Some parliamentarians feel that the Lisbon treaty includes sufficient safeguards to ensure that parliament will have the final say over their use, others are worried that there are insufficient safeguards and still others that the move to QMV, taking the place of unanimity, will result in a loss of sovereignty.

Comments in the House of Lords¹ covered the full range.

"As for the issue of passerelles, the noble Lord, Lord Owen, makes a persuasive case for primary legislation. In my view, however, the provisions of the treaty and the provisions of the Bill combine to provide significant safeguards, not least because they will require the agreement of both Houses of Parliament-" Lord Bowness

"To me, to abrogate from direct parliamentary control any further loss of sovereignty is simply unacceptable. The Government have of course offered in Clause 6(2) that Parliament has to approve any use of the passerelle. But it is only a simple vote, not a full piece of legislation, ... Whitehall likes to manage its affairs in Brussels on its own. It does not welcome parliamentary interference. ... If all that is required for the use of the passerelle is a vote in both Houses, I foresee that, over a period, that will be less and less satisfactory. It will start fine, with nothing controversial. Then will come along something that really matters and the notice will be minimal. Quite apart from the whipping, which we expect, we will be told that for raisons d'état it is crucial that Parliament does not hold up the process of ratification." Lord Marlesford

"In Article 3.4 of the treaty the following words are to be found:

"The Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency is the euro".

Perhaps this is an early example of the ratchet or passerelle because these words were not in the original proposed constitution. Those 14 words are, I believe, of crucial importance. If this treaty is passed unamended, we the British public will yet again be denied a referendum as and when the euro is foisted upon us because we will be told that it was all agreed in this treaty. A number of noble Lords have already referred to the ratchet provision in the treaty which guarantees that power will be steadily transferred to Brussels, and it is worth remembering that ratchets have no reverse gear." The Earl of Liverpool.

"It is true that there has always been a very limited passerelle clause in the treaty-Article 235 of the original Rome treaty and Article 308 of the treaty currently in force-but this was strictly constrained by the need for it to be demonstrated that the transfer was necessary for the operation of the Common Market-dear old-fashioned words-and was eminently justiciable, as at least one judgment of the European Court has demonstrated. It also applied to only the European Economic Community and not to the European Union as such, which was explicit.

By contrast, the new-style passerelle clauses in effect apply to whatever the European Council at any point in time decides it wants to do, with defence and foreign policy alone being excluded. This is a massive change. Of course, if there had not been the intention to make this change, the new clauses would never have been introduced. That is what this treaty is about, which is why it is wholly objectionable." Lord Lawson of Blaby

"Passerelle clauses have been described as ratchet clauses. Passerelle does not mean ratchet; it means footbridge. As the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, will know, passerelles are not new; the concept was first introduced by the Single European Act when he was a Cabinet Minister, and the new provisions have been introduced in every amending treaty. But for the first time since the passerelles allowed moves to qualified majority voting, which was introduced in 1986, Parliament will have the final say over their use. I hope the noble Lord will welcome that. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, qualified majority voting can be a positive force. As my noble friend Lord Radice said, if you are ever going to change the common agricultural policy, the route may well be through qualified majority voting. " Baroness Ashton of Upholland

If past use of procedures is a good guide, as Lord Marlesford suggested, the passerelles will be gradually introduced for more and more important transfers of power, as we get used to them. As I write, The BBC's European Correspondent Mark Mardell² writes about the 10^th anniversary of the decision to adopt the Euro. He comments on how powers become used in a way not originally intended.

"One [prescription] is that economic ministers should think more about their responsibilities to the bloc as a whole, and less of their national interest. In a phrase almost designed to give a delicious shiver to eurosceptics, the commission promises to "better exploit all instruments provided by the Lisbon treaty to promote broader economic policy coordination."

The Passerelles

There are four possible procedures for revising treaties.

1. Ordinary. A convention including representatives of national parliaments, European parliament and the Commission.

2. Ordinary. No convention if the European Council and European Parliament decide that the extent of the amendment proposed does not warrant one.

