ITEMS WORTHY OF NOTE FROM THE DEBATES IN PARLIAMENT RE "THE ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH". JUNE 2001

All Members of Parliament, both old and new having just made the Oath of Allegiance get down to the business of the day by debating the contents of Her Majesty's speech. In both the House of Commons and the House of Lords they begin with "We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects--". We, the people, shall see as both Houses progress, how they measure up to those words.

Jack Straw, now Foreign Secretary, in his open speech in the Commons (22nd June. Col 283) stresses to all that the European Union (EU) is a union of nation states, "which is emphasised by the central role played by the 15 heads of government meeting regularly in the European Council", yet on the same page 'the Council' called for an early agreement on the European Single Sky, a project which would transfer more sovereignty to Brussels, without any benefit to Britain what-so-ever.

 There is the 'problem' of course with Gibraltar, which would have to be 'sorted out'; again there is nothing that is in Britain's interests in the debacle of "A Single European Sky". It does however give more "power" to Brussels.

Most people should be aware by now that the EU is working its way towards a "Constitution" in readiness for the next Treaty in 2004 in which they envisage the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights to be the first part. When asked of Lord Williams of Mostyn (21st June Col 112) "What is a constitution for? His Lordship answered "In my view, its purpose is to regulate the relationship between citizens and those institutions and persons which for a time control their lives in whole or part, reflecting commonly held views of equity, culture, religion, tradition and history".

Perhaps the Nobel Lord should have a word or two with the new Foreign Secretary for without doubt it become increasingly obvious that most, if not all MPs are in a great rush to be at the heart of the European Union and the completion of the forming of the one State of that European Union, or by whatever name it is to be known by.

Before I move on perhaps I should quote Menzies Cambell (22nd June Col 306/307) making clear that "The Government can count on the support of the Liberal Democrats in the legislation necessary to ensure a swift ratification of the Treaty of Nice. The treaty sets out changes to the institutional framework of the EU that will be necessary for enlargement to be successfully undertaken.  It is technically possible to enlarge without using the mechanism of the Treaty of Nice, but if we did so, every candidate country would gain two Commissioners. Etc"

"Accompanying swift ratification of the Treaty by the UK must be an acceptance on both sides of the House that the EU needs to undertake a serious round of reform. Etc"

"What we are talking about--I do not shrink from the expression--is a constitution for Europe.  It is only through being clear and open about its structures and ambitions that the EU can hope to retain the support of the people of Europe.  It is only then that the people of Europe will be comfortable with the institutions that are designed to represent them"

"Joining the single currency is both constitutional and political in its implications, and not simply economic.  It is those constitutional and political implications that are the justification for a referendum.  If it were simply a matter of economic management, no referendum would be necessary."

I seem to recall that, had it not been for Sir James Goldsmith just before the election in 1997, the "constitutional and political implications" would have been ignored and we would have been dragged into a single currency and the European Union's Economic and Monetary Union, without being offered a referendum!

Considering that the Irish people have voted NO to ratifying the Treaty of Nice, one could be excused in thinking there would be absolutely no rush in our Parliament to ratify the Treaty of Nice.  A chance perhaps for our MPs to debate the Treaty in full one might think?-- NOT SO.

The Treaty of Nice has already been given its first reading in the House.

This was made clear by Jack Straw on the 22nd June when the said, "In digesting the implications of the Irish referendum, all member states accept that none of us can or should take public support for the European Union for granted.  That is a matter that we all have to consider.  The Gracious Speech (which we should remember at this point, is written for Her Majesty, by Her Government) made it clear that we should introduce a Bill to ratify the Nice treaty in this session.  The Bill was presented to Parliament yesterday and received its first reading.  It will be for Parliament too decide whether Nice is accepted, including the first ever increase in the United Kingdom's voting weight, which is very important for this Country."

Previously he had said, "It is technically true that enlargement could take place without the treaty of Nice, but it could not take place without any treaty at all, because accession requires treaty agreement by not only accession states but the acceding states.  So, if enlargement were not achieved through the Nice treaty, it would have to be achieved through a treaty of accession, albeit a simpler one."  

Why the hurry for this Country to ratify the treaty? Is the ploy to get all the other Nation States, us included, to ratify Nice and then use that fact to pressurise the Irish people into voting YES to Nice in a second referendum? Will all other nation states ensure that the Irish people vote YES to the same unaltered Treaty of Nice, the same treaty they have just given the thumbs down on? Berti Ahearn could have gone for renegociation, but then that may have watered down the way to a United States of the European Union, would it not?

I can imagine that the people of Ireland are feeling some-what betrayed by the Taoiseach Berti Ahearn's stance on their decision on Nice.  HE was most apologetic to the leaders of the other nation states for his people's 'misguided' decision.

