Rescuing Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people
are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which
throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might
reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and
not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell
the truth.
Ann Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair wants to leave his mark on
history - looks more like a stain to me.
Peter Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk
- Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I know I'm me - why do I need an
ID card?
"Sorry, officers, I don't have
an ID card. I never applied for one. It seemed a bit steep
at 300 quid. I do have my free passport, my driving licence
and my London freedom travel pass, each with my photograph.
I have my NHS medical card, with its lengthy number, given
me at birth, my RAF service book with my Armed Forces number,
and a chit authorising me to wear a few gongs -including
a General Service Medal with Malaya bar, for fighting communist
terrorists on behalf of my country, or so they told me.
"I've also got various credit cards and
store cards, all with my signature on the back, generally
good for buying the everyday requrements for life as well
as the odd luxury. If you decide to arrest me, I suppose
I'll have to be photographed and given another number, besides
my PINs.
"I'm afraid I haven't got a pension book;
it was taken away."
"By thieves, sir?"
"No ... well, not exactly. By the Government.
By the way, may I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh dear, they've disappeared. E. Harry Gumer,
Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO means NO
When does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answer the EU wants. With the courageous French
NON resounding in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested
leaders of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious
constitution that requires ratification by all members and
continuing without one of the biggest founder members to
prevent derailing the gravy train.
As in Ireland, they refuse
to accept any NO votes, ignoring the will of the people,
and re-stage votes until they can engineer the 'correct'
answer. Sadly, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw dances to their
tune like a puppet on a string. With tactics such as these,
how can anyone really believe the EU has our interests at
heart. Letter from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily Mail, June1,
2005
Surely the French
result makes the £1million the EU recently spent on
a treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature and extravagant.
Letter from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail, June1,
2005
|
Britain has traditionally
been one of the biggest net contributors to the EU because
we do not get as much money back from Brussels in farm
and regional subsidies as our rivals.
According to Treasury
figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average contribution
taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion,
or £43.55 per head of population.
The French - the biggest
recipient of farm subsidies - contributed £1billion
a year or £16.08 per head of their population.
|
|
Tony
Blair should know that respect comes by example - from the
top. If a country's leader has no respect for the rule of
international law and no respect for the truth, how can
he expect anyone to have respect. Letter
from P.J.Atkinson, Ashford, Kent - Daily Mail, January 12,
2006
The
Chancellor's single greatest act of vandalism in almost
nine years in office has been his wanton destruction of
Britain's private retirement industry. By slapping a massive
tax on pension funds, now worth
£7.3billion a year, he has helped to turn
the best private retirement industry in Europe into a basket-case
in perpetual crisis. Together with the adoption of European
accounting rules - which make it much riskier to operate
a company pension scheme - hundreds of firms have shut their
final salary plans to new employees and slashed benefits
to existing staff. From
Allister Heath: "I've seen the future and its grey"
in THE SPECTATOR - April 15, 2006
Nine
years ago the British people were sold a fantasy of clean
and competent government of principle and honesty. Its shiny
wrappings stripped away, the product now reveals its true
nature: Personal greed, arrogance, incompetence, shamelessness,
rash warmongering and an inability to accept - as is clear
to almost everyone else - that it is time to go. Editorial
- The Mail on Sunday, May 28, 2006
|
This
site has had 
visitors
Will
Brown bow to press pressure over 'challenge' of the EU treaty?
By JAMES KIRKUP (jkirkup@scotsman.com)
GORDON
Brown is not known for understatement, but his comment yesterday
on recent events was a masterpiece of minimalism. "Every
week is a challenge. This week is a challenge as well," he
said.
Last
week's "challenge" was a toxic cocktail of stolen policies,
slumping poll ratings, a cancelled general election and internal
Labour sniping about his leadership. And this week could be worse
still.
On
Thursday, Mr Brown will be in Lisbon for a meeting of European
Union leaders which is intended to give initial approval to what
is arguably the most controversial document in British politics
today: The Treaty Amending the Treaty on European Union and the
Treaty Establishing the European Community.
That
is the full name of the treaty still commonly known as the EU
Constitution, even though the government insists the constitution
is dead and buried. Its demise was marked in 2005, when French
and Dutch voters rejected it in referenda.
Labour
fought the 2005 general election promising a similar referendum
in Britain, but the continental votes appeared to kill the document
first.
The
EU has since established the Amending Treaty in place of the constitution.
Britain says the new document is so different from the constitution,
and so much more limited in scope, that no UK referendum is required.
Indeed, the preamble to the new treaty says flatly: "The
constitutional concept is dead."
That,
ministers insist, should allay all fears. But it has not. Last
week, the Labour-led European scrutiny committee of the Commons
concluded that, but for the "symbolic" aspects like
flags and anthems, the constitution lives on in the new treaty.
For good measure, the committee said the government's use of the
"dead" quote was misleading
Today,
the committee, chaired by Labour's Michael Connarty, will continue
its fierce scrutiny of the government's position, grilling David
Milband, the Foreign Secretary, at Westminster. Under the microscope
will be the "red lines" - negotiating positions ministers
say ensure UK sovereignty over issues including tax, benefits,
defence, diplomacy and home affairs. Mr
Brown and his ministers have been making confident noises about
those lines, hinting they are becoming stronger.
