Downloaded from: 
www.SilentMajority.co.UK
EU OVERVIEW TD Jan03.rtf
THE EUROPEAN UNION 
A Brief Overview
Compiled & Edited by: Theresa Dunford

POSTED TO THE WEB SITE, CORRECT AT Jan.2003

This document attempts to provide some information about the European Union’s history, institutions, the Treaties, methods of voting, some historical information and various political parties EU policies (see Appendix C). Our continued membership of the EU will inevitably lead to an increase in governance from Brussels and the cost involved in joining the euro would cost the UK billions of pounds.  

The promised referendum - is the UK obliged to accept the single currency?
Some researchers say that a referendum on the single currency is a farce because the third stage described in the Maastricht Treaty requires those member states that do not have an opt out (and those same researchers say that the UK does not) are obliged to accept the euro. Other researchers say that the UK does indeed have an opt out clause; adding that Protocol 11 of the Maastricht Treaty clearly states that the UK shall not be obliged or committed to proceed to stage 3 unless there is a decision to do so by its government and parliament (also in our case after the promised referendum). 

Martin Howe, in a paper entitled Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht (1992) informs us that: “The United Kingdom has negotiated an ‘opt-out’ from the European single currency, and it is widely assumed that this opt-out means that the monetary union obligations in the Maastricht Treaty are not of great importance unless and until the UK takes a decision to ‘opt in’ to the single currency. However, the ‘opt-out’ relates only to the third or final stage of monetary union. The UK is bound to participate in stages 1 and 2 of monetary union. Further, the Treaty contains obligations regarding the conduct of UK exchange rate and monetary policy during Stage 3 even if the pound then remains a separate currency ‘opted out’ of final currency union. How much freedom of action will we retain as regards the UK’s future exchange rate and monetary policy? ….Member States who do not satisfy the criteria [set out in Article 109j of the Treaty] will retain their own currencies. Under the Treaty they will have a ‘derogation’ from full monetary union….The effect of the United Kingdom’s ‘opt-out’ is that….once stage 3 is in force, the UK will be treated in the same way as a Member State with a ‘derogation’.” (My italics – TD).

However, another researcher has informed me that the Treaty wording is invariably vague, with innumerable references to other arcane text. Also, some researchers believe that the Maastricht Treaty gives the EU permission to force us into the single currency whether we want it or not – e.g. due to a State of Emergency called because of the imminent collapse of the euro - or perhaps due to another emergency of some kind.

The actual facts and meaning of the various stages of the European Union and monetary union have been carefully kept from the people, and the understandable fear of another war in Europe has been one of the methods by which we have been manipulated into accepting governance from a foreign power, which the English Bill of Rights (1689) categorically disallows through the oath spoken by the sovereign at their coronation: “…And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”  

The Irish Referendum on ratification of the Nice Treaty
The Irish people voted no in their referendum in June 2001. However, as ratification is required by all member states the Irish Government disregarded last year’s result and changed the question. In the first referendum the Referendum Commission had the job of informing citizens on a fair and equal basis what the Yes-side and No-side arguments were. It was given substantial public money for that purpose. The Irish Government deprived the Commission of this function of 14th December 2001 in a Bill that was put through all its parliamentary readings in one day, with one day’s notice to the opposition, on the eve of the Dail rising for the Christmas holidays, when media and public attention was elsewhere.  Also, the question was rigged this time. Voters were asked to ratify Nice and, in the same vote, to oppose Irish participation in the EU army. Thus, many supporters of neutrality felt obliged to vote yes. They also thought they were voting for “jobs and growth” or for EU enlargement, when none of these things depends on the Nice Treaty. 

The Nice Treaty and enlargement
Enlargement is barely mentioned in the Nice Treaty. It provides, among other things, for the scrapping of 39 national vetoes, the harmonisation of justice and home affairs, moves towards EU armed forces, a European constitution and the establishment of single-Europe political parties.  

Is our membership of the EU legal and constitutional?
According to a booklet entitled In Defence of the Realm the Magna Carta (England, 1215) is still legal today. It is understood that the Magna Carta cannot be repealed by Parliament. As a contract between the sovereign and the citizen, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach it still stands. There is good reason to believe that due to the Magna Carta the Treaty of Rome and the UK’s membership of the EU is illegal and unconstitutional.  This document, together with the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) were created for the people under common law (Parliament operates under statute law). These documents also bind the sovereign to the laws of the land.

A constitutional challenge is currently being prepared by a legal team to challenge the Government’s legal powers to surrender Britain’s sovereignty and self governance. (See Appendix A).   

As to whether entry into the single currency is irreversible, as spokesmen of the EU, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and all the europhiles claim, then the principle that no Parliament may bind its successor prevents any Parliament from taking us in, i.e. our Parliament cannot pass a law that a subsequent Parliament cannot change. If a Parliament does so, then they have exceeded their powers, authority and mandate – limited to five years maximum, and the rule that says we cannot leave is invalid because we never legally joined.  

Proposed constitution for the EU:
The Convention on the Future of Europe, chaired by Giscard Valéry d’Estang, the former French president, has prepared a draft constitution for the EU to be based on a ‘federal basis’. (According to the Collins English Dictionary ‘federal’ means: “1. Of a system in which power is divided between one central government and several regional governments; 2. of  the central government of a federation.”)  The blueprint lists three possible titles besides the European Union. They are: European Community, the United States of Europe, and United Europe, a legal personality.  However, it would appear that far from providing legally solid safeguards, some researchers say that the proposed constitution would weaken those that now exist. This ‘structure’ will be empowered to ensure that national policy matches ‘the Union’s objectives’.  Far from being reinforced, subsidiarity, [see page 10] the cardinal principle that nothing should be decided centrally if it can be handled locally, is being stood on its head. States are to be bound by an ‘obligation of loyal cooperation’. This entirely new legal concept means that the first duty of governments will be to the Union. 

This blueprint for a new constitution for Europe, unveiled on 28th October 2002, paves the way for sweeping changes to the EU, but provoked instant British opposition by suggesting the bloc could be renamed “United States of Europe”. The blueprint carefully leaves the most sensitive decisions for later. It has been billed a ‘skeleton’ constitution because it only sets out a framework, listing 46 articles and going into little detail. But changes that could be ushered in include the creation of a powerful new president of the EU who would report to national leaders;  a congress of national and European parliamentarians;  and an exit clause to allow countries to quit the EU.  (See page 12 for more details).

Draft Extradition Bill/European Arrest Warrant (See Appendix B)
This Bill is of the utmost importance to the freedom of the people of this country. This Bill will expose British citizens to being arrested and summarily deported into another European country that has a different system of laws about which we know hardly anything; except that none of those on the continent have Habeas Corpus or Trial by Jury. Thousands of prisoners are kept in prison for months on end “pending investigation” and during this time have no right to any public hearing. The arresting person does not have to have a warrant, nor show any warrant to the person being arrested (unless he asks, in which case he gets to see it “as soon as possible after his arrest”! There does not even have to be a warrant, providing that the arresting person has reason to believe that a warrant has been, or will be, issued by one of the EU states! Also, the warrant doesn’t need to describe the actual act that the arrestee is supposed to have committed. The pre-printed form of the warrant simply lists the 32 “types of offence” with a box ticked next to the one that they want to use, e.g. they just tick say “xenophobia” without specifying what the person is supposed to have done (or said) that was xenophobic. 
Will we lose out on employment if we leave the EU? 
Will joining the single currency create more jobs?   
The claim that we are losing out on jobs by remaining outside the single currency has been shown to be false.  (See page 18).

The Proposed EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive and the Food Supplement Directive
Our herbal medicines and nutritional supplements are under threat from these directives (see page 13)

Nationalism is another concern which is presented to the public for which the European Union is a panacea.  Some contend that nationalism is connected with nazism and all that took place as a result. Whilst it is true that nationalism taken to extremes can create problems this is not necessarily the case, and is definitely not a reason to remain in the EU. The fact remains, however, that the case for withdrawing from the EU is not about nationalism, it is about choice and liberty. 
Forcing people or countries together does not necessarily create peace, in fact it can sometimes bring about the opposite, for example the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. The fact remains that if the United Kingdom remains in the EU many changes are designed for the future of this country, in particular to our present legal system. Already, our British Government has to enforce EU legislation on the people of the U.K.  Joining the single currency will only be the beginning. The next step is likely to be harmonisation of interest rates, taxation etc. Considering that each member state has a different set of circumstances this is likely to create havoc at times.  A mutual and truly free trading area between countries has to be a far better arrangement than political and monetary union. As you will see in Appendix C, some political parties are against joining the single currency. However, they believe that we can remain in the EU but it needs reforming. My research, and that of others, has clearly shown to me that it is not possible to reform it. I believe this document explains why I have come to that decision.  

Most people in this country are so busy with their 9 to 5 jobs, family and just trying to survive, that they don’t have the time to research this subject, even if they were interested in doing so. However, I do believe that many people would be more interested if they were aware of at least some of the facts presented here. Something of key importance to most people is having enough money to live on. They may be interested to know that out of those who have accepted the single currency, the Dutch and German people (and maybe other countries) have found that prices have risen and most people would like their old currency back.

Another astonishing factor is that membership of the EU costs the UK several billions of pounds per year of which we receive back about half in grants. This money could provide funding to the NHS and many of our other essential services. (More precise details in this document).

Our T.V. and the media in general continues to draw a cloak of secrecy over the effects of the E.U. and in particular the Treaty of Nice.  I was informed by the Campaign for an Independent Britain (Scotland) that the Nice Treaty was agreed by Tony Blair before the recent Election, but was kept out of the electioneering. Its ratification has since received its First and Second readings in Parliament, and still there were no reports on TV main news channels. (Apparently there was a report in the afternoon on BBC 2 before the First Reading but this gave no details of the Treaty). There was to be a Third and final Reading on 17th October 2001 and the public was not informed about this either, let alone given the option of a referendum.

In compiling this document on the EU I am not saying that all is well with our present Government (or previous Governments), or our law courts etc., but I do believe that we will be worse off if we remain in the EU, particularly if we join the single currency.

From a larger perspective, it is also important to realise that instead of a democracy, we have a one party state in this country, due to the fact that a comparatively small group of Global Elite only finance those parties who agree to their long term agenda.  When the general populace, including the trade unions, businesses, etc., blame a political leader and/or a party, they are playing into the hands of the globalists because whilst this is going on, neither side think to look deeper into the matter. The EU is part of a worldwide policy of centralisation which is a key factor in control. Many banks and insurance companies are amalgamating and we now have the European Central Bank already placing demands upon the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer. One may wonder, therefore, who do we vote for? What can we do? We need to take the time to become informed in a balanced manner. Knowledge allows us to begin to be aware of why certain events are taking place.  We can inform others, where we feel it is appropriate, and do whatever feels right to bring about a sense of balance, peace and health within ourselves. 

THE EUROPEAN UNION
	
The idea of a United States of Europe was espoused as early as 1867. In Vigilance: A defence of British Liberty” (2001) by Ashley Mote, p. 118, we read: “In the middle of the 19th century – 1867 to be precise – a proposal for the establishment of a European monetary union germinated in Italy. At the time it was taken quite seriously. Indeed, the great English constitutional commentator, Walter Bagehot, wrote of the danger of Britain being left out in the cold. ‘Before long, all Europe, save England, will have one money’.”  In 1941 André Malraux was advocating a ‘European New Deal, a federal Europe excluding the USSR’. 

Key historical dates of the European Union:
1951: 	Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
1957: 	The Treaty of Rome. The ECSC becomes the European Economic Community.
1962:  	EEC unveils its Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) guaranteeing farmers a minimum income.
1963	France & Germany only enter into an agreement to work together for their joint benefit within the newly forming Soviet in EUrope– known as The Elysee Treaty
1968: 	EEC becomes a customs union.
1973: 	Denmark, Britain, Ireland join, expanding EEC to nine members.
1979:	EEC launches European Monetary System to stabilize exchange rate fluctuations among national currencies.
1981:	Greece becomes the 10th EEC member.
1986:  Single European Act and Final Act (Purpose: to bring about closer union).  Spain and Portugal join, making 12 members. According to Ashley Mote in Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.132 we learn that: “The Single European Act and Final Act, 1985 [1986-TD], were steered through parliament by a subterfuge worthy of the EU itself. The words ‘Final Act’ did not appear. Its passage was via a tiny sub-clause in a minor Foreign Office Bill debated by a handful of MPs. The clause itself was never discussed. To get the Bill through the House of Lords, the government issued two order papers for the same debate. The order paper with the correct date went to peers known to be sympathetic. The other, with an incorrect date, went to all the rest. The Bill passed.”
1992:	Treaty of Maastricht. The EEC becomes the European Union, adding a common foreign and security policy to its activities and taking a first step to a single currency.
1993:	EU becomes a single market for goods and services.
1995:	Austria, Sweden, Finland raise EU membership to 15.
1997:	Treaty of Amsterdam (the so-called “amending treaty”, also referred to as the “Treaty of Rome”). This is where we signed up to Europol.
1998:	EU opens membership talks with Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus.
1999:	Talks with Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania open. Turkey is also named a candidate, but membership talks with Ankara do not immediately begin.
1999:	EU launches the euro.  National currencies remain in circulation until 2002 but are given a fixed exchange rate with the euro. 
2000  Treaty of Nice. 

Branches of the European Union
The following is a short explanation of the various branches of the European Union (courtesy of  the 1999 Scottish Nationalist Party’s “Standing up for Scotland” brochure, the European Parliament’s brochure “The European Parliament and your MEP’s”, and a video entitled “Britain and the European Union: The Facts”):

The Presidency:  Candidates are taken from the head of each member state in rotation, for a period of 6 months.

European Council. The Council is comprised of national government ministers from each EU member state. The Council of Ministers discusses and amends the Commission’s (the EU’s civil service) proposals and decides whether or not a directive should become law. Once agreement has been reached within the Council of Ministers – and between the Council and the European Parliament – a directive can be adopted and will then be implemented through laws enacted by the national parliament of each member state. The European Council meets twice a year. (For your further information – the section on the Council within the EU website only gives basic information on their Council members, i.e. Ireland provides: President, Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Germany provides: President, Chancellor, Minister for Foreign Affairs. The European Office advised me that one way to learn the names of the other ministers is to check the press releases on their website, i.e. if there is a meeting of agriculture ministers or health etc., they will be named there). Ashley Mote in Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.12, provides further information on this matter: “It [the Council of Ministers] is not a single body. It functions by areas of responsibility, and draws together all the ministers from member states who are responsible for particular portfolios. So, for example, all the home affairs or interior ministers meet as a Council of Ministers. So do all the foreign ministers. And the agricultural ministers, and so on. There is no such thing as the Council of Ministers. There are as many as there are government portfolios. They meet rarely. But what happens when they do finally meet? The short answer is ‘very little’. These meetings are never in public, and are tantamount to political horse-trading behind closed doors. No advocacy and opposition, no proper debate on issues, no close examination of detailed draft legislation, and no verbatim record of proceedings. Not even a summary. Just a bland public announcement of the decisions taken. But virtually all those are taken by officials beforehand, not by ministers at all. One Conservative minister, writing about his first visit to an EU ministerial conference, remarked that on entering the conference chamber he was given a copy of the final communiqué. When he pointed out that the subjects had not yet been discussed he was told: ‘Oh no, sir, the decisions have already been made. You are here only to sign the communique’.”