3. Simplified. Simplified revision procedures for restricted classes of amendments.

4. Article 48(7) TEU. This is the first of the new passerelles or "bridges" which enables procedural requirements to be reduced without formal treaty revision. Each national government has a veto and national governments have 6 months to respond.

Passerelles are not new. The existing two are in areas of social policy and environmental measures and also in certain fields related to the free movement of persons and in police and judicial cooperation. Four new passerelles are in areas of Common Foreign and Security Policy, Family Law (Cross-Border), Multinational Financial Framework and Enhanced Cooperation for those states so involved and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

The Lisbon treaty gives national parliaments a veto over all passerelles. It also gives the European parliament the right to initiate treaty revisions.

The House of Lords European Committee noted³ that all procedures for revision require uninamity but had received comments such as passerelles are ... "most dangerous aspect for any democracy" and " a political open cheque"

1House of Lords European Amendment Bill 2^nd Reading, 1 April 2008

2http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/05/ten_years_of_the_euro.html

3The treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment - volume 1: Report, House of Lords European Committee, The Stationary Office Limited, 13 March 2008, page 36

The first is by Earl Ferrers, who highlights the difficuties faced by some people when they try to grasp the issues.

There cannot have been many Bills which have had such a major impact on the country as this one. The number of your Lordships taking part is a witness to that. People on all sides feel strongly about this matter, and points have been made with great clarity and courtesy. I am afraid that my observations will not rise to the pinnacles of erudition that have been obvious in the various points that other noble Lords have made.

I thought that I had better find out about the Bill, so I went to the Printed Paper Office and obtained a copy of the European Union (Amendment) Bill, which consists of a modest four pages and schedules. I read it; I did not understand a word of it. But then I do not have the advantage of being a lawyer. I then asked whether I could have a copy of the treaty of Lisbon.

I was given The Treaty of Lisbon: An Impact Assessment, Volume I. It was an inch thick; it weighed two pounds, four ounces and consisted of 300 pages. Then I was given The Treaty of Lisbon, Volume II. That was seven-eighths of an inch thick. It weighed two pounds, four ounces and consisted of 479 pages. I was then given The Treaty of Lisbon, amending the Treaty establishing the European Union and the treaty establishing the European Community, Command Paper 7294. That was three-quarters of an inch thick, weighing two pounds, seven ounces, and consisting of 294 pages. I was also given the Consolidated Texts of the European Union Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, Command Paper 7310. That was seven-eighths of an inch thick, and it weighed three pounds, eight ounces and consisted of 328 pages. In all, those books were four and a half inches thick; they weighed 10 pounds, seven ounces; they consisted of 1,401 pages. The total cost if they had been bought by a member of the public would have been £112.55. This is wheelbarrow stuff. It is alarming. I thought, “Well, what does it all mean?” and had a look. It was enough to flatten anyone’s curiosity, but, oddly enough, not mine. I looked at random at the document called The Treaty of Lisbon, amending the Treaty establishing theEuropean Union and the treaty establishing the European Community. On page 142, I found under “The Union’s Annual Budget” the following:

“262) A Chapter 3 “THE UNION'S ANNUAL BUDGET” shall be inserted after Article 270a.
263) An Article 270b shall be inserted, with the wording of Article 272(1).
264) Article 271 shall become the new Article 273a; it shall be amended as set out below in point 267.
265) Article 272(1) shall become Article 270b and paragraphs 2 to 10 of Article 272 shall be replaced by the following:”
Then, on page 151, the document states under “General and Final Provisions”:
“279) Part Six shall be renumbered "PART SEVEN".
280) Articles 281, 293, 305 and 314 shall be repealed. Article 286 shall be replaced by Article 16 B.
281) In Article 282, the following sentence shall be added at the end: “However, the Union shall be represented by each of the institutions, by virtue of their administrative autonomy, in matters relating to their respective operation.” ...
286) Article 294 shall become Article 48a.
287) Article 299 shall be amended as follows:
(a) paragraph 1 shall be deleted. The first subparagraph of paragraph 2 and paragraphs 3 to 6 shall become Article 311a; they shall be amended as set out below in point 293”.

