHRISTMAS
SPECIAL!
A BLUNT REPLY TO THE
QUEEN'S SPEECH ON CHRISTMAS DAY-25th
DECEMBER ,2007.
*
TIME
FOR DECISION
THE BRITISH
LEGACY-AUSTRALIA-CANADA-NEW ZEALAND-WHY THEY
MATTER.
*
The Act of
Settlement of 1701-WHY IT SHOULD CONCERN
-YOU!
*
The Common Law of
ENGLAND is the LAW of
THE COMMONWEALTH
and AMERICA
*
The
Commonwealth Realms V The Constitution for
Europe- 4-PARTS
*
MESSAGE FROM
AUSTRALIA-SUPPORT THE CROWN
*
WHY WE MUST BE
ALERT AND WITH OUR COMMONWEALTH PATRIOTS
MAINTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY
*
YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
BE THE
LAST IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
Will
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU
HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR FROM BECOMING A
PROVINCE OF EUROPE.
OR
WILL
THE QUEEN MAKE IT PLAIN THAT OUR FREE
INDEPENDENT NATION STATE IS SACROSANCT BUT
THAT IF THE PEOPLE WISH TO BECOME SLAVES
-THEN A REFERENDUM THERE MUST BE.
WE BELIEVE
THAT NO ENGLISHMAN SHOULD BE ASKED WHETHER
HE WISHES TO BE A SLAVE OR FREE!
THIS
CHRISTMAS WE WILL FIND OUT IF OUR PROTECTOR
OF THE
'Rights and Liberties'
of
Englishmen
Will keep
by HER SACRED OATH
or the
MONARCHY be nothing more than a
THEME
PARK in the future
THIS IS
THE TIME FOR BLUNT SPEAKING AS THE VERY
EXISTENCE OF OUR UNIQUE NATION STATE IS IN
DIRE PERIL.
We are told on the BBC (Brussels
Broadcasting Service) at 11.30 pm on
Saturday the 23rd December, 2007, that the
QUEEN now has a website which has footage of
the Royal Family in the past and that the
QUEEN is NOT
'Stuck in the past'
Well! as
far as many patriotic subjects are concerned
we need to remain in the PAST when it
concerns the protection of our
FREEDOM
and COUNTRY.
Change we
have had and will continue to have but it
must not threaten our very WAY-OF-LIFE our
Common Law of England and all which makes
our country the most unique parliamentary
democracy in the world.
THERE CAN
BE NO SURRENDER!
Should the Monarch fail to protect our
inherited RIGHTS and Liberties then we shall
have to fight for a REPUBLIC as
happened in the 17th century because the
Monarch of the day ignored those very
'Rights and Liberties of Englishmen' which
will still survive in the English Speaking
World today in December 2007. How can the
MOTHER of PARLIAMENTS give away what is
already our and our children's
INHERITANCE which cannot be taken away by
PARLIAMENT or the QUEEN.
If the above publicity
exercise is to be used to soften the impact to
the population of the BETRAYAL of their
CONSTITUTION and COUNTRY then it would be
the greatest TREASON by a Monarch since
James II who sold our COUNTRY to the FRENCH
for MONEY and RELIGION.
WE ASK WHAT PRICE ARE OUR RIGHTS AND
LIBERTIES WORTH?
THEY ARE PRICELESS!
*
*
The
Choice is Yours!-but time is running out
FAST!
6 months to be EXACT!
*
THE EU
WE-AND THEM!
WE are to
join THEM
THEY are not
joining US
WE have more to LOSE
THEY have
more to GAIN
WE have been clear of dictators from EUROPE
for most of our HISTORY
THEY have
been cursed with that abomination for most
of their HISTORY and NOW!
*
Our Queen and the EU Constitution
*
The Spirit of England
by
Winston Churchill
*
THE ENEMY IS EVERYWHERE
*
MESSAGE TO
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH THE II
*
We now learn
from the Daily Mail COMMENT on Christmas Eve
that the Queen's Speech will cover the
catastrophic fall in Values and Moral
behaviour since the beginning of her 56
-year reign. This has been brought about by
the actions of HER MINISTERS and the greater
number of those in HER PARLIAMENT who have
placed THEIR CONCERNS before the INTERESTS
of THE PEOPLE and NATION STATE.
As for
the fact that HER PEOPLE feel LOST that has
been the direct result of the actions of HER
SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENTS and the TRAITOROUS
POLITICIANS including PRIME MINISTERS who
have stealthily over the 56 years of HER
MAJESTY'S REIGN have almost achieved their
aim of ENSLAVING the PEOPLE to a FOREIGN
POWER.
The reason
for the marked drop in the number viewing
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH is no doubt because the
mass of people have realised years ago that
the MONARCH is powerless to PROTECT their
WAY-OF-LIFE and events up to now have PROVED
THEM CORRECT.
There is a well know saying
'Nero fiddled while Rome burned'
Is it the case on
Christmas Day 2007 while the Monarch
talks our Rights and Liberties are
being taken from us under our very
noses?
Of course the QUEEN
under HER CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE can only
'Advise and Warn' HER MINISTERS but when
the matter concerns the very LIFE of an
INDEPENDENT STATE we expect that HER MAJESTY
consider the arrangement to be AT AN END as
it would make a MOCKERY of the PRIME
IMPORTANCE of the MONARCH to protect our
inherited Rights and Liberties which HER
MINISTERS are endeavouring TO GIVE
AWAY.