European Commission. 
President: Romano Prodi.  This is the EU’s civil service which is responsible for initiating and drafting legislation, implementing decisions taken by the Council of Ministers, administrating the EU’s various funds and supervising implementation of EU law by member states. It is headed by a president and a team of Commissioners (two appointed by each of the larger member states and one by each of the others). Its work is directed by 20 Commissioners, including two from the UK (as at 2002 these are Neil Kinnock and Chris Patten). The Commissioners are appointed for five years and are accountable to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

European Parliament:  This is the only EU institution directly elected by the citizens of Europe and the only institution where our MEP’s (Members of the European Parliament) vote. It has 626 members from fifteen member states. The UK has 87 Euro-MPs, 8 of whom represent Scotland (as at 1999).  The MEP’s are chosen at EU-wide elections every five years.  Working in Brussels and Strasbourg, Parliament scrutinizes the activities of the other institutions and passes the EU’s annual budget. But its main task is deciding on the shape and scope of new European laws. It shares this responsibility with the European Council.  However, in Vigilance: A defence of British Liberty, p. 15, Ashley Mote informs us that: “Yes, we have an elected European Parliament. But it is a mere talking shop, a paper tiger, nothing more than a sop to the people. It is certainly not a legislature, and can scarcely bring itself to use its limited powers of sanction over the executive.”

According to the EU’s official documentation, the Court of Justice settles disputes between member countries and the Union itself, and the Court of Auditors checks that the EU’s money is being properly spent.

Voting methods
It is helpful to understand the methods of voting by the European Council of Ministers. The following is from the European Parliament office, London (Library department):

Methods of voting: QMV (Qualified Majority Voting), Unanimity and Veto

QMV is the form of voting mostly used at present (2002). Each country (member state) has a certain number of votes, roughly depending on the size of the country and population.  The Council of Ministers (who cover various areas, i.e. agriculture, health, etc.) of the various countries, vote on legislation. 

The following information from the BBC News website entitled “Qualified majority voting”, dated 30th April 2001 may be helpful:  “The Council of Ministers has two ways of taking decisions – unanimity, when everyone has to be in agreement – and qualified majority voting – a system of weighted votes. QMV is the most common method of decision-making, used in all but the most sensitive issues. 

Issues which are decided on by QMV are also voted on by the European Parliament. This means that the council and parliament act together in co-decision. Under QMV, each member state is given a certain number of votes in the council, weighted according to its size and population [see below]…. The qualified majority means that 62 votes are needed to pass a proposal, rather than the normal majority of 44. The reason for the qualified majority, rather than a simple 50%, means that at least half the population of the EU and half the member states must be in favour of a motion to pass it. But with enlargement, the balance between big and small countries will change. If the distribution of votes remained the same, a group of small countries could in effect gang up against the big countries and vote them down, even though the small countries together represent fewer people than the big ones…..The Nice Treaty allocates the 12 candidate countries their votes and adjusts the votes of the current member states. Once all the countries have joined, there will be 345 votes in total. To reach a qualified majority 255 votes will be required, as well as a majority of member states.”

Quoting from The Penguin Companion to European Union (1995) by Timothy Bainbridge: “The most widely used method of voting in the Council of Ministers, QMV, entails giving the vote of each member state a ‘weighting’, which very broadly reflects its population. These weightings are specified in the Treaty of Rome (Article 205), as is the total number of assenting votes (the threshold) necessary for a measure to be adopted under QMV. At present [prior to the Nice Treaty being ratified by all member states – TD] the weightings are as follows:

France	10	Austria	4
Germany	10	Sweden	4
Italy	10	Denmark	3
United Kingdom	10	Finland	3
Spain	  8	Ireland	3
Belgium	  5	Luxembourg	2
Greece	  5	
The Netherlands	  5
Portugal	  5	Total	87

The total number of votes necessary for a measure to be adopted on a proposal from the European Commission is 62 (an abstention is equivalent to a vote against). A very small number of Treaty articles allow the Council to take a decision by QMV without a Commission proposal: in such cases the 62 votes must be cast by at least 10 member states….The QMV system arose as a direct consequence of the enormous disparity between the original Six in terms of the size of their populations. Then as now, Luxembourg was much the smallest country, with barely a third of a million inhabitants, while at the other end of the scale France, Italy and West Germany each had a population of over 50 million. Giving each member state one vote was clearly not an option….” 

Unanimity voting:  There are certain areas where the Council of Ministers have to vote unanimously and a unanimous and majority decision has to be arrived at.

Veto:  As its name suggests, this is a method of voting whereby a member state (I believe at the Council of Ministers level) has the option to say no to a proposal. I was informed by a past member of a political party, that as the EU expands and more countries join, the areas of veto will have to expand otherwise it will take too long for all the Council of Ministers representing the member states to come to a decision and agreement. Another researcher has informed me that in real terms there are no areas of veto remaining of any consequence (as at October 2002). There are ways in which the EU can often get around a country’s veto; for example, should a member state have the power of veto regarding “employment law”, but not under “social law”, then all matters of employment can be enacted as social!

Subsidiarity – Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty
This is a term which the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has been speaking about recently (August 2002).  In a paper entitled Europe and the Constitution after Maastricht (1992) by Martin Howe (a barrister specialising in intellectual property law and European Community law), we learn that: “It [subsidiarity] describes, or is supposed to describe, the concept that any decision should be taken at the lowest possible level: for example, decisions which do not bear on or affect other member states should be taken at national level or below. The principle is to be formally adopted as part of Community law as part of the Maastricht Treaty, which defines subsidiarity in a new Article 3b, to be inserted into the Treaty of Rome [this was written in 1992 – TD], as follows: ‘In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can, therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.’ It is suggested that by application of this principle, decisions and activities of the Community institutions will be kept within bounds and powers restored to national levels where they belong….. It [the doctrine of subsidiarity] is of Papal origin, and advocates the desirability of devolving power down to the lowest possible level. The very idea, however, involves the inevitability that it will be the centre which decides what power it thinks appropriate to devolve to the lower levels of the hierarchy.” 

After giving further detailed information, Martin Howe provides the following conclusions on this matter in his booklet:  “The conclusions of this Section are clear and can be shortly stated: (1) The doctrine of ‘subsidiarity’ is so vague that it will not by itself provide any effective limitation upon the ambit of Community action. (2) The drafting of Article 3b introduced by the Maastricht Treaty has serious limitations which detract from such limited practical effect as the doctrine of subsidiarity might otherwise have had. (3) The guidelines adopted at the Birmingham and Edinburgh summits have done nothing effective to remedy the deficiencies present in Article 3b of the Treaty text. They must be regarded essentially as a window-dressing exercise. (4) The institutions which are charged with interpreting that doctrine will not give it any effective weight unless they are fundamentally reformed. The doctrine of ‘subsidiarity’ is therefore, without profound institutional reform or changes of attitude or both, virtually worthless as a protection against further unwanted expansion of the European laws and institutions into further aspects of national life. It may, in fact, be worse than worthless if, by giving an illusion of protection, it encourages agreement to measures which would not otherwise be agreed to.” (My italics –TD)

Also, quoting an article from the EU observer’s website dated 27th August 2002:  “The foreign secretary will also call for a ‘subsidiary watchdog’ comprised by MPs from the different member states to check that the EU is not taking power from national and regional bodies and that decisions are taken at the lowest practical level – which is the principle of the rule of subsidiarity.”  One anti-EU researcher has remarked and I’m inclined to agree, that Jack Straw’s idea of a subsidiarity watchdog to monitor ‘unjustified legislation’ has merit but will be resisted by the European Parliament. 

The European Parliament’s literature gives the impression that the EU cares about its citizens and is efficient and accountable.  (One outcome of the Nice summit was an agreement to create a “Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union” for its citizens).  There may be a few MEP’s (Members of the European Parliament), for example the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) members who do feel a sense of service and responsibility, but when one becomes aware of some deeper implications and reads, for example, the “Working Document on The Powers of the European Parliament in the European Union” one can find possible loopholes.  If an individual only reads the EU’s, more easily located brochures, and their new citizens Charter (of which a copy is supposed to be sent to each of the citizens of member states), I can quite understand that one may wish for their country to remain a member of the EU. It sounds so efficient and caring. It is my concern that many people will only connect at this level and therefore many of the people of Britain may well find themselves manipulated into supporting a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum on the single currency without knowing as many of the facts as possible.  I will quote from the European Parliament’s working document “The Powers of the European Parliament in the European Union” later, but first I wish to begin with the following:

A UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) document entitled “Better off Out” by Lord Pearson of Rannoch provides the following introductory information (this document includes 16 common misunderstandings):

“The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community (‘The Treaty of Rome’) set up the Common Market. From the start, this had as its goal ‘the ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’. The other signatories have always understood this to mean the gradual creation of an EU megastate. Only British Governments, both Labour and Conservative, have consistently fudged the issue.  Edward Heath agreed the Treaty in 1972 and took us into the Common Market….During the 1975 referendum, when the British people voted to stay in the Common Market, the Labour Government sent a leaflet to every household in the land, saying: ‘There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic and Monetary Union.  This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and so putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.’  Radio 4 has confessed that the BBC was heavily biased in favour of a ‘yes’ vote before and during the 1975 campaign. The ‘yes’ campaign was also generously funded by the CIA. The BBC Independent Television remain biased in favour of our EU membership today.

“All subsequent amendments to the Treaty [of Rome] have increased the power of ‘Brussels’ at the expense of national sovereignty. These amendments were: the Single European Act of 1985 [1986 – TD], the Treaty on European Union – ‘Maastricht’ – of 1992, and the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997  (collectively referred to as the ‘Treaty of Rome’). Thus the original European Common Market has been subtly changed into the European Union of today, without the peoples’ understanding or consent. Of all the Treaty changes, the Single European Act has turned out to be the most destructive, because it set up the Single Market (not to be confused with the former Common Market) and gave control of our industry, commerce and environment to majority voting in Brussels.” (My emphasis –TD)

Quoting further from the same document:
“The emerging EU megastate already has its own parliament, executive, supreme court, currency, flag and anthem. It is planning its own written constitution, army, foreign policy, police force, legal and tax systems…..The Treaty takes precedence over Acts of Parliament. So if our Government (the executive) is outvoted or agrees EU legislation in Brussels, our Parliament must put it into British law, on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg Court  (Source: Sections 2 & 3 & Schedule 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 & Articles 226-229 of the TEC).”

Proposed EU Constitution 
On 28th October 2002 the European Convention was presented a 17-page skeletal outline for a future constitutional treaty of Europe with 46 articles divided into three parts.  Quoting the EU Observer’s website in an article dated 28th October:

“Giscard presents draft constitutional treaty.  
Officially handed out to members of the Convention on the future of Europe on Monday [28th October 2002], the skeletal outline for a future constitutional treaty of Europe has 46 articles and is divided into three parts and a preamble. Introducing the draft as a ‘basic structure,’ Convention president Giscard Valéry d’Estang, requested that the debate be on ‘structure and not on substance.’ ….The new EU provided for by this outline will be built on ‘a federal basis’ (article 1) including a ‘common defence policy to defend and promote the Union’s values in the wider world’ (article 30). In article 38 the draft provides for European direct taxation by stating that ‘the Union budget is fully financed by own resources.’ The outline has also followed recent debate in the working groups of the European Convention. It proposes a single legal personality (article 4) and a merging of the pillar structure so that justice and home affairs and common foreign and security policy would appear in the same treaty [with the power to sign treaties and take a seat on international bodies such as the United Nations - in place of, not as well as, the member States –TD]. Citizens would enjoy a ‘dual citizenship, national citizenship and European citizenship’, the paper says and people would be ‘free to use either, as he or she chooses’. (Article 5).

“Built on a federal basis
The draft presented by Mr. Giscard is the basic architecture of the future treaty and the specific elements are not yet filled out. As the whole system would be built on a federal basis some competences would be exclusive Union competence, other areas would be shared competence between the Union and the member states and finally some areas, would be left for the member states. The article 8 says, similar to the Swiss and the American tenth constitutional amendment: ‘any competence not conferred on the Union by the Constitution rests with the Member States’.

“Congress of the Peoples of Europe disputed
Mr. Giscard’s paper includes a proposal for a new institution, a ‘Congress of the Peoples of Europe’ but the concrete composition of this new body will be drafted later in ‘the light of the Convention’s work’, (article 19). This formula was found after heated debates in the leading body of the Convention, the presidium where small states opposed to such a new body, while France and Spain were strongly in favour. The division in the presidium was reflected in the plenary on Monday afternoon with many delegates opposing the creation of a new body.

“Exit clause
The paper does not take a stand in the discussion of electing a new EU president of the Council. Mr. Giscard suggested that such ‘specific’ elements be proposed at a later date, after the skeleton is approved. The draft treaty includes paragraphs for accession of new member states to the Union, of suspension of Union membership and of voluntary withdrawal from the Union ‘by decision of a Member State’. (Article 46). The final and third part of the draft treaty includes provisions for the ratification and entry into force of the constitutional treaty, however it does not specify how this will happen. [An activists comment: ‘This is subject to agreement by all the other member states, and with such a high threshold would we ever achieve it?]

“Beginning of a new Europe
Saying that some thought it ‘too general’ and some ‘too technical,’ Mr. Giscard said it was an ‘outline’ for a constitutional treaty needed for the ‘beginning of a new Europe.’  Joshka Fischer, the German foreign minister and first-time participant in the Convention said it ‘was a very important step’ before adding that ‘of course there are many unresolved questions.’  Henning Christopherson, representing the Danish government in the Convention and a member of the presidium, said that it was an ‘ambitious’ and ‘visionary’ proposal. In a pointed reference to the notorious one-time-or-out ratification clause, which was left out of this final version of the draft, Mr. Christopherson said that such an action should only be taken ‘unanimously.’ In the run up to today’s presentation of the outline, there had been a feverish debate in the presidium on whether a member state should be outside the new EU if they fail to ratify a new treaty. Fellow presidium member Klaus Hansch insisted that whatever name it took, this was ‘definitely’ a constitution.

‘Slowly but surely’
To sum up Mr. Giscard said that ‘slowly but surely’ the Convention was moving towards its goal. The presidium, he said, would submit ‘draft sections’ of the treaty based on plenary contributions with the final constitution being ready around summer 2003.”
The Church and the EU: The Soul for Europe programme

Some researchers also believe that the Vatican supports the European Union. In The Principality and Power of Europe: Britain and the Emerging Holy European Empire (1997), the author Adrian Hilton, remarks that Roman Catholicism has a strong tendency towards centralisation and views it as wholly necessary for individual nations and churches to merge their individual identities into a larger body, beneath the guise of avoiding future wars. 

The Soul for Europe programme started ten years ago. It is part of the little-known “Forward Studies Unit” of the European Commission. The Forward Studies Unit is based in Brussels and reports directly to the Commission President. The core of its work is “legitimising and constitutionalising the European Project”. Applications for funding are filtered through the Soul for Europe Screening Committee whose precise membership is secret. According to some estimates the Soul for Europe programme has provided over £25 million in grants to ecumenical and pro-EU projects throughout Europe.

The Proposed EU Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive and the Food Supplement Directive
 
Quoting an article by Celia Wright, Higher Nature’s “Health News for Health Professionals” dated October 2002:

“The Proposed Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive

…. The THMPD [Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive] is a relatively new Directive coming from the EU. At the moment it is only a proposed draft and (hopefully) a lot of water will pass under the bridge before it becomes so. The hope that we might simply get rid of a Herbal directive in any shape or form is almost certainly impossible. However there is a lot that can be done to see that the present document is redrafted to protect our freedoms and our health industry. In many ways the THMPD is far more of a threat to our basic rights than the Food Supplement Directive. Essentially, as it stands, the THMPD would mean that companies such as Higher Nature would no longer be able to sell products containing ‘medicinal’ herbs (this would only happen several years hence). This restriction may or may not include what could be termed ‘culinary’ herbs – herbs that are regarded as food, for example garlic, because we eat it, or chamomile, because we drink it as tea.

“The THMPD would not directly prevent us from marketing herbs, but the financial investment required to meet the Directive’s demands would mean in effect that we could not. Although as a company Higher Nature would be able to adapt and survive by providing only food supplements, I believe that this situation will be the same for many small and medium sized companies currently selling herbs, and that the bottom line is that we, the people, will be deprived of many good products as a result.