“we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event and that is a government promise”.

“constitutional project, as the document states, was abandoned”.

“The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact”.

“A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties ... We have not let a single substantial point of the constitutional treaty go ... It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe”.

“It’s essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution”.

“Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same”.

“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way. What was”—

“difficult to understand will become utterly incomprehensible”?

“But the substance has been retained ... Why not have a single text? The only reason is that this would look too much like the constitutional treaty. Making cosmetic changes would make the text more easy to swallow”.

“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable ... The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this Treaty had to be unclear. It is a success”.

“Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”

The Amendment

‘Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.'.- [Mr. Cash.]

This extract is from the first Title

revised Treaty on European Union 

TITLE I - COMMON PROVISIONS

Article 1 - Establishment of the Union

By this Treaty, the HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES establish among themselves a EUROPEAN UNION, hereinafter called ‘the Union’, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.

This Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen.

The Union shall be founded on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies and forms of cooperation established by this Treaty. Its task shall be to organise, in a manner demonstrating  consistency and solidarity, relations between the Member States and between their peoples.

The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Treaties”. Those two Treaties have the same legal value. The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community.

As the writer of the site says about himself

Me? Well, until last October I was fairly apolitical (I don’t belong to any political parties, and never have). Then I became interested in the debate going on in the UK about whether or not the Treaty of Lisbon was the same as the EU Constitution. The Labour government said it wasn’t, some Conservative MPs (and a few Labour ones too) said it was, and the media by and large just reported this state of affairs in a ‘he said, she said’ partisan politics manner, without bothering to find out the truth for themselves.

Could it be possible the Treaty of Lisbon was both substantially the same as, and yet also substantially different from, the EU Constitution? Was it a rare example of macro-quantum behaviour, I wondered? I just had to find out for myself!

MEPs accused of fraud: An internal audit of expenses claimed by MEPs has uncovered evidence of fraud worth almost £100m a year. The European Parliament has refused to release details of the audit, but the British Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies, who has read the document, said that it reveals corruption at criminal levels. “I think if names were attached to some of the cases of malpractice highlighted, then prison should follow,” he declared. The audit found at least seven cases of MEPs setting up companies to pay phantom members of staff, and uncovered widespread employment of unqualified relatives. MEP’s have an annual staff allowance of ?185,952 each. Although the EU’s anti-fraud office, OLAF, has asked to see a copy of the report, the Parliament issued a statement last week insisting that there was no need to refer it to OLAF. Davies described the Parliament’s attitude as “outrageous”.

And now for the “Empty Words”

(Thanks to Ralf Grahn, a Finnish Lawyer, for consolidating this part of the Lisbon Treaty). Note the use of words, such as openly, transparency, etc:

Article 255 TEC

1. Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.

2. General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 within two years of the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

3. Each institution referred to above shall elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents.

and from Article 16a TFEU

Article 16a TFEU (ToL), after renumbering Article 15 TFEU

1. In order to promote good governance and ensure the participation of civil society, the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies shall conduct their work as openly as possible.

2. The European Parliament shall meet in public, as shall the Council when considering and voting on a draft legislative act.

3. Any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, shall have a right of access to documents of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever their medium, subject to the principles and the conditions to be defined in accordance with this paragraph.

General principles and limits on grounds of public or private interest governing this right of access to documents shall be determined by the European Parliament and the Council by means of regulations, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Each institution, body, office or agency shall ensure that its proceedings are transparent and shall elaborate in its own Rules of Procedure specific provisions regarding access to its documents, in accordance with the regulations referred to in the second subparagraph.

And now, more “Actions speak louder than Words” especially EU Words

COSI Never heard of it? You will. I have reasonable or maybe naïve confidence that I can give some level of trust to our secret services. From the way the EU has acted over the last few weeks, I have zero trust in anything that it does in secret. The COSI worries me and our MPs are signing up to this in the Lisbon treaty.

