Jan 2008

S O S

My thanks to all who have sent donations.  These are greatly appreciated and enable SOS to continue.  May I also thank everyone who has written to me, sent newsletters and news items.  I am most grateful for these and apologise to any readers to whom I have not replied. SOS has become virtually a full-time job!

May I remind readers that everything that appears in this newsletter results from our membership of the EU which leaves our government with no choice but to bring in many unpopular EU directives or regulations, frequently disguising the fact that they originate from Brussels. In most cases MPs have not had the option of amending – or even scrutinising – them before they become irrevocably enshrined in British law.

This issue, which was intended for circulation in October has been delayed for two reasons.  One was that it was in danger of being overtaken by events and the other was that, with the help of CARP (the Campaign Alliance for Referenda in Parishes), practically the whole of my time was occupied by arranging an independent Parish Referendum for Lanteglos-by-Fowey on the new European ‘Reform’ Treaty after our District Council refused us a Parish Poll under the 1972 Local Government Act. 98% of those who voted demanded that the Prime Minister hold a national referendum on the subject.

Details of useful web sites and instructions on how to go about holding a Parish Poll appear at the end of this newsletter along with details of a special offer for two of Vernon Coleman's books on the EU.

Public concern is growing

Whilst one must obviously guard against undue optimism, it would appear that there is a growing awareness amongst the general public of the dangers posed by the new Treaty and the fragility of Gordon Brown`s much trumpeted ‘red lines’ which he maintains should safeguard our independence in a number of important areas such as Justice and Home Affairs, Policing,  Fundamental Rights, Foreign Affairs and Security.

Encouragingly since the last news letter went out in June, these concerns have been increasingly taken up in sections of the Press and by political commentators who have been vocal in their support for our right to a Referendum on the new EU Treaty.  Prominent amongst them have been The Daily Telegraph, whose petition demanding that the Government stands by its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum attracted more than 110,000 signatures. Campaigns by The Daily Mail and The Sun have also received considerable public support.  The ‘Parish Poll Campaign’ has been widely featured in the Press which has published advice on how people can go about holding one.

Many respected news letters (e.g. Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign, Open Europe, European Voice) and well known commentators on EU affairs have expressed their concerns regarding the new Treaty and its creation of an EU supranational state with its own legal personality, a permanent President, Foreign Minister (High Representative) and increased control over our affairs.  These include the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Simon Heffer who both write regularly for the Daily Telegraph.

Comments about the EU treaty include:-

LADY THATCHER'S MESSAGE TO GORDON BROWN (The Sun, 29.9.07)
“I wholeheartedly support The Sun`s campaign for a referendum on the new EU Treaty.  Yet again the British people are being told that changes in the Treaty are not important, that they are technical and that in any case we have either blocked or gained opt-outs in all the worst cases.  Well, we've heard it all before only to see more and more powers grabbed by Brussels. . .

This Treaty is a blue-print for a European Constitution in all but name – a Constitution which has already been rejected.  But that's one little “technicality” the Brussels bureaucrats want us to forget. So may I say to the Prime minister, don't believe the assurances from Brussels – they gave similar ones to me!  It`s not too late to listen and it`s not too late to act.  This Treaty matters, Prime Minister, so be bold and let the British people have the final say!”

Both the Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign (July 2007) and Open Europe agree that the new Treaty is almost the same as that rejected by the French and Dutch in 2005.  Open Europe, which has produced a comparison of the two Treaties, says that the official version of the new treaty is almost unreadable for most non-specialists as it comprises a series of amendments to the existing treaties without producing the existing text. The original Constitutional Treaty was 63,000 words long and strangely enough so is the consolidated version of the new treaty.  Only ten of the two hundred and fifty proposals in the renamed Reform Treaty differ from those in the original Constitutional Treaty which it has replaced.

Several EU leaders have also admitted that the renamed constitution has deliberately been made inaccessible.  Perhaps the most revealing remarks have come from former French President Valery Gistard d' Estaing, the author of the previous Treaty who, in an open letter to Le Monde written in late October, wrote “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”  The Lisbon Treaty (the latest name for the new ‘Reform’ Treaty), he added, and its predecessor are effectively the same.