“One of the really iniquitous aspects of the THMPD is that herbs will not be able to be combined with vitamins and minerals. Actually this is also the current situation under UK law. Until recently the UK Medicines Control Agency has turned a blind eye to the many excellent herb/nutrient combinations on sale in this country, but in 2001 they began enforcing this law. In Higher Nature’s case this entailed reformatting about 25 of our products….At present we are marketing these formulations under UK law, but if the proposed draft of the THMPD becomes law we will have to drop all products containing medicinal herbs.

“What is saddest of all, here, is that there is absolutely no nutritional or scientific reason why herbs and nutrients should not be combined – in fact they are complementary and, when formulated correctly, offer greater benefit than when they’re separated. So why are we having to separate them? The only reason is that when legislators sit down to write Acts of Parliament or EU Directives they think with blinkers on. In other words they write one set of laws to cover herbs and a completely separate piece of legislation to cover foods and food supplements. So nutrients and foods can’t be combined!….But the news is not all bad. The Health Food Manufacturers Association, of which Higher Nature is an active member, is fighting the THMPD just as fiercely as it has been lobbying to get the best result from the Food Supplement Directive. In particular the HFMA is working with Lord Hunt at the Department of Health (DDH) to make sure that the UK government a) gets our message and b) transmits it forcefully to the EU. The HFMA has now sent the DCH a full list of herbal remedies on the UK market that will not survive the THPMD in its present form, including the herb/nutrient mixed products I’ve talked about.

“The HFMA’s sister body, the Irish Health Trade Assocation (HTA) has produced a potentially very helpful amendment to the THMPD, which the HFMA consider a step in the right direction. At the European level, another organisation, the European Health Product Manufacturers (EHPM), is putting pressure on the Commission to delay the progress of the Directive to allow a better understanding of the difficulties by all parties. And generally speaking that is the conclusion:  we must delay the THMPD for as long as possible, to give all the organisations that are working to preserve our rights the time to draft and redraft the Herbal Directive until our freedom to use safe herbal supplements (with or without added nutrients) is safely enshrined in this law.

“If you want to take action yourself write or fax your MP (www.faxyourmp.com do the hard work for you) to make sure that he or she puts what pressure they can on the Department of Health to delay the Directive for as long as possible, and to work as hard as they can to protect our right to obtain and use herbs for our health.”

1985 Weights & Measures Act and the EU
Steve Thoburn, a Sunderland market trader, was convicted on 9th April 2001 for continuing to use scales that could only weigh in pounds and ounces, instead of both Imperial and metric as required by EU law.  Quoting the March 2001 issue of Sovereignty:

“Vivian Linacre, Director of the British Weights and Measures Association told Sovereignty ‘The whole trial hinges on one issue only: The fundamental constitutional issue as to whether a mere EU regulation imposed by statutory instrument in compliance with EU directives, can overturn the primary legislation – the 1985 Weights and Measures Act – which was passed by Parliament and has not been revised, repealed, or amended. In short, this case is about whether UK or EU law is supreme. It is a momentous case.”  Information from the Sunday Telegraph, dated 10th April 2001, stated that the Judge decided that EU law took preference over UK law and said:  “It would destroy the concept of a union if member states could go off on legislative frolics of their own.”  Steve Thoburn was given six month’s conditional discharge but could face costs of up to £60,000. The human rights group Liberty confirmed that it is backing the Metric Martyrs (Steve Thorburn and four others) in their fight and an appeal will now (as at August 2002) be lodged, ironically, in the European Court of Human Rights, which could take five years to complete.

Quoting again from the UKIP’s “Better off Out” by Lord Pearson:

“The Euro-philes’ [pro-EU]….claim is that the EU is essential to keep peace in Europe.  However, democracies do not provoke war, whereas forced or premature conglomerations of disparate nations do (eg the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and much of Africa)….The word ‘Europe’ has been appropriated by the Euro-philes to mean both the continent of different nations and the emerging megastate. So when a Euro-realist [anti-EU] is rude about ‘Europe’ – referring to a product of the Treaty and Brussels – he is easily cast as ‘Euro-phobic’, a ‘little Englander’, or a ‘dangerous nationalist’ etc. Most Euro-realists love the Europe of different nations, but hate the Treaty and the dictates from Brussels.

“Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) – the ‘Single Currency’ – is a political project, designed to force the creation of the megastate.  Only in the UK do politicians pretend it is an economic project.” 

If we left the EU would we lose out on its aid to the UK?
The annual payment to the EU in 2001 was over £11 billion which works out at the incredible figure of 1 ¼ million every hour of every day, of which we receive back about half in grants. In Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.151 we learn that: “The government’s 1999 ‘Pink Book’ shows that the contribution by UK taxpayers in 1998 was £10.3 billion. Some £5 billion came back in the form of grants, with costs and strings attached, and are not what they seem. Also, they are based on the astonishing proposition that the EU knows better than we do how to spend our own money….Looked at in another way, that £10.3 billion was an export tariff on the £96 billion of goods and services we exported to the EU. In that case, at 10.4 per cent, it was nearly three times the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] world average of 3.6 per cent paid by the USA, Norway and Switzerland as non-members. Even discounting the grants we receive still leaves a tariff of over 5.5 per cent. A cost/benefit analysis prepared by the Institute of Directors (IOD) in early 2000 calculated the actual cost of UK membership of the EU at some £15 billion a year, which is higher than the official figures because it took into account other costs the government chooses to ignore. However, it also took account of the net benefit of inward investment from EU countries, which the government also ignores in its own calculations. The IOD report claimed that these figures were on the low side, but they established with solid facts that the costs far outweigh the benefits of membership of the EU.”

Quoting extracts from the Democracy Movement’s document: “EU Cannot be Serious: the Truth about Europe” under the heading: What has happened to our fisheries?

“Fishing was the livelihood of thousands of British workers and indirectly of thousands more. The EU’s Common Fisheries Policy has destroyed most of this. We can no longer simply catch fish in our waters. Instead, the EU tells us what we can and cannot catch. Britain used to own over three quarters of the fish in EU waters. Now we are allowed to catch only one third of the EU’s fish [source “Free to Chose”, Bill Jamieson, Global Britain 1977].  By the end of 2002, all the EU’s fishing fleets will be able to fish in our twelve mile coastal belt.  The Brussels bureaucrats who designed this absurd policy thought they could conserve fish by limiting the numbers landed in port. They did not realise that most fish are dead when they come up in the nets, so millions of tonnes of fish are thrown back into the sea each year in the name of EU conservation….

“Isn’t joining EMU [European monetary union] more about trade than politics?

That is what most politicians tell you.  They say that Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) is only a commercial project.  But in Europe all politicians accept that it is designed to create a single European Government, with its own foreign and defence policies and its own legal system.  You have only to listen to what some of the key people in the EU have been saying for years:
•	A previous President of the EU, Jacques Delores, said: ‘Yes, we have to have transfers of sovereignty to achieve economic and monetary union.’
•	…..the new President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told the European Parliament: ‘We must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy, a single political unity.’
•	Wim Duisenberg, President of the European Central Bank, said: ‘The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and was always meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe.’
•	Hans Tietmeyer, former President of the German Central Bank, said: ‘A country that merges its currency with that of another currency cannot be politically independent’.”

From Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p. 87 we learn about the high cost of converting to the euro: “The ultimate cost of converting the whole country to the euro has been estimated at £36 billion – or 4.2 per cent of our GDP [gross domestic product]. That is roughly equal to £650 for every man, woman and child in the UK.” Further, on p. 171: “This huge sum includes updating all computers, vending machines and cash tills, as well as staff-training and merchandising costs.”  Also, on p. 165:  “….research by the Bank of England at the end of 1999 showed that joining the euro would cost the UK up to £9 billion a year. Pension-fund managers Phillips and Drew have calculated that British pension funds alone could lose up to £5 billion if the UK scraps the pound and joins the euro. The company estimated that the total loss faced by the entire UK institutional investor community could be as high as £10 billion.” It boggles the mind as to how any sane person, knowing these facts, could envisage the UK remaining a member of the EU.

Quoting again from the Democracy Movement’s document: “EU Cannot be Serious: the Truth about Europe”:

“Can you think of any argument in favour of the Single Currency?

Not on balance. There are three main points in its favour but there are far more against. There would be some savings on business transaction costs. It would be easier to compare European prices with our own.  We would not need to incur the cost of changing pounds into other Eurozone currencies.  However, when put on the scales against being forced to accept the wrong interest rate for the UK, the loss of exchange rate flexibility, higher taxes, higher unemployment costs and massively increased regulation and bureaucracy, there is an overwhelming case against joining.”

“At some point in the future, can we leave EMU, like we left the ERM, if it does not work out well for us?
No, if we join EMU [European Monetary Union – the Euro], it will be irreversible. We will lose the pound, our gold reserves and domestic monetary control forever. EMU is the ERM without the escape hatch.”  However, there are other opinions on this. See overview at the beginning of this document.  Also, in Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.161 we learn that a referendum will be a farce:  “The threat that the UK could be forced into the euro, regardless of the UK government’s view and a possible ‘no’ vote in a referendum, was established several years ago. It stems from a protocol added to Maastricht in 1997, despite the fact that the same treaty appeared to give the UK an opt-out on the euro. The protocol said that no member state could prevent entry [of all members] to the third stage of economic and monetary union. The UK has had no choice since 1997….The idea of a referendum on joining the euro is a practical nonsense as well as constitutionally illegal. How can we be asked to say ‘yes’ to joining when the economic conditions are right, when the result of a ‘yes’ vote would eliminate the chance to vote ‘no’ later when the economic conditions were wrong again!”
Will we lose out on employment if we leave the EU? Will joining the single currency create more jobs?

In Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p. 173, we read: “When the UK foolishly joined the ERM (a prelude to the euro) in the late 1980s, unemployment rose to 3,000,000, and the national debt spiralled upwards with it. The UK suffered five years of recession or no growth….Today, unemployment is under 4 per cent in the UK, but averages over 11 per cent across euroland, when UK figures are included, and 13 per cent when they are not…..In the USA, almost three-quarters of the population has a job. In the UK 71 per cent, in Germany 64 per cent, in France 59 per cent and in Belgium a mere 28 per cent work for a living. Those last three countries all have taxation levels and social security costs that positively discourage people from working. Much of the new employment that has been generated in the EU, especially in France, has been in the public sector, which in turn has added to the tax burden….

“The Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederation in Europe (UNICE), in a 1998 report on European job prospects, co-signed by the Confederation of British Industry, said: ‘The EU’s employment record is dismal. Since 1970 the US economy has created just under 50 million new jobs, whilst the EU has created just over five million. For every ten jobs created in the US, only one is created in Europe. Unemployment stands at 17 million in the EU – 10% of the workforce.’ Dr. Gerald Lyons, chief economist of DKB International, speaking in London on 17th November 1998, coined a new definition for EMU. He said: ‘This poor jobs performance in Europe has not been a short term development. It has been a sustained problem. This problem is not about to be reversed…. European monetary union will make Europe’s jobs problem worse….There are nearly 4,000,000 companies in the UK, but only a third of them employ more than one person. Only 0.1 per cent of British businesses employ more than 500 people each. The other 99.9 per cent do not, yet they are responsible for well over half of all employment in the UK. Also, barely three per cent of them have any trade with the rest of the EU, either as exporters or importers.

“So the scare-mongering claim that 3,000,000 UK jobs depend on EU membership is entirely false. A few thousand jobs would be directly affected if we left the EU, but only in the short term. An explosion of new activity and confidence would quickly replace them, and create many more. Only 87 MEPs, 2 commissioners and a few civil servants would be permanently out of jobs.”

The following extracts are from a report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research on the effects on Britain of withdrawal from the EU 

“The Macroeconomic Impact of UK Withdrawal from the EU” by Nigel Pain and Garry Young, February 2001.

Section 1. Introduction and overview
“…..Some of the potential costs of withdrawal [from the EU] are now widely perceived to have fallen. Moves towards a more open world trading system over the past two decades, helped by the completion of the Tokyo and Uruguay rounds of trade negotiations, mean that any additional tariff barriers facing UK exporters if the UK were to leave the EU are likely to be much smaller now than they once might have been……Of course, a full analysis of EU withdrawal is a difficult and somewhat subjective task….

“3.4 Budgetary Policy.
According to the UK national accounts, the UK paid about £4.5 billion more to the EU in 1998 than it received. On average, the net annual payment in the 1990s (up to and including 1998) was £2.4 billion…..In total we assume that withdrawal means that net public expenditure is £3 billion per annum lower than would otherwise be the case, after taking account of the lower level of import duties on agricultural products. There are many different uses to which this windfall ‘gain’ might be put. Given that there are likely to be some short-term employment costs associated with withdrawal from the EU, it seems reasonable to assume that additional expenditure might be used to try and alleviate these. We assume that the government would reduce employers’ national insurance contributions by £2 billion per annum and allow the remaining £1 billion per annum to be used to reduce income taxes….

“[Impact on employment]
The effect of EU withdrawal on employment is relatively small in relation to the change in output. ….If monetary policy is relaxed as the economy contracts, then the maximum decline in employment is around 75,000. If interest rates and the exchange rates do not fall, then employment would fall by around 160,000 after three years as a result of UK exit from the EU. The reason for the relatively small decline in employment in spite of a large shock to output is that wages fall in real terms as the labour market slackens. This makes labour relatively more attractive to companies, compensating for the effect of lower demand. It is also the case that with lower labour-saving technical progress, firms need relatively more labour for each unit of output…

“Section 5: Conclusions
…We estimate that 3.2 million jobs are associated directly with the production of goods and services which Britain currently sells to the EU. The incomes of those employed in producing goods and services for the EU market also help to support other jobs at home. But, as the experience of the 1960s shows, there is no reason to suppose that the UK would experience mass unemployment outside the EU. Withdrawal could cause disruption to the economy, but it is most unlikely that export sales to EU markets would cease completely, and monetary policy can be relaxed. In the longer-term flexible wages and prices would help employment to recover….Our best estimates are that withdrawal from the EU would mean that the level of output in the UK economy would be 2 ¼ per cent lower permanently than it otherwise would have been. This estimate is uncertain, and to some extent may be argued to err on the side of caution, but it is broadly equivalent to the gains that other EU economies are estimated to have made from participating fully in the European integration process.” (My italics – TD)

The, admittedly estimated, and probably cautious, maximum decline of 75,000 jobs indicated in this report is a completely different proposition to the figure quoted by Tony Blair, that 3 million jobs would be lost if we left the EU. Also, Sir Kenneth Jackson, Kenneth Clarke, Keith Vaz, Robin Cook and others variously claim that 3m, 3.2 or 3.5m jobs will go if we remain outside the single currency. 

Nationalism
It has been said that we should beware of ‘nationalism’ as the Nazi’s tried that in the second World War.  Many terrible things have happened throughout history, does it mean that we are going to allow this to manipulate us into remaining in the European Union?