From Bruno Waterfield, (Telegraph Foreign Corespondent)

European Union officials have just turned down an open information request I made for a document relating to plans for a Standing Committee on Internal Security. Secret talks on this new body, to be introduced under the new Lisbon EU Treaty, are expected to begin this month - and the public are going to be locked out. I first blogged about the “Interior Ministry” a few weeks ago. It is known as COSI and the new Reform Treaty, currently being pushed through Parliament, resurrects it from the old EU Constitution.

On Friday I received an answer to an application I had made on January 21 (under the EU’s alleged “transparency” rules) for a classified 2005 Belgian paper discussing the ramifications of the Old Constitution’s COSI.

Bruno’s received the following answer

As the exception to the principle of transparency applies to the content of the entire document, the General Secretariat is unable to grant you partial access as provided for in Article 4(6) of the Regulation.

and concludes

Now EU officialdom is classifying texts that would help us make up our minds. What have they got to hide?

I’m disappointed to here some of the same phrases repeated over and over again, but because I feel that this is such a misleading letter, wanted to answer his criticisms in my own way. No doubt Christopher Booker will have something to say in this Sunday’s Telegraph. I’ve repeated Jim Murphy’s letter’s three criticisms, in italics, in the piece below.
1. Transfer of Power from Parliament.

Christopher Booker is wrong to say the Lisbon treaty will transfer power from Parliament to the European Union (February 10). It will give national parliaments more, not less, power in the EU-decision making. MPS and peers will have new powers to say whether or not the EU legislation is needed and to send it back for review.

In saying that it gives Parliaments more power, he must be referring to a new voting system in the Council that increases Britain’s vote, but this is from a very low base of 8.4% to, I’m told, 12% although I have failed to find the 12% figure in the Lisbon treaty so far. Does 12% really have a greater impact than 8%? Mathematically yes, but in practice, this increase will make almost no difference.

The Foreign Office states:

“It gives national parliaments a voice in making European laws for the first time. Every national parliament will receive proposals for new EU legislation directly.”

That’s not quite what Article 6 says

ARTICLE 6
Any national Parliament or any chamber of a national Parliament may, within eight weeks from the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, in the official languages of the Union, send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity.

In other words, we can only comment on draft legislation if we feel the EU does not have the Competence to enact that legislation. As we have given the EU competencies that cover the majority of powers that used to belong to national governments, this gives us power remaining in very few areas. Also, is the Westminster Government capable of acting within 8 weeks considering the huge amount of legislation that the EU issues? Past experience would say not.

Of greater importance is the power that we are transferring to the EU under the Lisbon treaty. For the first time, the Treaty has, as it puts it “adopted the following declarations annexed to this Final Act” which includes the Declaration regarding the primacy of EU law, superior to that of national Courts. The Treaty also includes a new article 49A

ARTICLE 49 A

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance
with its own constitutional requirements.

which sounds sensible on the face of it, but raises 2 questions. Why is a member state excluded from the negotiations and why does a state have to sign up to being held in the Union for 2 years, if it does not agree to the outcome of the ’secret’ negotiations? If, say the UK decided to withdraw, I can predict that the first penalty would be the withdrawal of that contentious rebate, so our annual contribution would rocket from 10bn GBP to 14bn (UK Government figures). Why would a Government sign up to such an article? It is unnecessary, restrictive and almost sounds paranoid. Any Government realises that it would have to negotiate a withdrawal, but it cannot negotiate when it is barred from negotiations. The relevant paragraphs are:

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

Final example of many that I could give. How long will our ‘redlines’ hold out against article 2d, if they are still, in fact, working.

ARTICLE 2 D

1. The Member States shall coordinate their economic policies within the
Union. To this end, the Council shall adopt measures, in particular broad guidelines for these policies. Specific provisions shall apply to those Member States whose currency is the euro.
2. The Union shall take measures to ensure coordination of the employment
policies of the Member States, in particular by defining guidelines for these policies.
3. The Union may take initiatives to ensure coordination of Member States’
social policies.

