• Recent Posts

  • Really Simple Syndication

     Subscribe in a reader

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 46 other subscribers

  • Twitter@NatPlat

  • People’s Movement Ireland

    People’s Movement Ireland

  • Archives

  • Posts by Category

  • Blog Stats

    • 43,936 hits

*Lisbon: mandatory tax harmonisation

Posted on 16 Aibreán, 2008 by NationalPlatform.Org
The Lisbon Treaty amendment on EU harmonized taxes which has not been publicly mentioned so far in Ireland’s referendum debate

Article  2.79 of the Lisbon Treaty would insert a six-word amendment -”and to avoid distorton of competition” – into the Article of the existing European Treaties dealing with harmonising indirect taxes – Article 113. The full amended Article would then read as follows:
Article 113
“The Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.”
(The Lisbon Treaty amendment is underlined) . . .Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

The significance of this short but important amendment is that it would enable the European Court of Justice, which adjudicates on competition matters, to decide that Ireland’s 12.5% rate of company tax, or Estonia’s zero rate,  as against Britain’s 28% rate and Germany’s 30% is a distortion of competition which breaches the Treaty Articles dealing with the internal market – Art. 26 and Arts.101-9 TFEU –  in relation to which qualified majority voting on the Council of Ministers applies.

The Irish Government’s veto under Article 113 would be irrelevant if those Articles on the Internal Market are invoked as the legal basis for proposing changes in EU tax laws.  All the assurances regarding unanimity underArticle 113 would then count for nothing.
Once this amendment to Article 113 is inserted, the European Commission, whose job it is to police the internal market, need only point out that the  big  cross-national disparities in  corporation tax rates and Ireland’s reluctance to accept a Common Consolidated Tax base which would tax company profits on the basis of their sales in different EU countries, at the tax rates prevailing in those countries, constitute a prima facie “distortion of competition” under Articles 101-109.
If Ireland refused to cooperate with what the Commission wanted, the Commission could bring it before the Court of Justice – or another country or firm could institute proceedings against it – and the Court could declare the Irish Government’s tax policy to be  unlawful as in breach of the EU’s Internal Market provisions.
Unanimity under Article 113 would certainly  be required to introduce any joint rates of company tax, but this Lisbon Treaty amendment would give the EU Commission and Court of Justice ample extra powers to erode Ireland’s low rate of corporation profits tax, whether we liked it or not.
If an Irish-based company had 10% of its sales or turnover in Ireland and 90% in, say, Britain, its profits from its Irish sales could be taxed at 12.5% and from its British sales at 28%, under the scheme the Commission has been mooting.  We might even  be allowed to keep our 12.5%  company tax indefinitely, but its practical benefit would be hugely eroded by proposals such as this, which this six-word  Lisbon Treaty amendment is designed to facilitate.
There is no other possible reason for inserting this hitherto virtually unnoticed  six-word amendment by means of the Lisbon Treaty.

Ireland’s 12.5% company tax rate, not to mind Estonia’s zero rate, just stand out as being clearly “distortions of competition” on the EU’s Internal Market.
Commission  President J.M. Barroso should be asked what is the significance of this six-word Lisbon Treaty  amendment  to Article 113 on harmonised taxes during his two-day visit to Ireland.
By refusing to ratify the Lisbon Treaty and agree to this important amendment we  refuse to hand over to the EU Commission and Court of Justice these new mechanisms to undermine the principal incentive attracting foreign companies to Ireland and keeping many of them in th country.  It should be noted of  course  that Ireland’s low corporation tax rate benefits Iindigenous companies also, and not just foreign multinationals here.
By rejecting Lisbon and insisting on a Protocol in any new Treaty which would protect the principle of tax-competition between the countrries, we  make a stand for economic freedom and reject the attempt to impose an economic straitjacket on the EU Member States in the interests of Germany, France and Britain, with their high company tax rates.
Note, incidentally, that harmonizing laws on indirect taxes in the EU is mandatory under Article 113 set out above: “The  Council SHALL…”
Anthony Coughlan
Secretary

Filed under: EU & Democracy, EU Economy, EU Superstate, Lisbon Treaty | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

The Lisbon Memo / Insider Email: A Campaign Based On Proven Dishonesty

Posted on 14 Aibreán, 2008 by NationalPlatform.Org

THE LEAKED BRITISH E-MAIL ON THE IRISH GOVERNMENT’S REFERENDUM STRATEGY

From last Monday’s IRISH DAILY MAIL

(Front page report on Monday 14 April 2008 + Editorial on page 14)

__________

THE TREATY CON by John Lee and Michael Lea

The Government has hatched an elaborate plan to deceive voters over the forthcoming EU treaty referendum, the Irish Daily Mail can today reveal. A leaked email shows that ministers are planning a deliberate campaign of misinformation to ensure that the Lisbon Treaty vote is passed when it is put to the public as required by the Constitution

Foreign Affairs Minister Dermot Ahern has even been personally assured that the European Commission will “tone down or delay” any announcements from Brussels “that might be unhelpful”. Alarmingly, the email says that ministers ruled out an October referendum, which would have been better procedurally, because they feared “unhelpful developments during the French presidency – particularly related to EU defence”.