Quoting “On Target” Vol. 26, nos. 12 & 13, 7/21st December, 1996:  Sovereignty and the Nation State: World Orders:  “In October, 1996, The Times reported a speech by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl as ‘Nation states day is over, British told’, but in his address at the University of Louvain, in Belgium, Herr Kohl said ‘European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century’ and he endorsed an earlier remark by the late President Mitterand, of France, that ‘nationalism is war’. Here lies much of the argument about the European relationship, but it ducks the question of the banking system, who will control this as the life blood in the European ‘arteries’, and its relationship to the global financial system as a whole? This question is critical when tabling visions of European expansion, not only to include the former East European countries of the Communist Bloc, but to encompass Russia, too. A United Europe ‘from the Atlantic to the Urals’ has often been identified as a long-term objective by some. However we see this, it is an expansion, a consolidation, a centralisation of power.”
The European Movement
This is an organisation that was set up in 1948 to promote the European Union.  It was originally a limited company but is now known simply as “The European Movement”. 
In a web page article entitled “European Movement Exposed”, the author, Brian Mooney, describes the history of this movement: “It was formed in 1948 to promote the idea of European Union – ‘a United States of Europe’. It also has the aim of keeping up the pressure on Europe’s governments towards realising this. Ernest Wistrich, one of its Directors, went on record in the 1970s as believing that European Union could ultimately become a blueprint for World Government.  It set up and remains active within the European Education Programme, which organises conferences and publishes teaching materials. The programme is run by the Federal Trust, which describes itself as an independent charity holding no political views of its own. Presumably this is to take advantage of the tax exemptions available to a registered charity.  With the Maastricht Treaty being revised, the Trust has set up a Round Table whose members are all committed to building the ever closer union prescribed. Its proceedings are edited by a President of the Union of European Federalists and published as recommendations through the Federal Trust Papers. Hardly politically neutral?”
The following information from the European Movement’s website may be of interest: “The European Movement has a unique place in British politics. It is a democratic membership organisation, governed by an elected Management Board. It has separate national councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and branches throughout England, supported by the work of professional staff in the London office. In addition, there are Regional Organisers throughout the country to assist in the development of the branches and the delivery of the grassroots campaign.  The Young European Movement is an important part of the European Movement, working among students and other young people to put the pro-European message on campus and among youth organisations. The European Movement also works closely with groups within political parties, such as the Conservative Group for Europe, the Labour Movement for Europe and the Liberal Democrat European Group. There are national sections of the European Movement in most other European countries, coordinated by an international secretariat in Brussels. The different national sections assist each other in their campaigns, and promote contacts and exchanges amongst their members.
“The European Movement is Scotland’s leading pro-European organisation….It is an international movement with branches in most European countries. It is a non-governmental organisation owned and funded by its members in each country. The European Movement organises a programme of events – evening meetings and seminars, lunches and conferences – and publishes material to inform our members and the wider public about European affairs. Foremost among these issues in the future will be the European single currency.” (My italics – TD)  

The UKIP provides some information on what it’s like in Strasbourg:

Quoting Nigel Farage, MEP for South East England (January 2000): “Many people were surprised when the UK Independence Party polled 10% of the vote here in the South East in the European Parliament elections on 10th June 1999. It meant that I was off to Brussels and Strasbourg, with a mandate to report back on the activities of this somewhat anonymous institution. I had been warned that others had trodden this path, with good intentions of fighting the system – only to find that they had very quickly ‘gone native’. The reason soon became obvious: money is no object in the EU and MEPs are made to feel very important. There are chauffeur driven cars, endless champagne receptions and an expenses system capable of corrupting almost anyone. The UKIP pledged that any excess travel allowances would be used to help the victims of the EU in this country. That is precisely what the three of us are doing, much to the annoyance of other MEPs…. There is a building in Brussels that cost £800 million, a brand new one in Strasbourg that cost £300 million and an administrative centre in Luxembourg for the 3500 staff employed by the European Parliament. Every week, tin boxes full of EU documents and MEPs’ papers travel up and down the motorways of Europe between these ‘centres’…. I wish I could take every elector to the European Parliament – if only to hear the language being used. The dream is of a European empire, with its own currency, legal system, police force and army. The project is moving ahead rapidly. No room here for being ‘in Europe, not run by Europe’!”

NGO’s (non-Governmental organisations) within the EU and the UN:

Whilst I believe that some spiritually aligned NGOs have attempted to exert pressure on the UN to walk its talk, some researchers say that they enhance the UN’s power, prestige and credibility. In “EU Adapts UN’s NGO Strategy” in the 15th July 2002 issue of The New American we read: “In recent years, many conservative and pro-family groups in the U.S. and elsewhere have created UN-accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in order to participate in UN conferences and summits. Such activists reason that there is value in having a seat at the table to network with like-minded people from other nations to restrain the more outrageous elements of the UN’s agenda….The problem with this approach is that it actually enhances the UN’s power, prestige, and credibility, and forces traditionalists who choose the NGO  route to support the ‘purposes and principles’ of the UN as a condition for accredition. And in any case, the UN always arranges to control what it calls ‘international civil society’ by funding an ever-expanding chorus of radical NGOs, thereby ensuring that genuinely independent voices are shouted down. In a critique of the European Union’s constitutional convention published in the June 8th issue of The Spectator of London, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP), describes how this charade functions in the EU. To the Eurocrats, writes Hannan, ‘the goal of a united Europe is a self-evident good, and anyone who opposes it is either foolish or wicked. If ordinary voters are insufficiently enthusiastic, they must be better educated. If they persist in voting the wrong way, they must be made to change their minds…. Additionally, the architects of what Mikhail Gorbachev called the ‘new European soviet’ have taken a page from the UN’s playbook by creating a forum for NGOs representing ‘international civil society.’ This would be dominated by NGOs such as ‘the European Movement, the Union of European Federalists, the European Women’s Lobby, the European Council of Artists, the European Humanist Federation, and the European Social Action Network. These are not simply NGOs that happen to be pro-EU. They are, in many cases, creatures of the European Commission, dependent on Brussels for their funding.” 

The following article in Living Lightly (comes with Positive News Autumn 2002, entitled “Summing up the Summit” by Rory Spowers (www.hope.se) provides some grassroots information: 

“Summing up the Summit
Several worlds co‑existed and collided in and around Johannesburg and many felt that the real action was not necessarily going on in the Sandton Convention Centre but in the numerous parallel activities, as existing networks of NGOs and activists started fusing together, expanding into one global coalition calling for radical action and change. As indigenous tribal elders joined activists from around the globe in their exasperation and despair at the Summit proceedings, something else was going on at a different level, something new, something that promises to both eclipse and transcend the stagnant world of international diplomacy. While the US, Canadian and Australian delegations systematically undermined the official process, seemingly hell‑bent on making sure that nothing of any consequence came out of the whole event, people from around the world were coming together with a common purpose.

“The escalating power and influence of multinational corporations, has now become so glaringly transparent that many began to see the futility of even engaging with the official process. For many, the ultimate conclusion from Johannesburg was that we can forget all aspirations of the change we want to see coming from the top down. It is more evident than ever that the step change, the paradigm shift, the quantum leap that so many of us want to see, has to come from us, from the grass roots, from people just like you and me. We have to build the world we want to live in. Many now feel that energy expended in fighting the existing system is energy misdirected and energy wasted. As Buckminster Fuller once said, ‘You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete.’ Similarly, Einstein remarked that ‘Problems are never solved by the same level of awareness that created them.’ There is much to suggest that the new model is now emerging, consisting of new economic frameworks, new systems of governance, breakthroughs in ecological design, the principles of 'industrial ecology', agro‑ecological farming methods and sustainable lifestyles. In fact, for many of the NGOs in Johannesburg, the official process had become so corrupted by the corporate agenda that they refused to engage any further as a matter of principle.

“This is not to say that the direct lobbying tactics so expertly handled by organisations like Friends of the Earth does not continue to play an important part. One of the most comforting realisations of the week was to see that veteran campaigners like Tony Juniper and Charles Secrett, who were doing such a skilful job at the interface between governments, the UN and the Civil Society, appeared infinitely more articulate and informed than those on the other side of the table. However, despite winning several battles, most notably within the media war, they remained realistic about the overall situation. ‘Basically these people have convinced themselves that free trade is the same thing as sustainable development,’ Tony Juniper told me. ‘Rather than implementing measures for corporate accountability, they are pushing the agenda in precisely the opposite direction.’….

“Sandton, site of the official UN Summit, certainly seemed the most alien of the parallel worlds. I made my way towards the entrance, expecting to find huge rooms heaving with heated negotiations. Instead, I found myself inside a five storey shopping mall, confronted with a vast BMW promotion, surrounded by well dressed men and women eating lobster, drinking chilled Chardonnay and browsing through Gueei. It took a full ten minutes to find my way past this unashamedly ostentatious commercialism to gain access to the Convention Centre itself, where the passion and conviction of Civil Society representatives continued to fall on deaf ears all week.

“Amongst the many other parallel activities which had been planned for the week, perhaps the most radical and challenging to the mainstream agenda was the People's Earth Summit at St Stithians College, a 200 acre school campus just outside the Sandton district. This was not only home to the international Friends of the Earth delegation but also the focus for many of the most prominent activists from around the world, including Vandana Shiva, Martin Khor and the Third World Network, Herbie Girardet representing the Earth Emergency Call to Action, and a diverse collection of writers, local Sangomo healers and tribal elders from the ice sheets of Greenland to the humid tropics, largely coordinated through the auspices of the London based Gaia Foundation. When Michael Meacher visited the event, he commented that, ‘This is where it's all happening,’ and there were certainly moments during the week that the charged atmosphere of the event was palpable: landless local farmers and their wives singing modified protest songs from the apartheid era with such gusto that the police appeared; marathon drumming circle sessions which encompassed men and women of every race, colour and creed; intense late night discussions about building networks and the acceleration towards critical mass; disturbing debates about the implications of new nano‑technologies and heart rending accounts of corporate malpractice inflicted on indigenous populations.

“However, despite the pervasive doom and gloom and the inevitable frustration with the official process, many feel that Johannesburg will be remembered as an important moment in the crystallisation of a global movement creating a tide of Hope. Little may have been achieved in the corridors of power, but existing global networks are coalescing into one coherent voice like never before. The world we want to live in may seem further away than before, but the lines of communication which link this rising tide are buzzing louder than ever.

“There is considerable evidence that the paradigm shift so many of us read and talk about is already upon us, manifesting in progressive examples in the corporate sector which have actively embraced new frameworks like the Swedish Natural Step movement, through to new initiatives for global governance and the expanding web of eco‑villages and ecological communities which are already living a new way. Robert E Kennedy once said that ‘Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the life of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends a tiny ripple of hope, and those ripples, crossing each other from a million different centers of energy, build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.’ Despite the abject failure of world leaders to produce anything of any consequence out of this Summit, Kennedy's words serve as an inspiration for our times. The runaway train of the corporate neo‑liberal agenda may be racing towards the end of the line, but the cyclical networks which will replace it are laying the foundations for a new and different world. Each one of us can become a ripple of Hope within this ever‑expanding network, spinning the web to the four corners of the globe.”

The Maastricht Treaty 1992

Quoting again from “The meaning of the Maastricht Treaty” by Professor Stephen and Mrs Gill Bush. “To understand the Maastricht Treaty it is necessary to realise that it is made up of a set of Common Provisions, which announce the formation of the ‘European Union’ (Articles A-F), plus a complex series of amendments to existing Treaties (Rome, Coal & Steel and EURATOM [European Atomic Energy Community], as amended by the Single European Act of 1986) (Articles G, H, I) plus 16 entirely new articles (J-S), 33 declarations and 17 protocols.  Copies of all Treaties are needed to understand the Maastricht Treaty, since the latter refers to articles in the other Treaties which are not reproduced in the text supplied by the Government. The Treaty of Rome thus amended by the Maastricht Treaty becomes the Treaty on European Union…. The Maastricht Treaty itself is a massive and highly complex affair of 306 pages…..It is doubtful if more than a handful of our legislators will have devoted enough time to be able to digest this treaty before they vote on it. [Remember – this document was written around 1992 –TD].  Certainly our representative at Maastricht did not:  ‘Now we’ve signed it – we had better read it,’ as our Foreign Secretary reportedly said on February 7, 1992 – a frivolous remark – but tragically for us, all too true…..

“The Most Threatening Provisions for Britain
These are the provisions for:

•	1 Imposition of foreign citizenship on British citizens;
•	2 Economic and Monetary Union;
•	3 Removal of our right to identify travellers at our borders, control of immigration, asylum and the issue of visas to non EC visitors;
•	4 The establishment of a common Foreign and Defence policy;
•	5 The extended use of qualified majority voting [QMV] based on an enormous over-weighting of the smaller EC-7 countries (Luxembourg, Ireland, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Portugal and Holland) all but one of whom (Belgium) is a net beneficiary of the EC budget;*
•	6 Increased centralization, planning and surveillance of our national life;
•	7 Establishment of the Economic and Social Cohesion Fund;
•	8 A huge extension of the Commission’s remit to pry into ‘every nook and cranny’ of our nation.” 

*As regards 5) above, this writer has been informed that the recent Nice Treaty 2000 (which at the time of writing has yet to be ratified) changed the QMV (qualified member voting) to weigh heavily with Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, whilst some of the smaller countries will only have a small number of votes. 

The Tests for entry into the single currency:

In May 2001 the BBC placed the following information on its website:

“Potential euro members have to meet a number of economic criteria set out in the ‘Growth and Stability Pact’ [from the Maastricht Treaty – TD]:

•	Inflation rates should be within 1.5% of the three best performers.
•	Exchange rates should be stable.
•	Annual budget deficit should be below 3% of gross domestic product (the total output of the economy).
•	The amount owed by the state must be less than 60% of GDP.

The government’s position is to ‘prepare and decide’ before putting the decision to a referendum. 

In addition to the Maastricht criteria, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, set his own five economic tests:

•	Are business cycles and economic structures compatible?
•	If problems emerge is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them?
•	Would joining create better conditions for firms making long-term investment decisions?
•	What impact would entry have on the UK’s financial services industry?
•	Will joining EMU [European monetary union] promote higher growth, stability and a lasting increase in jobs?”

The Chancellor’s five tests sound reassuring but Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p. 167 provides the following pertinent information: “Only Luxembourg qualified for the single currency under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. All the rest fudged their accounts. Belgium and Italy had debt levels more than double the top limit, so Belgium redesigned its public sector deficit, and Italy introduced a special eurotax, 70 per cent of which was supposed to be repaid by 2000. It wasn’t. Yet the special tax was still described as a lasting reduction in their deficit. The French fiddled their telecom’s pensions by making them state assets – but omitted to show the liability to pay pensions on the other side of the balance sheet. The Irish claimed that their EU contributions were the fruits of their own labour. And so it went on. Finally, as if by miracle, they all qualified. But they also displayed a blatant contempt for the rule of law, and a frightening indication of things to come. How can pension funds and national assets be regarded as sacrosanct in the hands of such people?”

With regards to the European Central Bank the following quote from “The Meaning of the Maastricht Treaty” provides some information:
  
“Capital payment to the new European Central Bank on 1 January 1999

“Pr(10 ‘….The Bank of England shall pay up its subscription to the capital of the ECB (European Central Bank) to cover its operational costs on the same basis as national central banks of Member States with a derogation’. Article 28 of Protocol (3) sets the working capital of the European Central Bank at 5,000 million ECU. An estimate based on the calculations set out in Article 29 of Protocol (3), would make us [the UK] one of the highest contributors, as with the European Investment Bank, paying about a fifth, i.e. £700 million….. 

“The full force of articles 102 to 109 apply in stage 3. These will leave Britain with the financial authority of a charge-capped borough council as Protocol (3) makes clear:
Pr(3) ‘…the basic tasks to be carried out through the ESCB [European System of Central Banks] shall be:
•	to define and implement the monetary policy of the Community;
•	to conduct foreign exchange operations….
•	to hold and manage the official foreign reserves of the Member States;
•	to promote the smooth operation of payment systems.’

“Pr(3) Art 11.2 ‘….the President, the Vice-President and the other Members of the  Executive Board (of the European Central Bank) shall be appointed from among persons of recognized standing and professional experience in monetary or banking matters’…

“Pr(3) Art 7 ‘….when exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and this Statute, neither the ECB [European Central Bank], nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body.  The Community institutions and bodies and the Governments of the Member States undertake to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB and of the national central banks in the performance of their tasks’.  Should Britain be unwilling to conform to the economic and monetary straitjacket imposed by the European Central Bank (ECB), there are plenty of coercive powers to ensure that she does (Art 104c):  ‘As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9 the Council may decide to apply or….intensify one or more of the following measures:

•	to require that the Member State shall publish additional information to be specified by the Council before issuing bonds and securities;
•	to require the Member State to make a non-interest bearing deposit….
•	to impose fines of a suitable size’.