On 10 July 2007, the EU Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso, delighting in the success of the renamed Constitution, described the EU as “the creation of an Empire”.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph (1.8.07), Irwin Stelzer warned that Gordon Brown`s refusal to hold a referendum on the new EU Constitution constituted the “greatest threat” to his winning the next election and former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, argued in The Financial Times (1.8.07) that Gordon Brown must clarify his position on European integration as he believes that this will have a fundamental impact on the ‘special relationship’ between the US and the UK.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (Daily Telegraph 11.10.07) reported Professor Alan Riley, a trade competition expert at the City Law School, as saying that the changes slipped into the new draft Treaty at the insistence of the French, and the removal of the phrase “free and undistorted” competition were so far reaching that the British government should veto the entire text, even if this risks a European crisis.  The changes, he said, would make it impossible to police the single market and profoundly alter the terms of Britain`s EU membership.

According to The Euro Realist (September edition), Prime Minister Gordon Brown is reported as saying that only Parliament will have the final say on the Treaty on the grounds that the people have elected their politicians to represent them and make the decisions.  However, the people did not elect their MPs to give away the government of their country to a foreign power without their permission.  The powers of government are only loaned by the people to the politicians and to give them away would be an ACT OF TREASON.

An ICM Poll reported that more than two thirds of voters want Britain to either renegotiate the new European Treaty or pull out of the European Union altogether. Only nine per cent believe that the Treaty is different from the failed Constitution and more than half thought that it was identical or broadly the same.  Only twenty per cent of voters said that a referendum was not necessary.  By contrast, forty-seven per cent wanted a looser relationship with the EU based on trade and cooperation and twenty-three percent wanted to pull out altogether.  The negative mood is echoed across Europe.  An EU-wide TNS poll in March showed seventy-five per cent of voters in the twenty-seven member states want a referendum.  In the UK, the figure was eighty-three per cent. (Daily Mail. 10.12.07)

RECEDING RED LINES

With regard to Gordon Brown`s ‘Red Lines’, it transpires that these are similar to the ones which appeared in the original Constitutional Treaty.  According to an Open Europe report (24.7.07) the UK has a number of opt-outs, opt-ins, emergency brakes and other safeguards which in its opinion are unlikely to work.  The so-called ‘Red Lines’ are:-

Britain would retain control of justice and policing

The Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be incorporated into UK law

The UK would retain the right to run its own security system

Britain would retain the right to an independent foreign policy.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights is most likely to be challenged in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and legal experts and EU judges have indicated that our opt-out would not be an effective safeguard.  Doubts about the UK being able to escape the jurisdiction of legal judgements in regard to the Charter were echoed in a leaked memo by Michael Carpenter, the legal adviser to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee.

According to European Voice (12.10.07), Commission officials are preparing to get round the UK's opt-outs from European Court of Justice jurisdiction over existing Justice and Home Affairs legislation by repealing current laws and replacing them with new versions which would be passed by majority voting. The EU Commission has claimed that the new Treaty could pave the way for a single European prosecutor with powers to initiate and proceed with the investigation of cross-border crime.  This, and the fact that the EU will become a legal personality in its own right could result in the UK being forced to abandon its Common Law system in favour of Corpus Juris – the system of law expected to be adopted by the EU.

The powers of Eurojust (the body concerned with EU legal affairs) could also be strengthened.  The ECJ is ultimately destined to have control over policing and our opt-in can now be circumvented by a controversial 2005 ECJ ruling which means that the EU is able to propose criminal sanctions in all areas of ‘Community Competence’.  At present this competence is limited to ‘environmental crimes’ but this will be changed in the Constitution by extension of Community competence. This means that the UK would be obliged to opt-in.

The English text of the renamed Treaty states that there will be a five-year opt-out for the UK over Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), after which the UK can opt out of any legislation made before 1 January 2009, the date when the renamed Constitutional Treaty is expected to come into force.  Under Protocol 10, Article 10 (4), the EU can force the UK to surrender JHA to the EU.  However, under the newly added Article 4a (2) in the Protocol, the Council of Ministers has a legal right to try to make the UK join forces over JHA, including policing and immigration. Details at UKIP.