This suggestion will raise grave fears that the State’s constitutional commitment to military neutrality could be undermined by the treaty – a rehashed version of the failed EU constitution.

The memo was sent to the British government by Elizabeth Green, a senior UK diplomat in Dublin, following a briefing from Dan Mulhall, a top official in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Its aim was to relay to her political masters in London the lengths to which the Government here was going to in its bid to ensure a “Yes” vote in the referendum.

Ireland is the only EU state which is allowing voters a say on the treaty, and European heads of state are terrified that they will reject it. Campaigners have warned that the new treaty could remove Ireland’s powers to decide its own tax rates and social policies.

However, the most controversial aspect is the likelihood that it will be used to advance the concept of a “European army” which would violate the principle of neutrality that has long been a foundation-stone of the State. France is particularly keen to advance the notion of an EU force, which critics fear could be ordered into action over Irish objections by a majority vote of EU heads of state.

Already concerns have been raised that soldiers who are part of the Irish peacekeeping force being sent to Chad could be compromised by French political and military objectives in the area. The leaked email admits that this is one of the issues which needs to be kept from voters, saying that the possibility of the French speaking out on this issue meant that the referendum could not be delayed until the autumn.

It states: “Mulhall said a date in October would have been easier from a procedural point of view. “But the risk of unhelpful developments during the French presidency – particularly related to EU defence – were just too great. (Nicola) Sarkozy was completely unpredictable.”

The Irish official was also worried that the latest World Trade Organisation talks, which have already aroused the fury of farmers, could turn the voters against the new treaty. Farmers and suppliers are planning a one-day shut down this week to protest at the tack being taken by EU trade commissioner Peter Mandelson. The email said that Mulhall was concerned about “a WTO deal based on agricultural concessions that could lead the powerful farming association to withdraw its support”.

However, Government ministers appear to be basing their hopes on the fact that the treaty cannot be read or understood by most voters – and that launching a quick referendum would stop them from doing so. “Most people would not have time to study the text and would go with the politicians they trusted,” it said. And it pointed out that the Government plans to keep people from analysing the details, saying the “aim is to focus the campaign on overall benefits of the EU rather than the treaty itself”.

It goes on to explain the details of the Referendum Bill, which it says, was “agreed following lengthy consultation with Government lawyers and with the political parties”. However, it admits that the bill is “largely incomprehensible to the lay reader”.

The memo refers to plans to fool campaingers over the date and states: “Irish have picked 29 May for voting but will delay an announcement to keep the No camp guessing. “The Taoiseach and (Dermot) Ahern saw a slight advantage in keeping the No camp guessing.” It has since been stated that the referendum will be held on June 12 – although it is not clear from the email whether this is the correct date or whether the May 29 option is still being considered as a possibility in order to destabilise the “No”campaign.

The email adds that the EC was doing its best to keep any bad news from the Irish voters and that Mr Mulhall had maintained that other partners – including the commission – were playing a helpful low-profile role.

It added that during a trip to Dublin, Vice-President Margot Wallstrom “had told Dermot Ahern that the commission was willing to tone down or delay messages that might be unhelpful:.

The leaked message also points out that most Irish media have been supine on the issue, saying “Mulhall remarked that the media had been relatively quiet on the ratification process so far. We would need to remain in close touch, given the media crossover”

A Government spokesman refused to comment on the leaked email last night- merely saying: “The date is as set by the Taoiseach, there is no change in that.”

__________

Editorial Comment (page 14)

LISBON CAMPAIGN IS ANOTHER BITTER BETRAYAL

Whether the Lisbon Treaty is accepted by the Irish public or not, one thing is clear – the Government campaign in its favour is already one of the most deeply dishonest in Irish history.

The revelation that the Government has conspired with foreign politicians to deceive its own electorate speaks of profound betrayal. For months, ministers have been calling for a fair campaign based on the facts of the treaty itself. Now we know that all the while the very same ministers have been collluding in a campaign of deliberate misinformation.

That the Irish people should be the victims of a dishonest alliance between their own government and outside powers is something many will find very hard to forgive quickly.

As for the Lisbon Treaty itself, voters will now find it very difficult to trust a single word the Govenrment says in its defence. At each stage, the aim has not been to inform the electorate but to deceive it. Instead of scheduling polling day for October,which would allow the country to come to grips with the treaty’s byzantine complexity, the Government has specifically chosen a date to capitalise on the artificial uncertainty this premature vote creates. Even the precise timing has been cynically manipulated to catch the other side off-guard.