The Union will “ensure coordination of Member States’ social policies” .This Treaty gives us less, not more power. Jim Murphy is wrong, not Christopher Booker.

2. The Constitutional Concept is abandoned.

“Mr Booker is also wrong to claim that the UK is alone in Europe in maintaining that the Lisbon Treaty is significantly different to the defunct constitution. All 27 heads of government have agreed that “the constitutional concept is abandoned”.

Jim Murphy misquotes Christopher Booker and then attempts to demolish the misquote. This attempt at deceit is not befitting a Government Minister. Christopher Booker’s actual quote was:

Of course they won’t do anything of the kind because nothing has more clearly characterised the process whereby Europe’s political leaders have rammed this Constitution through than their readiness to lie about it. At least most of them were willing to admit that the treaty and the Constitution were virtually the same.

Many of Europe’s political leaders have stated that the Constitution and the Treaty are virtually the same. Many were quoted during the 21 Jan 2008 House of Commons Treaty debate and at other times eg:

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): May I give the Foreign Secretary a quotation that he may recognise? It comes from the architect of the European Union constitution, Giscard d’Estaing, who said:
“I have compared the new Treaty with the Constitution on the ‘nine essential points’. To tell the truth, to my great satisfaction, these nine points reappear word for word in the new Treaty. Not a comma has changed.”

Although on 16 Jan, Giscard d’Estaing did try to backtrack on this as David Miliband pointed out during this debate.

In the debate Austin Mitchel points out the dangers of Jim Murphy’s line. The electorate will not accept this deceit for much longer. It is doing immense damage to the credibility of politicians.

If European leaders such as Angela Merkel and Bertie Ahern tell us that the treaty is the same as the constitution, if Giscard d’Estaing tells us that it is the same as the constitution but cleverly disguised, if it looks like a constitution, smells like a constitution and reads like a constitution, as far as I am concerned it is a constitution. We do ourselves no good by saying that it is not a constitution but a completely different document—it is not.
It is said that diplomats are honest men sent abroad to lie for their country. Well, I do not want Foreign Secretaries to be honest men kept at home to tell untruths about the European Union. That is effectively what has been happening. I do not say “lies”; I say “untruths”. Perhaps I should call them Euro-truths, because that is about the same level of accuracy.
I looked pedantically at the “Shorter Oxford English Dictionary”. It is a very big volume; I nearly ruptured myself getting it done from the shelves. It says:
“Constitution…3. a decree, ordinance, law or regulation…6. the mode in which a state is constituted or organised…7. the system or body of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state or body politic is constituted and governed.”
Whether we call it a treaty or a reheated Euro-dog’s dinner, the document has all those characteristics. It is therefore effectively a constitution.

3. Time allowed for MPs to discuss the Treaty.

The Government has not “drastically reduced the time allowed to MPs for discussing the treaty”: the 12 days that the Government has set aside for debate in committee stage in the Commons is the same as for the Single European Act and the Treaties of Nice and Amsterdam combined.

Time and days are not the same thing. Because time was limited for previous Treaties, when the implications were not fully understood this does not mean that the same gross error should be made or accepted again.

MP John Redwood disagrees with Jim Murphy, on this point. He says

Once again we are allowed just one and half hours after 8pm to discuss a fistful of important amendments and complex issues about the government’s wish to bring the European Charter of Human Rights into our law codes through adopting the Constitutional treaty. The government had allowed four and half hours for a general debate on human rights, in order to prevent MPs getting into the important line by line analysis of the 358 Articles and 327 pages of the “Consolidated texts of the EU Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon”.

and

The government turned down the official Opposition’s request for 20 days of consideration. We were offered 12 in committee, plus a day on Second Reading to discuss the overall picture, and a day to discuss the so-called timetable motion. The Official Opposition argued passionately against the whole Treaty, and we voted against it on a three line whip. We all argued passionately against the very restrictive timetable, and voted against that on a three line whip.
We were promised by the government “line by line scrutiny” of this massive piece of legislation, as if this were new or a concession. “Line by line scrutiny” of legislation was what we usually had before this government. Most bills went through on no timetable, allowing the Opposition to table as many amendments as they wished and debate for as long as they liked. Parliament often met into the early hours in the morning to hammer out disagreements on complex bills.
What takes my breath away is the audacity of the government to introduce a constitutional outrage on this bill of all bills. Their decision to allow only one and half hours a day to stifle debate on amendments and to replace time in committee with a series of longer general debates is a cynical manoeuvre designed to prevent the Opposition revealing all the danger in the detail as we see it. It implies Ministers are unsure of their ground and their case, that they do not wish to be exposed to the usual cross examination on the wording of each part of this long and complex text.