According to Open Europe summaries, the opt-out, or ‘emergency brake’ in regard to Foreign Affairs and Social Security is also considered unlikely to last.  The adoption of an EU Foreign Minister (or High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security) whom we will be bound to support “actively and unreservedly”, may quickly end our individual policy option. “The European Union`s competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union`s security.”

The House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee has also sounded a word of warning regarding the so-called Red Lines.  A new report states that the UK would be subject to “new and unquantifiable risks” from the EU renamed Constitution; red lines will not work. The report notes that “There will be a steady transfer of jurisdiction to the Commission and the European Court of Justice in the areas of civil and criminal justice. . . ”

COMPETENCIES (EU-speak for their right to legislate) WHICH WOULD BE HANDED TO THE EU UNDER THE NEWLY NAMED LISBON TREATY INCLUDE -

1. “National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union” (the House of Commons E.U. Scrutiny Committee is said to be alarmed by the wording).

2. Britain would lose its veto in sixty-one more areas of government. Decisions would be made by qualified majority voting which would involve a 30% loss of control for the UK.

3. The currency of the EU would be the euro.

4. The EU would have a legal personality, allowing it to sign international agreements for all member states.

5. There would be a permanent EU President who would be appointed for a renewable term of two and a half years, replacing the six monthly rotating presidency.

6. A European Foreign Minister (High Representative) would be in charge of foreign and security matters and there would be a common diplomatic service.

7. The words “social market economy” have replaced “free and undistorted competition” in relation to the Single Market (believed by many to be virtually Britain’s only benefit from the EU).

8. A ‘ratchet clause’ is included which would allow meetings of EU leaders to scrap individual national vetoes without the need for wholesale treaty change.  This would allow more and more powers to be transferred incrementally.

9. The European Council (the summit) is included in the Union’s institutions.  When heads of government meet, including our Prime Minister, they would no longer represent their own countries.  Their first loyalty would be to the EU, to “promote its values, advance its objectives and serve its interests”.

10. The number of commissioners would be cut, with only two thirds of countries supplying a commissioner at any one time, on a rota basis.

11. The EU would take over complete control of immigration.
(Compiled from various reports from Open Europe and the Daily and Sunday Telegraph).

THE COST OF THE EU

Gerard Batten MEP has produced a cost analysis of our membership of the EU.   The figures quoted in this report were taken from Government statistics where available, and where not available, conservative estimates were made. The actual costs may be more than the amounts listed.  A copy of this report may be obtained by sending a cheque payable to Gerard Batten for £2.50 to PO Box 51542, London SE1 3XS.
The net costs of our membership are given as: £4.2 billion per month, £973 million per week, £138.6 million per day, £5.7 million per hour and £96,171 every minute.  This is equivalent to £843 net for every man, woman and child in the country, or £1,632 net for every tax payer.  As the report states:

"THIS MONEY WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN BRITAIN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BRITISH PEOPLE."

EU BUDGET

In November, when Westminster MPs debated the budget deal signed by Tony Blair in 2005, it was revealed that during the 2007-13 budget period, the UK`s gross contribution after the reduced rebate would increase to £10.2 billion a year.  (Open Europe, 29.11.07).

EU ACCOUNTS

On 13 November 2007, the EU Court of Auditors released its latest report on the EU budget and refused to sign off the accounts for the 13th consecutive year.  The report states “errors of legality and irregularity still persist in the majority of EU expenditure due to weaknesses in internal control systems both at the Commission and in member states”.  According to Open Europe £60 billion of taxpayers` money is vulnerable to fraud.

COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The Swiss Government produced a cost/benefit analysis last year which came to the conclusion that full membership of the EU would cost anything from six to nine times more than their present system of Bilateral Agreements. (Eurofacts.17.10.07)

QUANGOS

According to an internal report produced for the European Peoples Party and European Democrats and passed to the Daily Mail, EU quangos are costing £425 million a year. This will escalate if the Prime Minister signs up to the renamed Constitution. Many quangos duplicate the work of national governments.  These unaccountable bodies include an EU Fundamental Rights Agency and a new Institute for Gender Equality (Daily Mail, 17.10.07)

GALILEO

According to the Financial Times, 29.11.07, the UK has agreed to the raiding of unspent farm subsidies to rescue Galileo, the EU`s satellite navigation project, although Rosie Winterton, the Minister for Transport, had previously told the Commons Transport Committee that such a solution was ‘unacceptable’.  The Committee said that the UK would pay 17% of the estimated £10 billion costs.