This is not just poor form; it is a thoroughly undemocratic way to conduct what is supposed to be a free and fair vote. These low tricks are not just a case of using dark arts for narrow tactical advantage, they are deliberate lies about crucial matters of the Irish national interest.

One reason there is so much understable uncertainty in the electorate over the Lisbon Treaty is that it might mean we lose control over our military commitments and that our low corporate tax rate might be abolished by Brussels.

Now we know that on both counts the Government’s conspiracy has specifically sought to conceal the truth. We are voting earlier than would ordinarily be expected so that voters will not have a chance to see new defence developments in the EU that officials expect from the French EU presidency later this year.

Opinion divides on the merits and demerits of Irish neutrality, but that question should be decided by Irish voters, not slipped through on false premises. Today’s revelations also prove that neither our Government nor the French Government can be trusted when they say that well-known plans to introduce tax harmonisation have been sidelined.

This all amounts to a shocking culture of lying in the highest echelons of Irish politics. Deliberate lying about vital matters of Irish national interest should be unreservedly condemned by those in favour of Lisbon as much as by those against. The political culture in which this is possible is the proof, also, of just how corrosive the departing Taoiseach’s lying has been for public life.

Many people have not yet reached an opinion about the Lisbon Treaty. That decision must be taken on the full facts and not on a shimmering mirage of dishonesty. Nor should we be afraid to consider our relationship with the EU anew. We have been well served by EU membership in the past. We are under no obligation, though, to vote blindly for whatever is put before us simply for that reason.

If there is a case for the Lisbon Treaty on the merits of the actual document, the Government should make it – and should be able to make it easily and persuasively. That they have not will lead many to wonder why a campaign based on proven dishonesty should be given the benefit of the doubt when such crucial issues are at stake.

Filed under: EU & Democracy, EU Corruption, Lisbon Treaty | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

*Lisbon Treaty: Some extra points for Green Party members…

Posted on 12 Aibreán, 2008 by NationalPlatform.Org

Climate Change: Lisbon would commit the EU to “promoting measures at international level” to deal with problems arising from climate change. This is good, but note that it is “at international level”. It would give the EU no new internal powers. Internally EU environmental policies are subordinate to the competition rules of the “free market”(Art.191 TFEU)

EURATOM: Lisbon continues the 1957 Euratom Treaty, with its uncritical support for nuclear power, into the indefinite future unchanged.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

*Myths about the Lisbon Treaty

Posted on 12 Aibreán, 2008 by NationalPlatform.Org 
Myth 1. LISBON WILL MAKE THE EU MORE EFFICIENT:

If you get rid of democracy and the need to consult with people, you can certainly get more laws passed.  But will they be good laws?
Is that more efficient government?  When it comes to law-making it is quality that counts, not quantity. Hitler could issue new laws
ever five minutes, but were they good laws?

The advent of 12 new Member States has not made the negotiation of new EU laws more difficult since they joined the EU.  On the
contrary, a study by the Science-Politique University in Paris calculated that new rules have been adopted a quarter times more
quickly since the enlargement from 15 to 27 Member States in 2004 as compared with the two years before enlargement. The study also showed
that the 15 older Member States block proposed EU laws twice as often as the newcomers.  Professor Helen Wallace of the London School
of Economics has found that the EU institutions are working as well as they ever did despite the enlargement of the EU from 15 to 27
members. She found that "the evidence of practice since May 2004 suggests that the EU's institutional processes and practice have stood up rather robustly to the impact of enlargement." The Nice Treaty voting arrangements thus seem to  be working well.

Myth 2. LISBON ENABLES THE EU TO DEAL WITH CLIMATE CHANGE:
Lisbon would commit the EU to “promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems and in particular combating climate change”(Art. 191.1 TFEU). This is laudable, but its significance has been “spun” out of all proportion. Note that the action is “at international level”. It does not give the EU new powers internally. Any internal actions on environmental problems would have to be reconciled with the EU’s rules on distorting competition, safeguarding the internal market and sustaining the energy market. Combatting climate change can carry heavy costs. EU targets for carbon dioxide reduction in Ireland announced earlier this year would cost Ireland ¤1000 million a year if implemented, which would average some ¤500 per household. In fact the EU’s carbon reduction targets would impose a heavier relative burden on Ireland than on any other EU country. Also note the absurdity that the new Treaty reference is to combatting climate-change, without qualification. It is not just “man-made” climate change. So the EU is going to take on things affecting climate-change which are not of human origin, like sunspot cycle as well!Myth 3: LISBON MAKES THE EU MORE DEMOCRATIC:
Lisbon provides that if one-third of National Parliaments object to the Commission’s proposal for an EU law, the Commission must reconsider it, but not necessarily abandon it (Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality, Art.7.2). It might review the draft law, or if it considered the objection was not justified, it might ignore it. This right to complain, for that is what it is, is not an increase in the powers of National Parliaments, as it has been widely misrepresented as being, but is symbolic rather of their loss of real power. To say that it is an increase in the power of National Parliaments to “control”, or even to affect, EU legislation is a blatant lie. Lisbon takes away major law-making powers from National Parliaments. It would give power to the EU to legislate in relation to some 32 new policy areas, thereby removing these areas from decision by National Parliaments. It also gives the EU the power to decide many other matters.