“That a great and noble nation such as ours should even contemplate subjecting itself to being treated like a recalcitrant schoolboy ought to bring a hot flush of shame to any legislator. That the punishment for transgressing would be a massive dose of deflation at the behest of an unelected group of bankers, moves the matter on from folly to insanity.”  (My italics –TD)

The European Parliament

Earlier on in this article I mentioned the European Parliament’s working document “The Powers of the European Parliament in the European Union” (May 1999) published by the European Parliament, L-2929 Luxembourg.  I found it a useful exercise to read this document, and quote below some relevant extracts: 

“Foreign and security policy (Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union) 
Where the common foreign and security policy (CFSP), i.e. the second pillar of the Union, is concerned, the EP [European Parliament] has the right merely to be consulted and informed. ….For its part, the EP can take action through questions and recommendations to the Council. Once a year it holds a debate on progress in the implementation of the common foreign and security policy.” In Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p.17 we also learn that: “When the European parliament is invited to vote on resolutions – not laws – the voting procedure is completed at breakneck speed. Members of the European Parliament (or MEPs) pack the chamber, so that they qualify for their daily allowances. The minute the voting is over most disappear again. Absentees are presumed to have voted in favour of every resolution, and their ‘votes’ counted in support of the motion – whatever it is. On one occasion, 287 votes were taken in just over an hour. On another, 65 votes were taken in 20 minutes, so quickly and without any proper introduction or explanation that few, if any members were left with the faintest idea of what they were voting for or against. They merely pressed whichever button their party bosses instructed. Corpus juris (which we will come to later) was approved in this way, when UK members voted in favour and subsequently said they had made a mistake. It was a mistake they could not rectify, and their votes stand to this day. During voting on an EU budget of over £65 billion, the UK’s MEP Roger Helmer felt that the voting was so disorganised and dishonest that he called for ‘a point of order’, protesting: ‘None of us has a clue where we are. The paperwork in front of us bears no relation to what is going on. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.’ Support for his interjection came in the form of loud applause from all areas of the vast parliamentary chamber. Yet this incident did not happen – officially. No record of it appeared in the European parliament’s version of Hansard. Yet the censorship and deliberate corruption of parliamentary reports are most serious matters.” (My italics – TD)

Quoting further from “The Powers of the European Parliament in the European Union”:
Economic and monetary policy (Articles 98 et seq. of the EC Treaty)

“Economic policy
….The Council [of Ministers], acting by a qualified majority on a recommendation from the Commission [the civil service of the EU], begins by formulating a draft for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community and reports on this to the European Council. On the basis of this report, the European Council discusses its conclusion.  The Council then adopts a recommendation setting out the broad guidelines. Only now is the EP informed by the Council of the recommendations, the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the Member States and of the Community;  Parliament is not previously involved in any way (Article 99(2) of the EC Treaty). It [would] like to see this situation improved by means of interinstitutional agreements.
…..
“Each Member State must abide by the Council’s recommendations.  If it does not do so, the Council may give the Member State notice to take, within a specified time-limit, measures for the deficit reduction which is judged necessary by the Council to remedy the situation. If the Member State persists, the Council has various measures to choose from. It informs the EP of the decisions taken.” (My italics –TD).

Quoting further:
“Monetary policy
….The Council may also adopt, adjust or abandon the central rates of the euro within the exchange rate system. The EP has no say in this matter; it is merely informed by the President of the Council of the adoption, adjustment or abandonment of the euro central rates (Article 111(1) of the EC Treaty).”

The gradual, and somewhat disguised, development of the European Union

Here is an interesting and helpful description of the ‘small steps’ and clandestine approach that has been taken to bring about European Union.  Quoting from “On Target”, Vol. 29, 6th May 2000, commenting on the life and work of the late Dr. Kitty Little:  “Kitty’s [Dr. Kitty Little, M.A., B.Sc., Dr.Phil] quest…brought her into sharp contact with those forces engineering the economic and political integration of the United Kingdom with a European superstate.  These plans were marked early after the 1939-45 War by the publication of the pamphlet Design for Europe, in 1947. In this were recorded the clandestine approach necessary to avoid raising public alarm about future plans. Through the European Coal and Steel Treaty (the Schuman Plan), of 1951, the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and the formation of the European Court of Justice and European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM), right up to the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, ran a thread of deception and betrayal.  From the time of the Rt. Hon. Edward Heath as Lord Privy Seal, when Political Union was accepted in his statement to the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union (Command [Cmnd.] Paper 1720 of 1962), ran a trail of agreements recorded in other Command Papers until The Single European Act and Final Act of 1986, that enshrined those measures, the implications of which never seemed to be fully explained, for the fate of the mass of the British people. Documents readily available in Europe were being carefully withheld in the United Kingdom.”  

The following from the same issue of “On Target” provides information about the European Union of the Regions (13 separate regions, each of which will have 3 separate structures): “On one occasion, in 1987, Kitty and Lady (Caroline) Neill had managed with difficulty to obtain a map of the proposed European Regions. At a private meeting for some twenty concerned individuals, I [Lt Col Barry Turner, assistant editor, On Target] well remember Caroline spreading this map on the floor and showing how the United Kingdom was to be split up and how designated centres of government, designated for towns like Wakefield, bore no resemblance to the existing configuration. It was also noticeable how little publicity was given, for example, to the May, 1986, Twelfth Report of the House of Lords Select Committee, in which were made crystal-clear the profound implications for the Sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but the Single European Act was nevertheless pushed through the House of Commons regardless of the many reservations, and active opposition.”  From Vigilance: A defence of British liberty, p. 99, we also read: “The EU already treats countries simply as regions. In fact, even now, the UK is being carved up into 12 regions by the Blair government to meet the demands of Brussels. Of course he never says so – he dare not admit it. The regional assemblies for Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and London exist already. The other regions of England are now in the pipeline, and the regional assemblies exist in embryo. On top of them, an unelected Committee of the Regions will ensure that EU law is enforced at local level. The regional assemblies openly claim that they represent the first step towards regional government in the UK.”  Was the “devolution” of Scotland and Wales a precursor to this? 

Quoting further from the same issue of “On Target”: “Hardly surprising, either, was that very early on Kitty Little became aware that the increasing drive for globalisation was leading inevitably to the ‘scrambling’, as she called it, of British manufacturing industry, and that research and development were deliberately being run down. In 1971 Lord Victor Rothschild was appointed to head the Downing Street Central Policy Review Staff (the ‘Think Tank’), by the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath. In the following year Heath, along with the Secretary of State for Industry, John Davies, met M. Georges Pompidou, the President of the French Republic, and a former Director-General of the Guy Rothschild Bank in Paris. Kitty revealed that Davies subsequently told members of the Conservative Monday Club that agreement had been reached at that meeting to merge British technology with industry in Europe, that London was to become the financial centre of Europe, and that the Monarchy was to be abolished. We have seen these trends evolving today.” (My italics –TD)

Political union will mean drastic changes to our law system:  Corpus Juris instead of Habeas Corpus for our Law Courts?

As mentioned earlier, if we remain a Member of the European Union our present legal system will change from Common Law (Habeas Corpus) to Corpus Juris, which goes back to Roman Law.  

In Vigilance: A defence of British liberty by Ashley Mote (pub. 2001), p.66: "This….EU system of justice [Corpus Juris] will abolish British trial by jury. It will abolish the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It will abolish our famous habeas corpus, which was first formally recognised in Magna Carta - signed by King John in 1215. This gave us the right to have the prima facie evidence against us considered in public by a court of law within 48 hours of arrest. There will be no requirement for a public appearance, and no early opportunity to refute the prima facie evidence. Instead, the suspect will face indefinite detention without trial. Corpus juris will abolish the right of the accused to see the evidence against him or her before commital. Trial by jury will become trial by so-called 'professional' judges, while lay magistrates will disappear from our courts....Much of this new system of so-called justice is based on the code, also known as corpus juris, originated by the Roman emperor Justinian. It was later perfected by the Holy Inquisition and finally modernised and imposed across Continental Europe by the conquering Napolean 200 years ago....The Home Office says Britain can veto these proposals, but that is not true. They cannot be vetoed when they are introduced under Article 280 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which allows qualified majority voting in the fight against fraud....The unique British concept of habeas corpus obliges a policeman or prosecutor to place evidence of a crime before a court, normally within 24 hours of a charge being laid against the accused. At that time, the accused can argue that there is no case to answer and that he or she should be discharged,or can apply for bail. If this is allowed, the defendant walks free until the trial. If the defendant is detained, the courts must reconsider bail applications on a regular basis until the case is heard or sent for trial.

”On the other hand, the European Court of Human Rights has demonstrated many
times that it regards six months as a reasonable time to incarcerate a defendant before he or she appears in court to hear the evidence against. During that time, to help the defendant decide to confess to the crime of which he or she is accused, he or she may be locked up with violent prisoners, .... rapists and all manner of other disagreeable people. This may sound far-fetched but the evidence is there.  The Continental system of justice permits it, and it happens regularly in Italy."

The following article from New Beginnings included in a newsletter entitled Midnight Messenger, USA by Des Griffin Jan-Feb 2001 provides further information on this matter:   

“Will Britons Become Slaves?….The European Legal Area project, as it is officially described, constitutes the greatest threat to Britain’s most ancient and hallowed liberties that its citizens have fought for many generations to maintain.  The moment of truth has arrived when either the people of Britain submit to a new slavery under E.U. Civil Law, or they will determine to maintain the Common Law and their gift to the free world, even if it means exclusion from the European Union itself.  ….Corpus Juris will end the separation of the judiciary from the state, which becomes both judge and jury, responsible for the prosecution and the sentence.  A decision to prosecute is initiated even before the opening of an investigation.  In one place in the explanatory memorandum to the Corpus Juris document, it is actually described as a ‘fairer, simpler, and more efficient system of oppression’. The word ‘efficient’ appears often in this document, but it is efficiency at the expense of justice.  Under this Napoleonic system, British citizens could be held guilty before being able to prove themselves innocent. Corpus Juris provides for imprisonment for up to six months without charge, and can be extended.  The whole system is open to political corruption, of which there has been a great deal in some of the Continental E.U. states.

“In Britain and the island countries throughout the English-speaking world, liberty is understood to mean liberty from arbitrary arrest and incarceration, as safe-guarded by Habeas Corpus and trial by jury:  a judicial system which is unknown anywhere on the European continent.

“English Common Law:   The system we know as English Common Law comes from Jerusalem via the Crimea and Greece to England.  The other one, known as Roman Civil Law, came from Babylon via Rome to Continental Europe.  This is the basic dichotomy between Britain and the European Union, a division of two fundamentally different systems of law and justice, a fact that has never been faced if Britain’s citizens are ever again to be true to their heritage and birthright.  Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England (1613-17) was the great defender of English Common Law against the royal prerogative in the 17th century.  Coke’s Institutes, are a legal classic; he ranks as the supreme common lawyer.  He wrote: ‘The original laws of this land were composed of such elements as Brutus first selected from the ancient Greek and Trojan institutions.’  Under the laws of Brutus every subject was as free as the King. The laws in force were the ‘Common Rights.’  The Usages of Britain could not be altered by any act of the Crown or National Convention.  Every Briton was born to these inalienable rights of which no human legislation could deprive him.  One of these Usages was:  There are three things belonging to a man, from which no law can separate him – his wife, his children, and the instruments of his calling i.e. the tools of his trade… Among the laws as enacted by King Dunwall, or Molmutius, about 450 B.C. and quoted by Coke is: ‘Three things are indispensable to a union of nations: sameness of laws, rights and language.’  This very ancient system of law, for long known as the Common Law, has been retained throughout the ages by England [and Scotland, Wales & Ireland - TD] alone, but spread about the world during the last four or five hundred years.  While the East eventually became subject to Mohammedan Law, Roman Civil Law came to hold sway nearly everywhere in Europe, except in Britain. [My italics –TD].

“Civil Law vs Common Law. Great Difference:  A great different between the Civil Law and the Common Law is that the former holds everyone guilty until proven innocent, whereas the latter holds everyone innocent until proven guilty, and the same also applies to nations.  Is it no exaggeration to say that the end of all Britain’s ancient liberties under the Common Law and our traditional rights embodied in the English Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 (the main principles being adopted in the U.S. Constitution), is now at hand.  On 1st December, 1999 Romano Prodi, the E.U. Commission President, said very clearly that the national veto in matters of justice must be got rid of;  it is like a ‘ball and chain’ around Europe’s ankle, he said.  The European Parliament has called for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor and an extension of the E.U.’s sphere of control to cover police and criminal justice.  This need to open up the legal borders only arises by the abolition of the borders of the member states and the creation of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) which one might think is made for criminal activity.  The design for oppression is manifestly clear. CAP = corruption = the need for Corpus Juris = the end of Britain’s Common Law freedom under Habeas Corpus.  The ancient liberties of Britain are about to be amputated unless the E.U. knife now being taken up is deflected.  There is also the harmonization of the Schenger accords through the asylum and immigration acts which are being used as the drive towards a Euro-police force. …. The British Minister of State for Home Affairs, Jack Straw, describes Britain’s right to jury trials are ‘frankly eccentric.’  Indeed, the British are eccentric in E.U. eyes and thus has it been for centuries. Jack Straw speaks of saving 100 million pounds of jury costs, whereas the cornerstone of our liberties as a free people was the reason for fighting the invasion attempts of history at the cost of billions and millions of lives lost. No doubt he will say it’s more efficient – exactly as Corpus Juris does. There are three areas of human activity in a nation: economic, political – which extends to military – and spiritual.  We speak of the spirit of the law – the law is the source of our spiritual well-being and our birthright as a nation more surely than anything else. Britain is about to lose that birthright of the law, and with it its nationhood.”   (New Beginnings, Box 225, Waynesville, NC28786, USA).

Brief historical and Constitutional information:

Magna Carta (Great Charter) 1215 - England

At Runnymede, England, on 15th June 1215, King John of England signed the Magna Carta in which he conceded a number of legal rights to his barons and to the people. King John had become unpopular with the nobles, wealthy merchants and the Church through his revision of the tax system and because of his disputes with the Pope. 

According to the authors of the booklet In Defence of the Realm the Magna Carta is still legal today. It also legally binds the sovereign to the laws and explicitly states that the English Church should be free. Quoting pertinent extracts from the Magna Carta “First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired…..No free man shall be seized or imprisoned….except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land….If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us – or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice – to declare it and claim immediate redress…. It is accordingly our wish and command that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.”  Interestingly, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) declared the Magna Carta null and void.!  

During this period, the concept of a Parliament was implemented by the Frenchman, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester (1272-1307) to manage the King’s taxation and expenditure. Two categories were introduced to handle the distinct classes of society of the time – the “House of Lords” and the “House of Commons”.

There is good reason to believe that membership of the European Union is illegal and unconstitutional under the Magna Carta. In Defence of the Realm p.5: we read: “There is good reason to think that the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam are illegal in the United Kingdom.  Further, we argue that their ratification, the enactment of the European Communities Act 1972, and all consequential laws, directives, regulations and judicial decisions which purport to draw authority from that Act were and are illegal in this sovereign kingdom…. Further, we argue that the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union is null and void, that it can and should be so declared, and that all consequential laws, regulations, directives and judicial decisions fall with such a declaration.  Our justification for such awesome statements starts with Magna Carta, 1215, which gave sovereign recognition to already long-standing Anglo-Saxon common law, rights and customs….. Magna Carta is variously described as a covenant, contract or treaty.  It is not an Act of Parliament.  As we understand it, Magna Carta cannot be repealed by parliament.  As a contract between sovereign and subjects, it can be breached only by one party or the other, but even in the breach it still stands.”  

The Magna Carta was/is an affirmation of common law based on principles of natural justice.  Again quoting from Defence of the Realm, p.6:
•	“Common law is the will and custom of the people.
•	Statute law is the will of parliament. Statute can and does give expression to common law, but that common law cannot be disregarded by parliament, nor can it be repealed.  It can only be extended – ‘improved’ is the word used, but it is open to misuse.
•	Parliament is made by the law, and is not above it….”