I know it is the opposition’s rôle to oppose, but it seems to me that John Redwood makes some valid points. It is this sort of action to which Christopher Booker was referring.

In December, Gordon Brown said:

“Parliament will now have an opportunity to debate this amending treaty in detail and decide whether to implement it. We will ensure that there is sufficient time for debate on the floor of the House, so that the Bill can be examined in the fullest detail and all points of view can be heard.”

I understand that that is just 90 hours over 20 days. Even the fox hunting bill got 400 hours of debate, but then the importance of this Treaty has either been grossly misunderstood or deliberately concealed.

I am disturbed by this Telegraph letter of Jim Murphy. Every time I read something like this, I look again at the Lisbon Treaty and become more, not less disturbed by it. The Westminster government seems to have a policy of “just keep saying the same old thing over and over again. Eventually the electorate will tire and move on to some other issue.” The frightening thing is that the policy seems to be working.

And our previous Government has restricted the debate on the Lisbon treaty, which should have outraged most UK citizens, but the interest level is so low.

Daytime car lights to be mandatory. Jim Fitzpatrick, the road safety minister, answered a HOC question as follows:

“The UK has been successful in arguing against the introduction of mandatory use of dipped headlamps during daylight hours by drivers of existing vehicles. However, from early 2011 all new types of passenger cars and light vans will have to be fitted with dedicated daytime running lamps in accordance with the relevant European directive. By summer 2012, all new vehicles will have to be so fitted. “

It is worth reading the full article to get a feel of the tortuous process that this legislation has taken and the efforts taken by many opposing it, on seemingly very good grounds, but our EU Government must be obeyed, despite attempts by the UK to oppose this legislation. Why cannot we decide, in the UK, if this is a good idea or not? Answer – our old Westminster Government is no longer in control. (Thanks to EU Ref for this)

Greater Crested Newt. Cheshire Council have had to pay £60,000 to move four newts from the path of a construction site. Although there are estimated to be 400,000 great crested newts in the country in 18,000 breeding sites, they are an endangered species in the rest of Europe so our EU Government’s laws apply here. At £15,000 a newt, this seems an expensive cost of the “’One Size Fits All’ Government of Brussels. Again, why is it necessary to have European wide legislation to deal with newts in the UK? Aren’t we capable of making this sort of decision for ourselves? The last time newst were moved for construction, (Thanks to EU Ref for this) Last year, Anwyl Construction, based in Rhyl, Denbighshire were forced to spend £140,000 on a special new habitat for newts - then discovered there were only two on site where 26 new homes were being built. The project was also delayed for six months. Company director Matt Anwyl joked: “We could have built them a three-bedroomed house instead”. (Again from EU Ref)

the great newt hunt around Orton brick pits, near Peterborough in 1996 relocated 15,000 newts, which cost around £1,000 a newt by the time the cost of sacrificing 300 acres of land for a dedicated newt reserve was taken into account. The operation itself cost £3 million according to some reports but the ultimate irony was that none survived the move. Nor even was it certain they would have survived in the existing habitat, as fish, the newts’ main predator, had entered the ponds in the brick pits, threatening to wipe them out. (Again from EU Ref)

Global Cooling Warming 1. Scottish pig farmers, the Traquairs, buy about 100 tonnes of barley a month. The latest load came in at £174 per tonne delivered, more than double the £80 the business was paying this time last year. And the reason for this increase in barley costs? Non other than EU bio fuel directives, but here the EU is not completely to blame as the US is also diverting cereals to bio fuel production. Oh for the days that the UK could access international markets for its foods, without tarrif barriers, illconceived bio-fuels directives and other EU obstacles. (Thanks to The Scotsman for this)