FREE SNACKS

MEPs and their staff cost European taxpayers £9,000 per day in free snacks and soft drinks. (The Sun, 19.11.07)

FINANCIAL SERVICES ACTION PLAN (FASP)

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, 17.8.07, Ruth Lea referred to how increasing EU regulation is threatening business`s ability to survive in the 21st century.  She emphasised that flexibility is vital for business to thrive in open, competitive markets, while regulatory rigidity kills innovation. 

It was therefore unhelpful that Brussels was continuing to produce regulations at an alarming rate. Ms Lea stated that this applied particularly to financial services and the City of London in particular.  The financial services sector pays one third of all corporation tax, contributes a surplus of £20 billion to the trade balance and generates almost one million jobs.  It covers both the retail sector and global wholesale markets, which are vitally important for London, and it comprises forty-two detailed measures. 

According to an estimate by Open Europe, implementing this plan could cost Britain at least £14 billion by 2010, but since there has been no cost/benefit analysis, the advantages were unknown.  Many financial businesses, particular the smaller ones with no cross-border trade, regard FSAP as unnecessary cost.

MARKETS IN FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS DIRECTIVE (MiFiD)

According to the Financial Times, 26.10.06, this directive could cost between $4 and £8 billion to implement.

NORTHERN ROCK FIASCO

Mervyn King, the Governor of the Bank of England, blamed the EU Market Abuse Directive for undermining his efforts to help Northern Rock covertly, but the EU Commission strongly defended the disclosure rules which it insisted had “sufficient flexibility” for the rescue of Northern Rock to have stayed secret until the danger had subsided.  (Sunday Times, 9.10.07)

IMMIGRATION

The UK has very little control over immigration at present but would have no control whatsoever if the Reform Treaty were ratified. According to Roger Helmer, MEP, EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini has called for the EU to solve its demographic collapse by allowing twenty million Asians and Africans to come to Europe. 

Mr Helmer states that Mr Frattini appears not to appreciate that the UK population is already increasing and is putting pressure on our social infrastructure.  The Institute for Public Research (IPR), a left-leaning think tank, has found that hundreds and thousands of immigrants are a drain on Britain`s economy, not a benefit.  It revealed that fewer than half of Britain`s Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis have jobs and these communities have the highest level of benefit dependants.

The Daily Mail, 26.9.07, reported that only ten criminals from the EU have been refused entry to Britain since 2004 and last year only two were turned away.  According to Christopher Booker, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, 20.8.07, Britain`s inability to deport Learco Chindamo, the killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence outside his school gates in 1995, resulted from EU directive 2004/58 on the free movement of peoples. 

This law allows us to deport a criminal such as Chindamo if he poses a continuing risk to the public, but he can only be deported once he has been let out of prison.  However, the very act of freeing him from prison means that he is no longer a risk, so he cannot be deported.  This, according to the Daily Mail, 6.11.07, is contrasted by new laws passed in Italy which make it easier to deport “undesirable” European Union citizens.  The EU Commission has said that Prime Minister Romano Prodi`s government was within its rights to get rid of anyone suspected of being a “threat to public safety”.  The Commission’s backing for Mr Prodi will put pressure on the authorities in Britain to act similarly against foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in this country.

Britain’s ability to decide who may live in this country will be further reduced if Parliament ratifies the renamed Constitution.  Article 69 of the Treaty obliges the EU to abolish “any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders”.  This will mean that once someone has entered any one of the twenty-seven EU countries, it will be illegal to prevent them from entering any of the others.