Looking again at the legality of the EU, there is an indisputable and irreconcilable conflict between the oaths sworn by privy counsellors who subsequently swear oaths on appointment as European Union commissioners. In Defence of the Realm p.12, we read: 

“Privy counsellors swear: 
‘I will to my uttermost bear faith and allegiance unto the Queen’s Majesty; and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, and authorities granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states and potentates.  And generally in all things I will do as a faithful and true servant ought to do to Her Majesty. So help me God.’

“EU commissioners swear:
‘To perform my duties in complete independence, in the general interests of the communities; in carrying out my duties, neither to seek nor to take instruction from any government or body; to refrain from any action incompatible with my duties’.”
A Defence of the Realm p.14, informs us that the sovereign cannot change any part of common law: “The celebrated judge Sir Edward Coke said in 1610 that the crown cannot change any part of the common law.  Indeed he went further and said that the crown cannot create any offence by proclamation (nowadays, by statute) that was not previously an offence under common law.  So in England – in a nutshell – since it was established that new rights can be conceded, but existing rights cannot be taken away, so it is arguable that any subsequent attempts to overthrow the laws and constitution of the United Kingdom must be treason….Indeed, the previous referendum on what was then called the common market may also have been unconstitutional, since the executive of the day and their legal advisors have subsequently admitted that they knew then that the true purpose of the common market was not free trade but full political union.” (My italics – TD)

Again quoting from A Defence of the Realm, p.31: “A petition was submitted to the Queen at the end of February 2001, on the following terms: “We the undersigned seek to draw attention to and seek redress from the imposition of foreign laws, directives, regulations and judicial decisions by and from the European Union and its institutions, to the detriment and prejudice of your sovereignty and to our rights and freedoms as defined in Magna Carta, the Declaration of Rights, and by the customs of your people, and which you, our sovereign, swore to uphold and preserve inviolate in your Coronation Oath of 1953.” The Queen replied via her principal private secretary, Sir Robin Janvrin, on 1st May 2001:  “I am commanded by The Queen to reply to your letter of 23rd March and the accompanying petition to Her Majesty about the Treaty of Nice. The Queen continues to give this issue her closest attention. She is well aware of the strength of feeling which European Treaties, such as the Treaty of Nice, cause. As a constitutional sovereign, Her Majesty is advised by her Government who support this Treaty. As I am sure you know, the Treaty of Nice cannot enter force until it has been ratified by all Member States and in the United Kingdom this entails the necessary legislation being passed by Parliament.” 

It is generally understood that we elect a particular political party, however (as mentioned at the beginning of this document) there is sufficient evidence to show that, in reality, we do not actually have a choice. Whilst the various political parties may appear to have different policies, the long-term agenda of the global Elite, manipulating behind the scenes, continues. The majority of the political parties are for staying in the EU and for joining the single currency whilst others are for reforming it.  The only parties who are for coming out of the European Union are the United Kingdom Independence Party and the Liberal Party. The Scottish Green Party is for a confederal Europe, an alliance of partners of equal status, but if centralisation continues they may be for withdrawal of the EU; they oppose Scottish membership of the single currency. (See Appendix C). The fact also remains that the people do not elect the Prime Minister’s cabinet – and we now have an unelected European Council of Ministers as well.

Final thoughts

The Scottish and Welsh people have been deceived into believing that devolution gives their devolved Parliaments more power, whereas they can only decide on how to spend fixed sums of money allocated to them annually by central government;  and now the people of Britain have allowed themselves to be manipulated (many times through a lack of information as to what they were really voting for) into becoming a Member State of a highly centralised European Union. 

I believe the following paragraph from the beginning of this document deserves a reminder:
The promised referendum – are the people of the UK obliged to accept the single currency?
Some researchers say that a referendum on the single currency is a farce because the 3rd stage described in the Maastricht Treaty requires those member states that do not have an opt out (and those researchers say that the UK does not) are obliged to accept the euro. Other researchers inform me that the UK does indeed have an opt out clause.  Protocol 11 of the Maastricht Treaty clearly states that the UK shall not be obliged or committed to proceed to stage 3 unless there is a decision to do so by its government and parliament (in our case after the promised referendum). However, another researcher has informed me that the Treaty wording is invariably vague, with innumerable references to other arcane text. Lastly, some researchers believe that the Maastricht Treaty gives the EU permission to force us into the single currency whether we want it or not – e.g. due to a State of Emergency called because of the imminent collapse of the euro - or perhaps due to another emergency of some kind.

Membership of the EU is contrary to Britain’s constitution and it is certainly possible for us to withdraw. A legal team has been assembled to challenge the Government’s legal powers to surrender Britain’s sovereignty and self governance (see Appendix A). As mentioned at the beginning of this document, as to whether entry into the single currency is irreversible, as spokesmen of the EU, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and all the europhiles claim;  then the principle that no Parliament may bind its successor prevents any Parliament from taking us in, i.e. our Parliament cannot pass a law that a subsequent Parliament cannot change. If a Parliament does so, then they have exceeded their powers, authority and mandate – limited to five years maximum, and the rule that says we cannot leave is invalid because we never legally joined.  

Several political parties have expressed that their policy is to remain in the EU but to reform it (see Appendix C).  My research has brought me to the conclusion that I do not believe it is reformable, and further centralisation is inevitable. 

Quite apart from anything else, if we withdraw from the EU we would regain control of our fisheries, armed forces and our courts, and we will be British again, not European citizens. However, we will no longer have this choice if we accept the single currency.  The European Union is about further centralisation. Those who claim to serve the people should be known and held responsible and accountable, and facilities for adequate checks and balances should be put in place. 

This article was compiled by Theresa Dunford,  Perthshire, Scotland, UK, November 2002. Copies available by e-mail: theresa@sacredconnection.ndo.co.uk  

APPENDIX A

Constitutional Challenge – funds needed.

Copy of an e-mail from EuroFAQ - a Eurosceptic Resource - http://members.aol.com/eurofaq 
 
Subject: [eurofaq] Constitutional Challenge Reply-To: eurofaq@yahoogroups.com

We have heard of this "Constitutional Challenge" before but were reminded by a leaflet falling out of the latest issue of "These Tides", the copy of which is as follows:-

For the past three years a small group of concerned people in Britain have been carrying out extensive research into our nation's constitutional law under the guidance of leading counsel, Leolin Price CBE, QC.  As a result it now seems clear that successive governments of this, the world's oldest democracy, have exceeded their parliamentary powers by entering into various treaties with the European Union.  In so doing, since 1972 they have progressively surrendered our national independence and sovereignty to a foreign power, when the British people originally believed they had only consented to beneficial trade relations with the then EEC. In our view this must be unlawful because it contravenes our ancient Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights which is still in force today.

Our Parliament is dependent on being selected by election every five years or less.  The electorate chooses the incoming administration to govern on their behalf within the constraints of the Constitution.  Parliament does not, in our view, have the right to transfer its authority and responsibilities to an unaccountable and unremovable foreign power, and thereby disenfranchise the electorate.  We are therefore mustering support to challenge the Government's legal powers to surrender Britain's sovereignty and self'governance, by pressing for a Judicial Review in the highest courts in the land.  We are asking the judiciary to declare the law, and Parliament to uphold the law of the land on all issues at home and abroad, in accordance with the Constitution.

No man, be he King or Commoner is above the law.  All parliamentarians, the judiciary, the military, the police and senior civil servants, are required to swear oaths of allegiance and loyally to the Crown, MPs' Code of Conduct requires them to abide by the rule of law.  The Crown is still the ultimate guarantor of our freedom and independence.  The sovereignty of our nation must therefore be staunchly defended by every one of us who wishes to preserve Britain's inalienable rights and liberties.

A powerful legal team has now been assembled to carry the case forward, but in order to launch proceedings within the next few weeks primary funds need to be raised immediately.

'This England' has pledged a sizeable sum to help promote this vital legal campaign but we are sure that many thousands of ordinary people right across the English-speaking world will welcome the chance to take part in this new 'Battle for Britain' to restore our country's freedom and sovereign independence.

All contributions, large and small, with be gratefully received.  Cheques should be made payable to "Constitutional Challenge" and sent c/o This England, PO Box 52, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL50 1YQ.

We look forward to your support:  Roy Faiers (Editor)  Norrish McWhirter CBE, Edward Fox, John Couriet, John Bingley, Geoff Southall.

APPENDIX B
Re. draft Extradition Bill (European Arrest Warrant)
Letter from Leolin Price QC to David Blunkett MP

10 Old Square, 
Lincoln's Inn, 
London WC2A 3SU 
Telephone 020 7405 0758,  
Fax: 020 7831 8237,  
LDE Box No: 306 www.tenoldsquare.com
Email: clerks@tenoldsquare.com

To
The Right Hon. David Blunkett MP, 
H. M. Secretary of State for Home Affairs, 
Home Office, 
50 Queen Anne's Gate, 
London SW1H 9AT.

4th October  2002

draft Extradition Bill  -  consultation

I enclose a Memorandum which presents my contribution to the consultation invited by our paper CM 5545.

If this should be addressed to the Team in Room 1176, no doubt it will be passed on quickly to that Team.

I realise that we are now past 30 September 2002, the "last day" for consultation responses (para. 38 in the Introduction to the consultation White Paper); but I hope my response will nevertheless be accepted and considered.  It does not deal with the whole of the draft Bill, because I did not have more time.  For the same reason it does not cover all of Part I of the draft Bill; but my response is directed to the very important new European Arrest Warrant.

Leolin Price CBE QC

------------------------------------------------
4th October 2002

The draft Extradition Bill  -  Consultation

Memorandum by Leolin Price CBE QC

Preliminary historical and general comments on this exercise in law-making.

1.      In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 an urgent meeting of EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers attended by our Home Secretary arranged, as their reaction to those outrageous acts of terrorism in the United States, what quickly became a Commission Proposal for a Framework Decision (19 September 2001, amended on 26 September 2001) under which an arrest warrant issued in a Member State would be executed in another Member State and the person arrested would be transported to the originating Member State, without the protections of ordinary extradition procedure, for investigation and trial of the offence charged.  This new EU-wide Arrest Warrant was to apply to a number of offences, from an early date 32 in number.

2.      Until the Laeken Summit in December 2001, or very shortly before that Summit, Italy was not willing to agree unless the relevant offences were restricted to 7 offences plainly of terrorist character.

3.      Very shortly before the Laeken Summit a newspaper report referring to the proposal and the proposed 32 offences prompted a telephone enquiry to the Commission's London office at Storey's Gate.  Could that office please provide details of the proposal?  The office could not help.  It had no documentation.  The enquirer should ask one of the Community's "documentation centres" and a telephone number for that was provided.  The documentation centre" was unable to help.  It had no information.  After much delay and explanation, all it could suggest was the enquirer should apply to Storey's Gate!  Reverting to Storey's Gate the enquirer was met with repeated assertions of inability to help; but eventually someone at that Office said that they had a relevant document and agreed to post a copy to the enquirer.

4.      The document, when it arrived two days before the Laeken Summit, was the Commission's Proposal of 19/26 September 2001; and it did not refer to the 32 arrestable offences (but provided instead for each Member State to lodge a list of offences in respect of which it would not execute EU Arrest Warrants).  A further call to Storey's Gate produced no explanation of this but eventually a lady (?the Librarian) said she would see what she could do, and very quickly there arrived by post a list of the 32 offences (albeit without any indication of their relationship to the 19/26 September Proposal).

5.      On examination of the list provided it was clear that the 32 offences were not all being introduced as part of the "war" against terrorism.  What appeared to be happening was the introduction of part of the Corpus Juris which our Government had hitherto (in particular at the then recent Helsinki Summit) rejected as unacceptably contrary to our Common Law traditions.

6.      At this point it is relevant to contrast the ready availability of proposals for primary legislation at Westminster with the extraordinary difficulty in obtaining information about proposals for EU legislation.  The EU lawmaking processes are unacceptably secretive.

7.      After the Laeken Summit it was not at all easy to follow closely the progress of the Arrest Warrant towards adoption as law which Member States must adopt, and to understand  -  and perhaps influence  -  the selection and definition of the 32 offences.

8.      Eventually on 13 June 2002 the Arrest Warrant was formally adopted at a meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council.  Article 34.2(b) of the (Maastricht) Treaty of Union enabled the Council to adopt the Framework Decision "acting unanimously on an initiative of any Member State or the Commission".  (The proposal was by the Commission).  As the Arrest Warrant appears to implement part of the Corpus Juris, and the UK had previously opposed the Corpus Juris, it is curious that the UK agreed to the adoption of this Framework Decision.  That partial surrender to the promoters of the Corpus Juris is relevant (perhaps only marginally relevant) to the matters considered in this paper, but it might have been expected that the UK Minister involved (the Home Secretary) would have been particularly insistent, both in the drafting of the Decision and in the form of its adoption into UK law (Part 1 of the draft Extradition Bill) on clarity, certainty and understandability, and on a minimum of encroachment upon our distinctive law and legal traditions which had previously been thought incompatible with the Corpus Juris.  Such insistence is not apparent in either document.

9.      Because of its adoption in Council, Parliament must transpose the Arrest Warrant Decision into English law.  Failure to do so would contravene EU law and, as in the invidious Factortame litigation [1990] 2 AC 85 (HL); [1991] AC 603 (ECJ and HL); [1992] QB 650 (ECJ); [1996] QB 404 (ECJ); [2000] 1 AC 524, the EU Court of Justice could be expected to issue a ruling to that effect.

10.     Adoption by the Council on 13 June 2002 was at a time when the Arrest Warrant was under "Scrutiny Reserve" at Westminster.  Scrutiny Reserve, applicable to proposals for EU legislation, requires that our Ministers do not agree in Council to proposals for EU legislation which are still under scrutiny by our Westminster Parliament.  The scrutiny arrangements do not always work well; but the adoption was in contempt of our parliamentary arrangements.  Parliament is thus marginalized and apparently disabled from exercising constitutional power which it derives from our electorate at each election.

11.     The Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 requires (Article 34.1) Member States to take the necessary measures to comply with the Decision by 31 December 2003.  The UK's chosen means of compliance is the Extradition Bill (a draft of which was published in the "Extradition" White Paper of June 2002, CM5544, £18.75) and it seems that the Government would like this Bill to be enacted and in force well before that deadline date.  The Bill is of great importance and its provisions are a proper cause for anxious consideration.  The Consultation White Paper of June 2002 invites responses to the consultation by 30 September 2002  -  too short a period for the ordinary interested citizen and for interested bodies.

12.     The White Paper says that Part 1 of the Bill "implements the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant by putting in place fast track arrangements for extradition to what will be known as category one territories and which will include all EU member states".

The Arrest Warrant and the list of 32 arrestable offences 13.   The draft Bill does not include in any section or Schedule a list of the 32 arrestable offences prescribed by the Framework Decision; and under the Bill the form of the Arrest Warrant is that set out in the Annex to the Framework Decision, as prescribed by Article 8.

14.     Box (e) in the Warrant form requires statements in response to the following:

"Description of the circumstances in which the offence(s) was(were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by the requested person" and "Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) and the applicable statutory provision code"

15.     But it is plain that, whatever is required in response to those requirements, a full description of the offence(s) is not required at that point in the form.  This appears from the remainder of Box (e) which has 2 sections marked I and II:

"I      If applicable, tick one or more of the following offences punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or detention order of at least 3 years as defined by the laws of the issuing Member State" [and 32 boxes follow for the 32 specially arrestable offences]"

"II     Full description of offences not covered by section I above".

Such a "full description" of Section II offences is meant to be provided there and not at either of the preliminary statements mentioned in paragraph 14 above.  So, for the 32 offences, only a tick  -  not a full description  -  is required.  Only for section II offences is a full description required!  That is astonishing, more accurately it is outrageous.  Why should anyone be arrested here and deported for investigation and trial in a strange country with entirely different traditions and procedures for investigation and trial of alleged offences and with a readiness to hold an accused in custody for long periods during the investigation?