The leaders seem to loose sight of the fact that the Nice ratification process should stop at this point, for not only is it against the Irish constitution, it is in breach of European law on ratification of EU treaties (TEC Article 313, Nice Treaty Article 12) and in breach of the general conventions of international law governing treaty ratification processes.

One wonders if Britain had voted NO, had we been given the chance to, would our Prime Minister have supported his people or the European Union? Would he have treated his people with contempt that the Taoiseach has done, in Ireland? 

"The enlargement process will not be slowed down or stopped…The Irish people will have to decide in a new referendum"--German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder, speaking in Frankfurt.

"We trust the Irish Government will make every effort to secure ratification within the agreed time frame." -Swedish Prime Minister Goeran Presson and European Commission President Romano Prodi, this after "having respected" the outcome of the referendum by the people of Ireland!

There is no doubt to me, that if there had been a referendum in every member state on the treaty of Nice, half, I suspect would have voted against it. Many people were hoping and praying that there would be a rejection. Little did we think that the Commission and Council Members would defy, and treat with contempt the people of Ireland and that  the Taoiseach would not support his own people.

Jack Straw (22nd June Col 284)"The powers of the EU--yes, they are controversial in some countries; of course we understand that--were conferred on it by treaties agreed unanimously by the democratically elected Governments of all the member states, and implemented in scrupulous accordance with their constitutional procedures. (In view of the above, that's quite a laugh, in any-case, I thought we 'shared' sovereignty not gave the EU powers!)  People sometimes complain about the delays in decision making in the EU, particularly in relation to the ratification of conventions and treaties.  I think that is a price worth paying.  The EU is a union of nation states, each of which has to get endorsement for fundamental or significant changes to the way in which the EU operates from its own democratically elected representative institutions under its own construction."

Why then, the rush to ratify the treaty? Yet again Jack Straw is making clear we are a union of nation states. No matter how many times he says that, even if he comes to believe it himself, it is not the truth. If it is meant to convince the people of this land, I have news for him, most people no longer believe it either.

Many people believed the lie that the treaty was just about 'enlargement'. From the antics of the politicians when news came through of the result of the Irish referendum, they know they were not told the truth. It was more about 'deepening'.

At this point I will deviate a little, but the point I make is relevant, and picks out just one reason put before the US House of Representatives in July 1999 on Kyoto from the Testimony of Jack Kemp, "Finally, Mr Chairman, all of us need to find better ways to dramatise the way the Clinton administration is abusing the power of treaty-making to bind the nation to agreements that not only are unratified, but that they are never even submitted to the Senate for ratification.  This is a fundamental issue of constitutional power, not just between President and Congress, but between America as a sovereign nation and those international institutions to which we subscribe, but to which we must never cede authority over our economic life and our political freedoms.  As one who respects the U.N., and both admirer and I hope a friend of Kofi Annan, I can nevertheless say that I absolutely do not want the U.N. to tell me or my family how much we should pay for gasoline, what kind of cars we should buy, or how we should heat our homes."

"While Kyoto may be the leading- edge case of this corruption of the treaty-making power, I am sad to say that it is far from the only one."

Having read a great deal from the American angle on Kyoto, I understand why President Bush did not agree to go along with others, and I understand better why the EU were 'upset'. Perhaps we as a people should find out the true facts on Kyoto? (Oh, but isn't the truth elusive?)

Other points debated, the government will, (Lord Chancellor 21 June Col48) "after consultation, introduce legislation to implement the final stage of reform of the House of Lords.  That will include the removal of the remaining hereditary Peers and put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory footing."   And so will end those Peers with all the years experience and expertise in dealing with the finer details of legislation that has been forced through Parliament whether right or wrong, so eagerly by an overbearing government who, one way or another is determined to get its way.

The government "also promises a draft Bill to reform the criminal justice system and to modernise the criminal courts."  For the word 'modernisation', read 'destroy'. And for 'reform' read 'towards the EU Corpus Juris system'.

Lord Strathclyde (June 21 Col51)  "The Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, have chosen 39 Peers between them in just the past eight weeks.  More than half of the Labour Peers--14 of them--are Blair creations.  That figure puts the remaining 51 Conservative hereditary Peers in a certain context." Etc

"There are 92 hereditary Peers of all parties remaining in this house.  Yet 245 life Peers have been appointed by the Prime Minister in the past four years."

"If a flood of hereditary Peers was a democratic monstrosity, as Mr Blair said, what are we now to make of this cascade of patronage?  Are we to see it as a triumphant, modern and representative democracy?"  I believe it is right that we, the people should be aware of the abuse of power that is taking place in our Parliament.