We as loyal
subjects of the MONARCH who is the living
embodiment of OUR RIGHTS and LIBERTIES
ask at this late stage with only months to
the eradication of a FREE NATION STATE some
veiled comments that HER MAJESTY will
PROTECT our RIGHTS and LIBERTIES.
As for the
MORAL tone of the NATION STATE at this most
crucial time in ENGLISH CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY this matter
should be left to CHURCH LEADERS who's
responsibility it is to CARE for their
FLOCKS particularly at this FESTIVAL of
CHRISTMAS.
IF HER
MAJESTY'S SPEECH has not been pre-recorded
we ask HER MAJESTY to give those MILLIONS of
HER subjects some hope that their PROTECTOR
has NOT FORGOTTEN THEM.
Should this
APPEAL not be answered we can at last
confirm that the MONARCHY is after all
nothing more than a talking shop suitable
for YouTube and therefore nothing more than
a
THEME PARK
*
Hear Tony
Benn's comments about the despotic and
corrupt
EUROPEAN
UNION
and the
need for a
REFERENDUM
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=o0I-ZdvQz1o
From a
politician with INTEGRITY and love of
country who has for decades witnessed the
growth of the monstrous creature soon to be
a
UNITED
STATES OF EUROPE.
*
Liberties of Parliament-
Birthright of Subjects of England.
*
[All words/word underlined have a
separate bulletin] |
|
| |
|
|
|
A
CHRISTMAS MESSAGE
TO
ALL OUR
VIEWERS.
WE WISH YOU ALL A
HAPPY
CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY
NEW YEAR
IN
2008
[Since our
Xmas message to you all last year we find
that our sentiments remain the same with the
added emphasise on the coming danger to YOUR
COUNTRY from those many traitors in YOUR
HOUSE of COMMONS who intend to sell YOUR
COUNTRY to a FOREIGN POWER]
We Remember The
Year 2006
The
Spirit of England-Winston Churchill-1953
[We
were warned in 1953 to beware of wreckers of
our Constitution and Way-of- Life but it had
taken Tony Blair just 10 years to do just
THAT while everyone had their minds they
thought on more important matters. Well! in
2007 his predessessor Gordon Brown is
leading you to SLAVERY and only awaits the
final signature of the present holder of the House of Wessex the over 1000 year
PROTECTOR of our inherited
RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of ENGLISHMEN
HER
MAJESTY-THE QUEEN
Of the House
of Wessex since King Alfred 'the Shepherd
and Darling of England' in the annals of 893
-897
'We still
leave it to the work of
Alfred the Great
that
England was saved to become the first
individual nation -state which over 1100
years later a member of that same House of
Wessex has already signed away much of those
ancient Rights and Liberties and
fundamentals of justice and Rule of Law and
only awaits a final signature to enslave her
people into a despotic undemocratic godless
police state to call itself a
UNITED STATES
OF EUROPE
It is
within the power of Her Majesty the Queen to
refuse to ratify the New EU TREATY because
whatever lies her ministers have given her
over her long reign the TRUTH is now clear
for ALL TO SEE.
In the
Netherlands a number of years ago their
MONARCH resigned for a day rather than sign
the Bill put before him. The New EU TREATY
is the death of a NATION STATE of over 1200
years in the making. It is the treasonable
actions of HER MINISTERS which has placed
THE QUEEN in the forefront in the protection
of the Rights and Liberties of HER SUBJECTS
as on no one else can HER PEOPLE DEPEND.
GOD SAVE
THE QUEEN
*
WILL THIS CHRISTMAS QUEEN'S SPEECH
BE THE
LAST
IN A
FREE INDEPENDENT ENGLAND -SCOTLAND AND WALES?
*
A
WARNING MESSAGE TO THE FREEDOM LOVING PEOPLE OF ENGLAND
by
Harry Beckhough
[Author of Germany's Four Reich's]
2004
*
'There'll always Be an ENGLAND'
-NOT any MORE
|
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY
WON'T HE TRUST YOU?
HELL ON EARTH
IN IRAQ
*
67%
want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95%
of British people want a REFERENDUM
*
PETITION
FOR A
REFERENDUM
SIGN TODAY ON LINE
telegraph.co.uk/eureferendum
*
July 18-2007
ALSO
JOIN THE 10 DOWNING STREET PROTEST
Readers can add their support to the growing clamour for a
REFERENDUM on the '"REFORM TREATY" by signing up to a 10 Downing Street 0n-line
petition
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/EU-treaty-NON/
The Petition reads as follows:
"We
the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to guarantee that the British people
will be permitted a binding REFERENDUM on any and all attempts to resurrect the
EU " CONSTITUTION" (and any or all of its content) regardless of nomenclature."
Deadline for the PETITION is 31st January,2008
Eurofacts 27th July 2007.
*
'The Spirit of
England'
by
Winston Churchill
In London on St.George's Day -1953
*
VOTE
-2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST
ANSWER
‘DO
YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT
,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND CORRUPT ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE
TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS
WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
SCOTLAND -ITS
PARLIAMENT -WALES-ITS
ASSEMBLY-ENGLAND-STILL
AWAITS ITS PARLIAMENT-WHY?
*
Home
Rule
for
Scotland
WHY
NOT
HOME
RULE
for
ENGLAND
*
[All underlined words have a separate
bulletin