16.     The Section II offences referred to in the Warrant form agreed by our Home Secretary refer back to Article 2.1 in the Framework Decision:  "acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months".

17.     Section 47 is a masterpiece of confused and unsatisfactory drafting; but if the certificate "shows that the conduct falls within the European framework list" there is no requirement that the conduct would be an offence under UK law and punishable in the UK with a relevant period of imprisonment or detention "or greater punishment".  Both Clause 47(1)(b) and Clause 47(5)(b) refer to "the European framework list" and under s.47(12)(b) that is "the list of conduct set out in article 2.2 of the European framework decision" i.e. conduct constituting any of the 32 offences mentioned  in Article 2.2 and for which "ticking boxes" are provided in the Arrest Warrant form.  In the terminology of the annexed Warrant form these are Section I offences, not Section II offences.

Executing the Warrant:  unsatisfactory arresting arrangements 18. According to Clause 3(2)(c) of the draft Bill the certified Warrant may be executed  -

"even if neither the Warrant nor a copy of it is in the possession of the person executing it at the time of the arrest"

If that is the situation at the time of the arrest, Clause 3(3) requires that  -

"(3)    A copy of the warrant must be shown to the person as soon as possible after his arrest"

but only if  -

"(b)    the person arrested so requests"

Why should the burden of asking fall on the person arrested?  He or she is likely to be particularly stressed, anxious and confused.  The burden of compliance with Clause 3(3) ought fairly to apply without any qualification, and (b) should be struck out.  It might be suggested that 

(b) should be re-written as  -

"(b)    the person arrested so requests  after being told by the person executing the Warrant (i) that he is not in possession of the Warrant or a copy of it and (ii) the person arrested is entitled to ask for a copy and will be provided with it as soon as possible"

That re-writing of (b) is, however, too complicated.  Condition (b) should be struck out leaving the person executing the Warrant with the obligation to provide a copy.

19.     Those Clause 3 provisions do not, however, comply with Article 11.1 of the Framework Decision even if allowance is made for the scope of a Member State's "choice of form and methods" (Article 34.2(b) of the Treaty of Union).  Article 11.1 provides:

"1.     When [which means at the time when, and not at some subsequent time] a requested person is arrested, the executing competent judicial authority shall, in accordance with the national law, inform that person of the European arrest warrant and of its contents"

In my copy of the Warrant form, the "contents" extend to 6 A4 pages, including 11 boxes, one of which occupies a whole page.  How is an arrested person to be informed of all that material [and "the contents" means all the contents] if neither the warrant nor a copy is in the arresting person's possession at the time of the arrest?

20.     Proper information obviously requires, and the only satisfactory and fair rule is that the arresting person must have in his possession the warrant or a copy, that the person arrested must, at the time of arrest, be given a copy of the Warrant, and allowed time to read it and to listen to the arresting officer's explanation of its contents.

21.     Clause 3(2)(b) of the Bill allows the Warrant to "be executed by a constable or by an appropriate person"; and under clause 3(7) "an appropriate person is a person of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of [s.3]".  A draft of such an order has to be laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House:  see clause 167(5) of the Bill; but the explanatory notes accompanying the bill do not say what are the descriptions of persons which the Secretary of State is minded to specify.

22.     Who may be an "appropriate person" is potentially of great importance.  A constable making the arrest is likely to be trusted by the arrested person (even if not under Article 11 an "executing competent judicial authority") if only because in our society the power to make arrest is a recognised part of police officers' functions.  But a supposedly “appropriate" person who is not generally recognised as having power to arrest, especially if he does not have in his possession the Warrant or a copy, is likely to meet mistrust, disbelief, suspicion and non-co-operation on the part of the person to be arrested.

23.     Clause 3(7) does not set out any criteria for the specification of "appropriate person", and the Home Secretary or a future Home Secretary might think it appropriate to specify an officer of the Member State where the Warrant is issued.  Arrest for deportation without the general protection of extradition procedures is an alarming novelty in this country.  If it were to be made by an officer of the Member State where the warrant is issued the novelty and the alarm would be worse.  It is difficult to see why the Home Secretary should have an open-ended discretion to specify "appropriate persons"; and it is not easy to see why the descriptions are not set out in the draft Bill, perhaps with some restricted power for the Home Secretary to add new descriptions or amend descriptions in the Bill.  It is an unacceptably lazy legislative method which leaves to subordinate legislation what ought to be in the Bill; and it is no defence to point to Clause 167(5) and say that laying the statutory instrument in draft before both Houses of Parliament and requiring a positive approving vote in each House provides the protection.  Such statutory instruments commonly do not achieve much or any debate and are nodded through.

24.     The Home Secretary and his advisers must have in mind what categories of people are to be specified as "appropriate persons".  Let what is proposed be included in the Bill and, when the Bill is enacted, in the Act, perhaps with some restricted provision for subsequent variation by statutory instrument, although for this important matter subsequent variation really ought to be by amending statute.

25.     Remember that an "appropriate person" may carry out this novel and stressful form of arrest and may even do so without having in his possession the Warrant or a copy!  The draft Bill is where the proposed descriptions should appear:  otherwise Clause 3(7) and the reference to "appropriate person" in Clause 3(2)(b) should be struck out of the Bill; so that if, for example, the Home Secretary and his advisers think of specifying "any officer of the Member State in which the particular Warrant has been issued" that is something to be considered in the debate about this controversial Bill.  Such an officer should not be able to make an arrest in this country.  It may be said that the Home Secretary does not intend to specify such a person; if so he does not speak for future Home Secretaries, and the proper constitutional process for excluding this and other unacceptable possibilities is in the debate before the Bill becomes an Act and not after that debate is over.  The Home Secretary should tell us now, in the Bill, who are to be his "appropriate persons" to make these extraordinary new arrests.

26.     That unsatisfactory failure of the draft Bill raises the suspicion that inappropriate arresting persons are intended to be specified and this is to be disclosed only after the Bill has become an Act.  Such suspicion can easily be removed by setting out in the Bill what descriptions of "appropriate person" are intended.

27.     Better still, strike out of Clauses 3 and 4 all reference to an "appropriate person" as the person to make the arrest.

28.     The failure of the draft Bill (and the consultation Paper) to be more informative about this fundamentally important and sensitive matter of the persons to exercise these novel arresting powers may be contrasted with the consultation Paper's treatment of Clause 2(7).  Clause 2(7) indicates that the "designated authority" with the function of receiving and certifying the novel European Arrest Warrants is to be specified by Order in Council.  The commentary says that the intention is to specify, for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and for Scotland the Crown Office in Scotland.  Neither the Service nor the Office is, within Article 11 of the Framework Decision, an "executing competent judicial authority"; and in the ensuing debate the reasons for this departure from the Framework Decision should be explained and justified.

29.     Criticism of the arresting arrangements in Clause 3 applies even more strongly to Clause 4.  Under Clause 4 a "constable or an appropriate person may arrest a person without a Warrant . if he has reason to believe  - "(a)   that a Part 1 warrant has been or will be issued in respect of the person by an authority of a category 1 territory and (b) that the authority has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory"

Clause 4(7) empowers the Home Secretary to specify descriptions of "appropriate persons"; and there is no indication about what descriptions of persons are intended.  Of course, as with specifications under Clause 3(7), the draft Bill is where the proposed descriptions should appear.

30.     Clause 4 contemplates an arrest although a European Arrest Warrant has not been issued.  Whoever is the arresting person, why should there be power to arrest merely because the arresting person "has reason to believe" that an Arrest Warrant "has been or will be" issued in another Member State?  The person exposed to arrest in such circumstances will not be able to judge whether the arresting person has reason to believe; and the arresting person will be totally unable, as contemplated by Article 11 of the Framework Decision, to inform the arrested person of the European arrest warrant or of its contents.  The arrested person faces an astonishingly novel procedure:  arrest for deportation, without ordinary extradition protections, for investigation and trial of an alleged offence in a foreign country under an alien and unfamiliar system of law.  Clause 4 can properly be categorised as outrageous.

Fast track procedure:  no substantial protections 31.   A person arrested under Clause 3 or Clause 4 must be brought before a judge, under Clause 3 "as soon as practicable"; under Clause 4 "within 48 hours starting with the time of the arrest; but the judge (probably a district judge:  see s.48), and on appeal the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, will have, as regards any of the 32 listed offences, very limited power.  The object of the European Arrest Warrant and the draft Bill is deportation to the issuing Member State without any investigation and without questioning on traditional grounds the appropriateness of deportation to face investigation and trial in that State.  There are formalities to be complied and there are some bars to extradition, but the purpose is an essentially unquestioning deportation to the issuing State for investigation, trial and sentence.

32.     Detailed consideration of the 32 Framework List offences is therefore an essential part of the debate about Part I (the European Arrest Warrant part) of the draft Bill.  These offences are referred to in Clause 47 ("Extradition offences") by reference to ("the European framework list") but without any further definition.  It is therefore necessary to refer to the Framework Decision Article 2.2.

33.     Double criminality is irrelevant.  The conduct referred to need not constitute an offence under our law.  It is sufficient that it constitutes an offence as defined by the law of the Member State issuing the warrant and is punishable in that State "by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 3 years".

Muddle 34.  Clause 47(1) of the draft Bill confusingly refers to "the European framework list" in relation to "conduct punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with imprisonment or another form of detention for a term of 12 months or a greater punishment".  That is confusing because Article 2.2 and the annexed Arrest Warrant form refer to 3 years; and the Arrest Warrant in any of the 32 listed cases will refer to 3 years not to 12 months.  I do not understand why Clause 47(1) does not refer to 3 years.

35.     For the Warrant to refer to 3 years and the Act (if the draft Bill is enacted as drafted) to refer to "12 months or a greater punishment" is unexplained and unsatisfactory.

36.     There is also a noticeable absence from the draft Bill of any requirement that the arresting person must establish with the arrested person that he really is vested with authority to make the arrest.

The 32 offences 37.   It appears that what are listed are 32 categories of conduct which are or may be offences in some Member States.  Although Article 2.2 and the annexed Arrest Warrant form refer to them all as "offences", the lack of definition and generality of some of them indicate that they are not intended as definitions of crimes but only as categories within which different Member States may have defined offences, not necessarily with the same definitions in each State.  This also explains, or partially explains, why in Box (c) of the Warrant form the required preliminaries include a statement of the nature and legal classification of the offences with reference to the issuing states' "statutory provision/code" (although, as explained earlier in this Memorandum, a full description of any of the 32 offences is not required).

38.     Faced with the novel and alarming possibility of being arrested here for deportation to another country without the usual protections, the UK resident ought to be provided with ready access to each Member State's definition of the crimes falling within each category.  A UK citizen visiting other Member States or doing something which has operative effect in other Member States ought to be entitled to have knowledge enabling him to avoid being arrested here and deported without the usual extradition protections.  This means that he must fairly have access to knowledge which provides him with the opportunity to avoid conduct which may not be an offence under our UK law but involves the risk of such arrest and deportation; and the responsibility for making that knowledge available must reasonably fall on the Home Secretary and his advisers.

39.     The Home Secretary in his consultation Paper or by reference to a separate readily accessible publication, might reasonably have provided each Member State's definition of offences falling within each of the 32 categories:  definitions translated into English.  That has not been done.  It must be done; and the draft Bill must be amended by a provision making it the duty of the Home Secretary to ensure that this information, updated from time to time, is at all times available in readily accessible and well publicised form.  Failure to provide this information at this stage inhibits comprehensive discussion of this extraordinary measure and devalues the intended consultation.  Failure to include in the draft Bill provision for making this information properly available indicates in the Home Secretary an authoritarian carelessness about the impact of this EU legislation on us and our individual rights.  The Home Secretary agreed to the European Arrest Warrant and its disturbing novelties in respect of the 32 offences  for which we may be arrested and deported.  Let him tell us exactly what are the offences for which this sensational new and unfair procedure will apply.  I now turn to consider each of the 32 "offences" as they appear in the Arrest Warrant form:-

40.     "participation in a criminal organisation" What in each Member State is a "criminal organisation"? And that State may change the definition from time to time! Suppose a Member State outlaws any organisation which advocates secession of part of that State and a member of Plaid Cymru writes an article for a newspaper in that State supporting that organisation's object as generally applicable to minority areas in each Member State; is he "participating in a criminal organisation"?  What exactly does this mean in the law of each Member State? Definitions (translated) are essential.

41.     "terrorism" Is "terrorism" defined in each Member State as in our law?  It need not be.  Is advocacy of violence included? or only acts of violence?  Is being present at a "terrorist" demonstration (however "terrorism" is defined) included? These are not idle questions.  The content of the offence in each Member State will determine whether arrest and unprotected deportation will be available here in respect of that offence.

42.     "trafficking in human beings" There is the same need for English translation of each Member State's offence(s) under this category. This is not part of the reaction to terrorism or 11 September.  Its presence in the Framework Decision list of 32 offences is simply an opportunistic introduction of Europe-wide criminal law outside that field.  Why was it agreed?

43.     "sexual exploitation of children and child pornography" There is the same need for translated definitions. Including this category in the Framework list of 32 offences is not anti-terrorism but is another opportunistic introduction of Europe-wide criminal law.

44.     "illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances"

This has nothing to do with terrorism.  Why is it included? Translated definitions are essential.

45.     "illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives" Definitions (translated) of each Member State's offence(s) under this category are essential.

46.     "corruption" Definitions (translated) of each Member State's offence(s) under this category are essential. But why has this been agreed in reaction to terrorism and 11 September?  Its inclusion in the list is another opportunistic introduction of Europe-wide criminal law.

47.     "fraud, including that affecting the financial interest of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities"

As defined in the Convention, Article 1, this offence does not fall within the words in Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision which introduce the list of 32 offences.  Of course a Member State may have defined the offence so as to fall within those words.

Definitions (translated) are therefore essential But inclusion of this offence in the list has nothing to do with terrorism or 11 September.  It is an intrusive opportunistic extension of EU law to make the Arrest Warrant apply to this offence.  Why was its inclusion in the list agreed?

48.     "laundering of the proceeds of crime" Definitions (translated) are essential. EU Money Laundering Protocol and Joint Action date from 1997 and 1999.  Making the European Arrest Warrant available is just an opportunistic extension of EU law enforcement.  Why was this agreed?

49.     "counterfeiting currency, including the euro" But why was this inclusion in the list agreed?  It is not a reaction to terrorism or 11 September.  It is an opportunistic extension of the Europe-wide arrest warrant. Definitions (translated) are essential.

50.     "computer-related crime" This has nothing to do with terrorism.  Why is it included?  Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

51.     "environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species"

This has nothing to do with terrorism.  Why is it included?  Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

52.     "facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence" Whatever does this mean?  Is it about immigration?  or about burglary or squatting?" Definitions (translated) are essential.

53.     "murder, grievous bodily injury" This heading is not restricted to murder or injury as part of or in the pursuit of terrorism! Definitions (translated) are essential.

54.     "illicit trade in human organs and tissue" This has nothing to do with combatting terrorism. Why is it included? Definitions (translated) are essential.

55.     "kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking" This heading is not restricted to acts as part of or in the pursuit of terrorism. Why is it included? Definitions and translations are essential.

56.     "racism and xenophobia" Without translated definitions this heading is absurdly and dangerously wide.  What is "racism"?  What is "xenophobia"?  Is it restricted to "racist" or "xenophobic" acts?  or to acts which reflect or incite hatred of some race or of foreigners?  or to acts or written or spoken words which may offend members of some race or some foreigners? But, while this is a very special case for comment, it has nothing to do with combatting  terrorism.  It should be excluded. Definitions (translated) are essential.

57.     "organised or armed robbery" This heading is not restricted to robbery as part of or in the pursuit of terrorism!  Why not? Definitions (translated) are essential.