According to the Sunday Telegraph, 14.10.07, a leaked Home Office document has revealed that the asylum system is in turmoil.  A government target to speed up the processing of new claims could lead to existing claimants being offered a backdoor amnesty to remain in Britain.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (ECHR)

Britain signed up to this Convention in 1951 but it was only adopted into British law in 1998.  (This should not be confused with the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is an EU charter and one of Mr Brown's ‘red lines’.  Ed). Migrationwatch, which campaigns against mass immigration, said that the Convention acts as a “positive encouragement” for terrorists to come to Britain.  Human rights law should be rewritten so that it is “appropriate to the new age of terrorism”.  Migrationwatch said that ECHR prevents the Government from taking action against terrorist suspects in this country.  (Daily Telegraph, 9.7.07)

HOUSE OF LORDS

In a speech at the UKIP Conference on 5.10.07, Lord Pearson of Rannoch revealed that members of the House of Lords who had formerly been EU commissioners or civil servants and were now in receipt of pensions from the European would lose their pensions if they “fail to uphold the interests of the European Communities.”  Dismayingly they are not required to declare an interest during debates on EU legislation.

AGENCY WORKERS DIRECTIVE

The Guardian, 9.10.07, reported that the unions want the Government to agree to the Agency Workers Directive on temporary workers which would give workers greater rights after only six weeks` employment.  According to The Times, 6.12.07, Britain is increasingly isolated, as the vast majority of EU nations vowed to keep pushing for this measure “within weeks” and some suggested that the UK had only been granted the delay to avoid inflaming opinion during the ratification of the renamed Constitution.

POLICE STATE

The Independent on line, 8.10.07, reported that the Englishman`s home is no longer his castle.  According to the Centre for Policy Studies, there are now 266 ways that the State can raid our homes. Jason Groves, writing in The Sunday Express, 9.9.07, said that the European Gendarmerie Force is the first police organisation to come under the direct control of the EU and is seen by some as another step towards the creation of a superstate.  On 18.10.07, a treaty was signed in Holland which approved the creation of this paramilitary force, which already outranks the police forces of every member state including the UK, triggering fears that in certain circumstances it might use its powers to take over from them.  (The Treaty Establishing the European Gendarmerie Force).

The Daily Telegraph, 8.10.07, reported a massive extension of surveillance powers which came into force that day, giving police, government officials and even local councils access to everyone`s telephone records. This results from EU Directive 2002/58/EC and amending Directive 2006/24/EC.  The ruling was approved by Parliament in July and is being justified as a vital tool to fight terrorism.  The directive under which internet providers are required to hold details of our e-mails for a year is also 2002//58/EC.

THE PLAIN MAN'S GUIDE - What's the New EU Constitution All About

Everything you wanted to know in a brief, plain guide by Graham Wood. Write Graham for copies at grahamwood32@yahoo.co.uk, or send £1.50 to him at 32 Station Road, Poppleton,York YO26 6PY.

BOOKS BY VERNON COLEMAN

Vernon Coleman has written a number of books about the European Union.  Amongst his titles are England our England and The Truth They Won`t Tell You (And Don`t Want You to Know) about the EU. As a once in a lifetime special offer, Publishing House is making these books available at very low prices.  Please contact The Publishing House, Trinity House, Barnstaple, Devon EX32 0HG. Or contact Vernon Coleman. Telephone: 01271 328892, Fax: 0121 328768. 

WHAT YOU  CAN DO IF YOU FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE THE PROMISED REFERENDUM ON THE NEW TREATY

1. Write to, or visit, your MP and tell him/her that they will not get your vote unless they vote against the renamed Constitution.

2. Organise a referendum in your town, village or parish.  It is easy to do.  For further information, contact CARP (The Campaign Alliance for Referenda in Parishes) at 01626 830628.

3. Add your name to the Daily Telegraph petition.

4. Support the Proreferendum Rally, due to take place in the New
Year, and attend any local demonstrations which will be taking place.

5. Sign up to the new cross-party campaign:

6. Read and sign up to Derek Bennett`s petition on the Downing Street website

SANDY SAUNDERS RIP

“Sandy was a remarkable man and once met, you did not forget him. He was passionate about the country he fought for and sadly many of his friends died for.  He did not let his age, or in later years, his difficulty in walking, stop him from pursuing campaigns to save England from Europe.  As one of his friends of the same vintage said: “He knew what was coming and faced it with courage, composure and equanimity”.  He was a wonderful, inspiring lesson to all who met him whether that was years ago or just recently.  Rejoice in the fact that there are still people like Sandy.  He will be greatly missed by many.”

To all our readers best wishes for the New Year. Let us persevere in the defence of freedom.