But
yesterday, Gisela Stuart, a Labour MP who helped draft the first
EU constitution, dismissed the red lines as "red herrings".
And
Mr Connarty's committee is increasingly sceptical that the red
lines will withstand pressure from integrationist EU leaders,
officials and judges.
Since
Mr Brown has been on the back foot over the last ten days, even
supporters fear that being seen to go to Lisbon and surrender
British rights could inflict further political damage. And while
ministers content themselves that Europe ranks low in most voters'
list of priorities, the subject is of burning importance to one
important constituency: Fleet Street.
Led
by the Sun, the right-wing London press is hostile to the new
treaty. The Sun is owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose newspapers have
supported Labour since 1997 and whose backing is seen as vital
by party strategists.
But
with David Cameron's Tories showing signs of revival, and demonstrating
hostility to the EU treaty, some observers now wonder if the media
mogul could be ready to switch sides.
And
that, Whitehall insiders say, could force Mr Brown to take drastic
action in Lisbon - either a public battle over the fine-print
of the new treaty, or even walking out without initialling it.
One
British diplomat said: "I wouldn't put it past [Brown] to
stage some sort of row or other theatricals - it wouldn't be the
first time, and it might do him some favours with Murdoch."
However,
the Lisbon meeting is only meant to allow leaders to "initial"
the draft treaty; the formal signing is to be carried out in December.
That means even a successful trip to Portugal for Mr Brown will
not defuse the issue completely - it will hang over his government
for another two months at least.
Q
& A: WHY THE TREATY MATTERS
Where
does the treaty come from?
As
the European Union planned to expand to take in 12 new members
from eastern Europe from 2004, leaders decided they needed new
rules for making decisions. The old rules had been designed for
a union of 15 members, and were not deemed suitable for an organisation
that now has 27.
So
they began devising new rules. At the suggestion of countries
including France, Germany and Luxembourg, the new rules were framed
as a "constitution," another step on the road to what
the EU's founding Treaty of Rome calls "ever closer union."
In
2003 and 2004, a committee of politicians from all EU countries
met in a "constitutional convention" to draft the new
document.
So
what's the difference between the new treaty and the old?
That
depends on who you ask. Leaders of European countries including
Germany and Ireland have said the new treaty contains all the
important parts of the old one; so has Valery Giscard D'Estaing,
who wrote the old document. Gisela Stuart, a Labour member of
the convention, says that "90-95 per cent" of the old
treaty has survived. And the European Scrutiny Committee of MPs
at Westminster says the two documents are "substantially
equivalent."
But
the UK government says the old constitution is dead and that the
new treaty would not significantly alter the legal relationship
between Britian and the EU.
Sounds
pretty arcane. Why does that matter?
Because
it makes the difference between a British referendum on the treaty
and no referendum.
Labour
in 2005 promised to hold a vote on the constitution and to campaign
for it; Gordon Brown says that promise doesn't apply to the new
treaty.
Why's
he so keen to avoid a referendum anyway? I thought he was keen
on democracy and listening to people?
Mr
Brown has backed the principle of the treaty, and if there were
to be a referendum, he would have to campaign for it. But most
polls show around two-thirds of UK voters oppose the treaty and
would vote No. And being on the losing side of a referendum -
with the Tories on the winning side - could do fatal damage to
Mr Brown's credibility.
What
does the new treaty do?
The
document introduces a range of changes to the way the EU functions.
First, it gives all 27 countries new voting weights in the European
Council, the EU's top decision-making body.
Then
it extends majority voting to a number of policy areas that were
previously decided by unanimous agreement; critics say that means
Britain is giving up soveriegnty; ministers say the changes are
simple technical alterations that will cut bureacratic delays.
The
treaty would also create a new permanent president who would chair
EU summit meetings and help set the union's agenda. Critics say
that would transfer power to Brussels; EU leaders say the post
will be bureacratic figurehead.
Another
new post is the high representative for foreign affairs. Originally
called a "foreign minister" in the first treaty, the
post simply amalgamates two existing foreign affairs job.
And
what has been taken out from the original constitution?
Most
of the signs and symbols of a proto-nation have been deleted.
Unlike the constitution, the treaty will contains no references
to a European flags or an anthems. The European motto - "United
in Diversity" - is also left out.
So
what's going on in Lisbon this week?
EU
leaders are inching ever closer to agreeing a final text of the
new treaty. This week, they are due to "initial" the
latest draft, narrowing down their differences on outstanding
issues. But the final signing of the document is not due until
December, meaning that there will not be an end to the political
row over a referendum until Christmas at the earliest.
Is
Britain the only country that might have objections to the way
things are going?
Hardly.
European officials are actually expecting the Poles to cause the
biggest problems at this week's summit. It is thought that they
may threaten to block the treaty unless it includes a provision
allowing countries to defer difficult decisions that have been
agreed by a narrow majority.
Poland
is in the middle of an election campaign, putting pressure on
its government to drive a hard bargain in Lisbon.
Many
Polish voters disagree with the European consensus on social issues
like abortion and religion, and are reluctant to sign up to majority-voting
on such topics.
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.