58.     "illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art"

This heading is not restricted to such illicit trafficking as part of or in pursuit of terrorism. Why not? But it has nothing to do with terrorism. Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

59.     "swindling" This has nothing to do with terrorism. Why is it included? Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

60.     "racketeering and extortion" This heading is not restricted to racketeering (whatever that means and whatever the definitions in various Member States) and extortion as part of or in pursuit of terrorism. Why not? Why is it included? Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

61.     "counterfeiting and piracy of products" What has this to do with terrorism? Why is it included? Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

62.     "forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein" This heading is not restricted by reference to terrorism. Why not? It appears to have nothing to do with terrorism. Why is it included? Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

63.     "forgery of means of payment" This heading has nothing to do with terrorism. Why is it included? Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

64.     "illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters"

Why is this included?

It has nothing to do with terrorism. Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

65.     "illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials" Definitions (translated) are essential. This may be anti-terrorism in design, but (as with other "offences") the detailed content of the offence or offences as defined in each Member State's law ought to be presented as part of the presentation of the draft Bill.

66.     "trafficking in stolen vehicles" Why is this included? Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

67.     "rape" What has this to do with terrorism? Why is it included? Definitions (translated) are essential unless in every State the content of this crime is the same.

68.     "arson" Why is this not restricted to arson as part of or in pursuit of terrorism? Definitions (translated) are essential.

69.     "crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court"

This has no reference to terrorism. The Court is not a member state. How does each Member State define these crimes? Why is the European Arrest Warrant appropriate? Definitions (translated) are essential.

70.     "unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships" Definitions translated) are essential.

71.     "sabotage" Could the trainspotters in Greece have been charged with an offence which falls under this heading?  Would someone who joins an "anti-nuclear" demonstration at a French nuclear power station be charged in France with a crime under this heading? Definitions (translated) are essential.

Concluding observations 72.     I end this Memorandum without further detailed comments on Part I of the draft Bill although in that Part as well as in the rest of the draft Bill there is much else which cries out for: clarification re-drafting re-consideration of the provisions about subordinate legislation and discretionary powers and their proper relationship to what will become the statute.

73.     I curtail my exercise without apology because I have already spent on this exercise more of my time than was reasonably available.  I am also content that what I have managed to do is concentrate upon Part I and in particular the European Arrest Warrant and its application to the 32 categories of offence.

74.     The European Arrest Warrant is much too important for there to be any acceptable restriction upon the scope of the consultation comments which are now invited.  Its novelty and oppressive operation  -  arrest here and deportation to face charges, investigation, detention during the investigation, trial and sentence in a foreign country, without the ordinary protections applicable to extradition,  -  is a truly astonishing introduction into our law.

75.     The origin of this development was in the immediate aftermath of 11 September; but reaction to that outrage was quickly hijacked by a desire to extend the grasp and novel reach of Europe-wide law enforcement procedures; and the result is that the new Arrest Warrant is not restricted to what was needed to combat terrorism.  The list of 32 haphazardly chosen categories of offence appeared very quickly, and it is a remarkable selection of "offences" selected without any obvious or apparent connecting character or principle.

76.     The Council's Framework Decision which Part I of the draft Bill is intended to implement, and the draft Bill itself, are conspicuous examples of bad drafting in relation to fundamentally important matters of principle and liberty.

77.     The impression of unseemly haste and inattention; the confusion; the disregard of the need for understandability; the invasion and overturning of what have been regarded here as "rights"; the exposure of our people to laws, courts, procedures that do not reflect, and officials who do not have, the same attitude to those "rights"; the carelessness about making proper arrangements for arrest under the new Warrant; the slap-happiness of leaving fundamentally important matters to be determined in subordinate legislation instead of in the proposed statute, and without any indication about the determination that is likely (and may already have been decided although not now disclosed):  everything about the European Arrest Warrant, its history since September 2001, the Framework Decision, and now Part I of the draft Bill is unsatisfactory.  Those responsible for the dramatic, ill-considered, poorly prepared introduction into our law of the European Arrest Warrant demonstrate an acceptance of a dangerous new illusion.  The illusion is that government of our people need no longer be for them, nor consistent with their traditions and their understanding of the relationship between government and the governed; but can be remodelled to subject them unnecessarily to uncomfortably different arrangements.  To present that dramatic change so ineptly  also indicates an arrogant assumption that Government can do as it likes, however incompetently, and that we can trust Government to see that what is inefficiently prepared and established will not be allowed to work unjustly.  In respect of this matter there is no room or justification for any such trust.

78.     There is a further danger.  Selection of the 32 categories of offence to which the European Arrest Warrant applies is haphazard, not based on any apparent connecting principle.  That would not have been so if the originators of the list had been content with a smaller number of offences, each of them clearly designed to play a part in combatting terrorism.  At a very early stage that linking criterion was abandoned.  A future busybody, looking at this haphazardly selected list, may well ask why other offences as defined by the law of any Member State (subject to the Article 2.2. rule about relevant punishment) should not also qualify for the Arrest Warrant procedure:  indeed why not all offences (subject to that Article 2.2 rule)?  This atrocious legislative exercise may then prove to be the thin end of a Corpus Juris wedge.

79.     If our law is to be changed in this manner, confidence in those who negotiate, draft and enact our laws will be severely undermined.

LEOLIN PRICE CBE QC

 

APPENDIX C

POLITICAL PARTIES & THEIR VIEWS ON
EUROPEAN & MONETARY UNION

(Please note this research was carried out in 2001)

United Kingdom Independence Party
Room 407, Triumph House, 189 Regent Street, London W1R 7WF, 
Tel: 020 7434 4559, Fax 020 7439 4659.
Website: www.independence.org.uk, e-mail: mail@independence.org.uk
They are for withdrawing from the European Union and against the single currency.

UK Independence Party in Scotland
C/o Stuart Titles, 268 Bath Street, Glasgow G2 4JR, Tel: 0141 332 2214
Same policy as the UK Independence Party with particular attention to Scotland.

Green Party (not the same as the Scottish Green Party, although they liaise)
Tel: 0207 272 4474 (London)
0131 478 4896 (Edinburgh) 
www.greenparty.org.uk
For remaining a member of the EU, but they are against further centralisation, i.e. single currency, etc.

Scottish Green Party (not the same as the Green Party, although they liaise)
Tel: 0131 478 7896
www.scottishgreens.org.uk
e-mail: office@scottishgreens.org.uk
In 2001 a survey was sent to all their members. “Their vision is for a confederal Europe, an alliance of partners of equal status, with no implicit assumption that they have ceded sovereign rights. However, current trends of increasing centralisation, and away from our vision of a confederal Europe, may ultimately force us to call for Scotland’s withdrawal from the EU. The real value of European co-operation is as a  platform for setting binding minimum social and environmental standards among sovereign partners.”  They oppose Scottish membership of the Euro.

Scottish National Party
www.snp.org
Tel: 0131 525 8900 – Marie Hunter, Enquiries Assistant 
“The SNP are for ‘Independence in Europe’ but against further centralisation.” When I asked whether the SNP would withdraw from Europe if further centralisation took place, she seemed unable to reply. She also said:  “ The SNP are for a referendum on the euro”  (SNP literature confirms this). Marie Hunter further commented: “The SNP considers that staying out of the single currency is costing Scotland in terms of jobs.”   

Liberal Party  (not the Liberal Democrats)
Tel:  01704 500115
www.liberal.org.uk
Click on policy, then international, then sub-section ‘European Union’.
Rt Hon Charles Kennedy MP
Withdrawal from the EU, the creation of a constitution. Against the euro.
Quoting from their website: “The Liberal Party opposes the European Union as currently constituted. In particular we oppose the concept of a Single European Currency, harmonisation of taxes and any move towards a European Army. Instead, we support the concept of a Commonwealth of Europe in which communities are free to operate their own economies, use their own currencies and levy their own taxes…We call for a new and fully democratic structure under the control of the European Parliament with a written constitution. We believe that the UK Government should withdraw from the EU.”

Liberal Democrats  (not the same as the Liberal party)
Tel: 0207 222 7999 (London)
4 Clifton Road, Edinburgh
Policy department, Edinburgh: 0131 348 5818 – Matthew Clark
Website:  www.libdems.org.uk
Scottish website: www.scotlibdems.org.uk
Welsh: www.libdemwales.org.uk

For devolution to a federalist U.K., i.e. Scotland, Wales, England, Ireland, within Europe. If they consider it is in Britain’s interest financially and also the 5 tests set by the Treasury are passed, they will then have a referendum within the first couple of years of office, but would support a ‘yes’ vote. They are for staying in Europe, but for reforming it!

Labour Party
0207 802 1000
Scottish Labour party:  0141 572 6900
e-mail: Scotland@new.labour.org.uk
www.labour.org.uk
Rt. Hon Tony Blair MP
020 7802 1000
Spoke: Chris Winslow, Policy Department, Scottish labour party office.
If they consider it is in Britain’s interest financially and also the 5 tests set by the Treasury are passed, they will then have a referendum and the people of Britain will decide.

Conservative Party
Rt Hon Ian Duncan Smith MP
Aberdeen office: 01224 627050
London: 0207 222 9000
www.conservatives.com

They are against joining the single currency for the first five years of office, if elected.

I have found some websites where some conservatives are pro Euro and some against. I was informed by the person at the Conservative Party’s Policy Department (I didn’t get his name and he was not over-anxious to give me much of his time) that there are other sites on the net that have been put out by members – some of whom are pro-euro, some against, but this is not the official party line.

APPENDIX D
CAMPAIGN GROUPS, ANTI-EU NEWSLETTERS & BOOKS

Newsletters & Campaign groups:
On Target
Available from: Bloomfield Books, 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 6TD. Annual subscription: (UK): £20.00. Cheque payable to Donald Martin.
They also stock a good selection of books. Catalogue available.

United Kingdom Independence Party
Room 407, Triumph House, 189 Regent Street, London W1R 7WF. 
Tel: 020 7434 4559, Fax: 020 7439 4659, website: www.independence.org.uk, 
e-mail: mail@independence.org.uk

Campaign for an Independent Britain
Tel: 0208 340 0314 (London)    www.cibhq.co.uk
Campaign for an Independent Britain (Scotland), 23 Baldred’s Road, North Berwick, East Lothian, EH39 4PY. Tel/Fax: 01620 892489

DARTT – Direct Action Resistance To Tyranny 
E-mail: DARTT-subscribe@yahoogroups.com   (Please note: DARTT is not a forum or discussion group. Communication will be almost entirely one way, and only when action is initiated). This is the first national direct-action group co-ordinating large-scale, lawful resistance and obstruction to the European Union in the UK. DARTT will use no violence, and cause no damage to people or property. We guarantee never to ask you to do anything unlawful. There will be no party politics, and no recruitment or campaigning for any political parties. If you are also willing to be an area organiser please send a separate e-mail to: DARTT-owner@yahoogroups.com giving your name and full postal address, including - most importantly - your post code.  Meanwhile, if you can help with funds for legal advice and campaign expenses, all contributions are welcome. Cheques to DARTT, at PO Box 97, Petersfield, Hants, GU32 1YE. The DARTT steering group includes (in alphabetical order) Richard Buttrey, Idris Francis, David Hearnshaw, Neil Herron, John Kelly, John Moran, Ashley Mote  all acting in their private capacities.

The Democracy Movement, Freepost LON 10777, London SW6 1YZ, 
Website: www.democracy-movement.org.uk

Sovereignty
268 Bath Street, Glasgow, G2 4JR
Tel: 0141 332 2214, fax: 0141 353 6900, e-mail: admcc@admcc.freeserve.co.uk

Save Britain’s Fish, c/o Iain Smith, Solicitor, 18-20 Queen’s Road, Aberdeen AB15 4ZT, Tel: 01779 472750.

Eurofacts: A Global Britain Publication, P.O. Box 9984, London W12 8WZ.
Tel/fax: 020 8746 1206 email: eurofacts@junepress.com
Provide a fortnightly newsletter.
Annual subscription, UK £25.00.  They will send a sample issue.

SilentMajority Web Site:
www.SilentMajority.co.UK

SilentMajority CD available this is a major resource for those wanting more information, facts & opinions on global politics, the new world order and the new EUropean Soviet.
Anti-EU campaigners Greg Lance-Watkins & Mark Oliver have assembled a CD which represents one of the most extensive and comprehensive resources available for the anti-EU movement. The SilentMajority CD includes his entire website www.SilentMajority.co.UK
 which runs to well over 1000 pages (about 20Mbs). It also includes entire copies of anti-EU books, quotes and other essential material including many of the official documents of the new EUropean Soviet, making it around 80Mbs in all.
CDs are £10 each. Cash, cheque or P.O. payable please to:
Greg Lance-Watkins, 
Glance Back Books, 
17 Upper Church St., 
Chepstow, 
NP16 5EX.
Monmouthshire,

Informed, lively, internet discussion group:
EUroRealist - to join send a blank ‘e’mail to:
EUroRealist-subscribe@smartgroups.com

For More Information & Facts visit: WEB SITES:
             www.SilentMajority.co.UK
                 www.MrCHAD.co.UK
           www.WelshAssembly.org.UK

Books
Bloomfield Books, 26 Meadow Lane, Sudbury, Suffolk, England, CO10 6TD. Catalogue available.

Vigilance: A defence of British liberty (2001) by Ashley Mote. Available from Bloomfield Books for £12.95 inc. p&p. Cheque payable to Donald Martin.
&
'Britain Held Hostage, The Coming Euro-Dictatorship' 
Orange State Press, 1998
and new 'The Last Days of Britain, The Final Betrayal',
2001
For extra fast delivery click on http://www.junepress.com/books.asp

Video
Britain and the European Union: The Facts. 
The EUro – The Facts
Copies of either of these videos are available from Bloomfield Books. Address above
Price: £6.00 including VAT and p&p. Cheque payable to Donald Martin.

Websites/e-mail lists: 
Silent Majority:
www.SilentMajority.co.UK

www.MrCHAD.co.UK

www.WelshAssembly.org.UK

www.EUobserver.com

www.iits.dircon.co.uk/rights/
(Re. European Union Arrest Warrant)

Statewatch:
www.statewatch.org/sos.europe.htm
e-mail: office@statewatch.org

Subjects for Sanity Against the Nice Treaty (e-mail list)
ifrancis@onetel.net.uk

European Parliament offices:
UK Office of the European Parliament, 2 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AA, Tel: 020 7227 4300 (They have a library and information department)
www.europarl.eu.int
e-mail: eplondon@europarl.eu.int
European Parliament Office in Scotland, 9 Alva Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4PH, 
Tel: 0131 225 2058, e-mail: wscott@europarl.eu.int
(They will supply a list of MEP’s for your area)
European Union, Brussels
http://ue.eu.int
Telephone no. for information to the public: 00 322 285 5650
International free phone number for asking any questions about the EU: 00800 6789 1011

There is NO CopyRight on this document, which is one of many 1,000s of items freely available on http://www.SilentMajority.co.UK [some 20Mbs.] & 10s of 1,000s of items on The SilentMajority CD [with over 80Mbs.] which contains the entire web site & hosts other web sites also, 1,000s of apposite quotations, Articles, Speeches, Commentaries, ArtWork, & The FULL text of The EU Treaties, Several Related Books, The British Constitution, The American Constitution & Numerous related Items.
SilentMajority nor any associate thereof does NOT vouch for the veracity of the documents hosted on its site or CD nor any foreign language documents thereon & advises you consult your own solicitor on legal details as we do not accept liability for, nor presume to give legal advice ourselves.
For a copy of the CD please mail payment of £20.00 for UK deliver or £25.00 for ALL other Countries payable to:
Greg Lance – Watkins,
Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
GREAT BRITAIN
For delivery of 2 x CDs
one for your own use
+ one for on selling or donation to an individual of influence (media, politician, activist etc.)

IF YOU wish to use the Material Above, which is freely provided
Please have the Courtesy to Print It out in its entirety from start to finish with NO alterations, as displayed.
To This Point
.