Royalty declares its partiality (Global Cooling Warming 2). Prince Charles in his Brussels speech, described the fight against global climate change as a war, with the Doomsday Clock ‘ticking ever closer to midnight’. Apparently, ‘the lives of billions of people depend on (the EU’s) response and none of us will be forgiven by our children and grandchildren if we falter and fail’. The fact that some of the data being used to support global warming is in serious dispute, the UK met office says that 2008 is expected to be a cold year, polar ice is not shrinking as previously stated, many countries are experiencing the harshest winter for many years, all seem to have alluded the Prince. However, what is more important is his stance. A senior member of the Royal Family asking for more ‘determined’ leadership from the EU is evidence that the Royal Family may have been complicit in the whole EU project after all. Cranmer goes on “When a rump Parliament, corrupt Church and a compromised Crown are all united in favour of ‘ever closer union’, only divine intervention, revolution, or a latter-day Cromwell can save the British people from the ‘unavoidable’ tyranny.” (Thanks to Archbishop Cranmer for this one and The Anglo Saxon Chronicle for the cartoon)

Your EU Foreign Minister. The EU is planning to send 2,200 police officers, judges, customs officials and lawyers to the Kosovo Protectorate, under rules supposedly agreed in Dec 2006. You can expect to see more unilateral action by the EU Foreign Minister as he flexes his muscles and proves that he stands for all of Europe. We are told that we run our own foreign policy, which is true, but stand by for this to be slowly eclipsed as the EU tries to show the world that it has power on the international stage and uses some of those lengthy barely understood Treaty agreements that we casually signed away. (Thanks to The Anglo Saxon Chronicle for this one)

EU grounds historic aircraft flights. From July 2008, new EU rules on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation, bring in requirements so stringent that pleasure flights by aircraft such as the DC3, at summer air shows, will cease. Our own CAA has no choice but to implement these rules from our EU Government. Again, why does the EU feel the need to issue such lenthy hard to understand directives when a framework policy should suffice, or better still, policy through international agreements on air travel, as we used to have. (Thanks to EU Ref and Gallimaufry and Chips for this one)

So says the © Crown Copyright 2007, notice attached to

European Communities No. 13 (2007)

The Treaty of Lisbon - Lisbon, 13 December 2007

Which begs a question. We have heard much said by MPs about provisions in the Treaty that allow withdrawal of member states. eg

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that those who demand a referendum as a cover for their wish to withdraw from the European Union never seem to mention the provisions in this treaty, which include provision for competences to be transferred back to member states from the EU and the introduction of a procedure for managing the withdrawal of a member state from the EU? Those are just the sorts of things one would expect those against UK membership of the EU to support. (House of Commons 21 Jan 2008 : Column 1249)

This is using the Treaty document in a misleading way suggesting that there is a benefit in such an article, in this case Article 49 A. Why should a sovereign country need to sign up to a procedure that allows it to withdraw from a Union? Any withdraw should be undertaken in an orderly manner, but surely it is up to the sovereign nation to decide how this is to be done. What’s more had the right hon member for Wolverhampton South-West and others actually troubled to read the article? If so he might be concerned to learn that

1) The agreement to withdraw shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. … the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. That is, the European Council shall decide the terms of the withdrawal, and the “sovereign” state shall not have the opportunity to be involved in those discussions. What if the Council decided to impose punishing terms? We would have signed up to this article so would have to accept them. But there is a let out clause

2) The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification of withdrawal. In other words whatever punishing treatment is decided by the European Council, without our involvement in discussions, we are stuck with the treatment for a minimum of two years. Why should we be signing up to an article that limits our sovereignty in such a way? Could it be that, as many have been saying, we are no longer a sovereign nation?