Lord Rawlinson of Elwell (21 June Col 69/ 70) "We have seen lately how easy it is to parachute a desired candidate into a safe seat--I remember Mr Woodward of butler fame--but instead of parachuting a distinguished lawyer into the house of Commons, the Government have parachuted him into the House of Lords."

On proportional Representation the Earl of Onslow (21 June Col 72) came up with, "We can sack our government; and we must always be able to do so.  If we go down the road of proportional representation, we shall not be able to sack the Government.  The Dutch and the Belgians have not sacked a Government since the war.  The Germans have done so only once.  We must be very careful.  The ultimate power of the people is to say, "On your bike!". It is essential.
Proportional representation will put an end to that."

Finally I end with the views of Lord Pearson of Rannoch (21 June Col 87)
"but I submit to your Lordships that our relationship with the EU is developing in such a way that it now assumes the highest constitutional importance.  Many people feel that far too much of our sovereignty has already been ceded to Brussels.  However, if the Eurocrats' agenda for the next intergovernmental conference in 2004 succeeds, the United Kingdom will cease to be a self-governing nation; its people will finally lose the right to elect and dismiss those who make its laws."

"I submit that there is no greater constitutional prospect than that, and we should start debating it openly and seriously." Etc

He said "The Irish Attorney-General, Mr Michael McDowell, put it rather well in Brussels on Tuesday when he said that Irish voters had rejected the Nice Treaty partly because of a,

"widespread perception that developments in Europe were taking a turn, or moving in a direction, that caused deep unease".

He said:

"A narrow class of activist office-holders, elected and unelected,"

were charging ahead of public opinion with proposals for a European constitution, a justicable Bill of Rights, EU direct taxation, a defence arm, judicial machinery to prosecute and punish citizens, an elected EU President, and an EU Government.  He continued:

"Few if any of these proposals carry popular significant support.  While many have been put forward separately, they constitute, in the round, the indiciae of a European state in substance".

"That is some of the agenda to which I referred in my opening remarks.  I have no doubt that millions of British people would agree with Mr McDowell."

"Yet the belief persists among our political class that our membership of the EU is a good thing.  That was demonstrated by the Chancellor last night.  That belief seems to be based on two fundamental assumptions, both of which are highly questionable and even dangerous.  The most important assumption is that the EU is good for peace, and the second is that it is good for trade and prosperity." "History teaches us that on the whole democracies do not provoke war.  History also teaches us that forced or premature conglomerations of different nations nearly always end in disaster of one kind or another.  We only have to look at the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Ireland, the Middle East, the trans-Caucasus and much of Africa to see how regularly the dark forces of human nature are unleashed when nations are welded together by politics instead of growing slowly together through genuine common interest".

"So we Euro-realists say that if the democracies of Europe can retain the identity and trade freely together under NATO, they are much less likely to end in conflict with one another than if they are deceived into becoming merely the subservient regions of an undemocratic EU megastate".

"On a more specific level, we say that NATO has been the prime guarantor of peace in Europe and elsewhere since the last war and we deplore the EUs obvious attempt to undermine NATO by setting up a competing military structure".

"The second assumption which I believe is mistaken and which underpins support for our membership of the European Union is that it is good for trade and that leaving it would cost us jobs.  The Chancellor fell for this one last night when he said half our total trade is with the EU, with 3 million jobs affected--note my word, my Lords.  But the Chancellor was not nearly as misleading as the Prime Minister has been, who never tired of claiming, during the election campaign, that over half our trade and 3.5 million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union."

"When one stands back and looks at this claim, one sees that it is simply not true at all.  According to the Governments latest figures, there are about 20 million jobs in the British economy, of which around 10 per cent are linked--note that word-- to exports to the European Union.  I do not want to trouble you Lordships with too many statistical references, but what it boils down to is that about 9 per cent of our jobs support the 9 per cent of our declining trade which takes place with the European Union, while about 12 per cent of our jobs support about 12 per cent of our growing trade with the rest of the world.  The remaining 70 per cent of our jobs and trade are right here in the domestic economy.  So some 91 per cent of our jobs and trade is not affected by or linked to our trade with the single market and only 9 per cent is so affected".

"Now of course, that 9 per cent is very important, but the subterfuge being practised on the British people by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and, indeed, by most of our political class, is easily revealed by the simple fact that none of that trade and none of those jobs would be lost if we left the European Union."……etc

"Of course, I have not time in these few minutes to put the case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and thus avoid the calamity of our total subservience to Brussels.  But last summer, I was so frustrated by the Government's refusal to discuss the case at all that I put most of it into 60 bullet points in a memorandum entitled Better off Out."

There was quite a bit more and the debates are on all week, however, I think there is enough there to digest.---for now!

Anne Palmer      25.6.2001

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 18Mbs.] & 10s of 1,000s of items on The SilentMajority CD [with over 50Mbs.] 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
.