As Lord Davies of Oldham said in a House of Lords reply, our 2007 gross contribution to the EU is £14.2 billion with a rebate of £3.9 billion. Will the Council continue with our rebate, for those two years, if we decide to withdraw? Will it continue to funnel the 60p in the pound, of our contribution, back to the UK, in EU projects for those two years? Why should it when it has grandiose plans that our withdrawal will put in jeopardy. The Council will have our signature to Article 49 A that will allow it to squeeze us for the maximum for a period of two years.

This Article alone gives a clear indication of the intent of the Brussels government to be a government in total control. This article is not a concession to states that wish to withdraw. It is intended to make withdrawal as painful as possible.

Come on MPs – do not sign up to this Bill accepting this Treaty into Westminster Government law. It is sheer folly on this article alone. Or is it your intention to use this document in a misleading way?

From The Treaty of Lisbon, as presented to the House of Commons

——————————————-

“ARTICLE 49 A

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 188 N(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 205(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.”.

2 Responses to ““This is not to be used in a misleading context”!!”

1. Ralf Grahn Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 10:16 am

   Yes, with or without the Article in the Lisbon Treaty, it would be in the best interest of both the secessionist state and the European Union to conduct the process in an orderly manner.

   Given the complexities of the relations two years is perhaps not such a bad guess, anyway.

2. ethelred Says:
   February 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am

   I agree - 2 years seems sensible, but the Brussels Government wants to decide on the conditions of the secession by locking the secessionist state out of the negotiations. That smacks of fear and a want to dominate, to me, which seems to sum up much of what I read about Brussels in the papers, on a daily basis.

Four former ministers face calls for their expulsion from the parliamentary Labour party tonight over their support for a referendum on the EU treaty.

Frank Field, Gisela Stuart, Graham Stringer and Kate Hoey are under fire over their support for the “I want a referendum” campaign.

I am particularly saddened as I thought that Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer gave particularly good speeches during the Lisbon treaty debate, in the House of Commons.

Whilst the Chronicle’s reference might seem a little harsh, the background to the Night of the Long Knives From Wikipedia

The Night of the Long Knives (German: Nacht der langen Messer (help·info)) or “Operation Hummingbird“, was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany between June 30 and July 2, 1934, when the Nazi regime executed at least 85 people for political reasons. Most of those killed were members of the “Storm Battalion” (SA) (German: Sturmabteilung), a Nazi paramilitary organization. Adolf Hitler moved against the SA and its leader, Ernst Röhm, because he saw the independence of the SA and the penchant of its members for street violence as a direct threat to his power. Hitler also wanted to forestall any move by leaders of the Reichswehr, the German military, who both feared and despised the SA, to curtail his rule, especially since Röhm made no secret of his ambition to absorb the Reichswehr with himself at its head. Finally, Hitler used the purge to act against conservative critics of his regime, especially those loyal to Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen, and to settle scores with old enemies.

This week, almost unnoticed, the House of Commons voted to increase hugely the amount Britain pays to the European Union. From now until 2014, the British net contribution will be £5.5 billion each year. Under the previous framework, our net contribution was £2.8 billion.

Unfortunately, the Telegraph hasn’t done its research very well. According to the Westminster Government, or rather the House of Lords (see Hansard), the figure is far higher.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Davies of Oldham on 14 May (WA 6), what is their best estimate of the United Kingdom’s gross annual contributions to the European Union budget over the years 2007 to 2012 if (a) the United Kingdom’s rebate is maintained, and (b) the rebate is not maintained.

Lord Davies of Oldham: Based on the European Commission’s forecasts and assumptions, and using the financial perspective table agreed on 17 December 2005, Treasury estimates for the United Kingdom’s gross contribution to the EC budget and the abatement were set out in an Answer given in the other place on 31 January 2006 and are as follows:

Later calendar year estimates for the United Kingdom’s contributions to the EC budget will be published annually in the Government’s European Community finances White Paper. The 2007 edition of this White Paper (Cm 7090) was published on 22 May 2007.

If you do the sums, you will note that this averages just over £10bn a year. Small change?

(Thanks to EURef for the Heads up)