Lisbon would increase the power of the European Parliament by giving it many new areas of new EU law which it could propose amendments to, but that does not compensate National Parliaments and the citizens who elect National Parliaments, for their loss of power to decide. The new EU laws would still be PROPOSED exclusively by the non-elected Commission and would then be MADE primarily by the Council of Ministers, mainly on the basis of population-based voting. The EU Parliament can only amend these EU laws if the Commission and Council agree. Ireland would have 12 members out of 750 in the European Parliament under Lisbon,a reductuon from the current 13. When we had 100 out of 600 MPs in the 19th century UK Parliament, the Irish people were not that happy with the laws that were passed there. Yet Westminster was a real Parliament which decided all UK laws. The Irish representatives could propose laws in it, as they cannot do in the European Parliament.

If someone says that it is the National Government which really decides what laws are passed in the Dail or Parliament, because the majority of TDs or MPs belong to the Government party, and the EU Commission is acting like a national government in proposing EU laws, the obvious reply is that National Governments are elected by National Parliaments, who in turn are elected by the national citizens. But the EU “Government”, the Commission, is not elected. It is appointed by the Commission President and the EU Prime Ministers and Presidents on the basis of qualified majority voting.

Filed under: EU & Democracy, EU & Environment, EU Enlargement & Integration, EU Foreign Policy | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

*What Your Vote on the Lisbon Treaty Will Really Mean in the Irish Referendum

Posted on 7 Márta, 2008 by NationalPlatform.Org

THE KEY SENTENCES OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Below are the two key sentences of the amendment which you will be asked to put into the Irish Constitution on Thursday 12 June. If people vote Yes they will be turning the European Union which we are members of at present, and in which we will remain, into a Federal EU State in which Ireland would become a provincial state or region. This would be the end of Ireland’s position as an independent sovereign country. The French and Dutch have already rejected this proposal in referendums. By voting No we remain full EU Members based on the Nice Treaty, but we reject the Lisbon Treaty as a step too far. Millions of Europeans who are being denied referendums on Lisbon by their politicians, are hoping we will say No to it for their sakes.

“… The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty. No provision of this [Irish] Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State…” (emphasis added)
– 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2008 … What the people will be voting on in June

Filed under: Lisbon Treaty | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

[18/10/2007] Government should set up the statutory Referendum Commission well in advance of the referendum on the new EU Treaty to ensure citizens are adequately informed

Posted on 18 Deireadh Fómhair, 2007 by NationalPlatform.Org

THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SET UP THE REFERENDUM COMMISSION SOON, WITH TIME AND RESOURCES TO INFORM CITIZENS ABOUT THIS NEW EU TREATY

The Government should set up the statutory Referendum Commission well in advance of the necessary Irish referendum on the Renamed EU Constitutional Treaty, which will be agreed in principle in Portugal today, so that citizens can be properly informed before they vote on it.
The eyes of Europe – maybe even of the world – will be on Ireland when we hold our referendum on this Treaty, for we are likely to be the only one of 27 EU Member States to have a vote on it. The good functioning of the Referendum Commission is vital to Ireland being seen to have a fair and democratic referendum process.
The five-person Referendum Commission is the body provided for in the 1998 Referendum Act with the function of informing citizens what a referendum is about and encouraging maximum turnout of voters.
Calling the Referendum Commission into being should be done months before Ireland’s referendum, and not just a few weeks before as previously, so that the Commission members will have enough time, first of all to inform themselves, and then the Irish voting public, on the implications of this important and complex constitutional Treaty, for this could well be the last referendum that Ireland will have on the EU.
Former Chief Justice T.A. Finlay, who chaired the Referendum Commission for the two Nice Treaty referendums, was critical of the time the Government gave it to do its job in his reports on those referendums. He was implicitly critical also of referendums on complex EU treaties being held simulataneously with other referendums on quite different matters.
The Referendum Commission is more likely to give the objective and impartial facts about this Treaty than the partisan bodies on either side, such as the political parties, the European Movement, the National Platform etc. – important and essential though their role in the referendum is.
The Referendum Commission consists of the Clerks of the Dail and Seanad, the Ombudsman, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and a senior judge who is nominated by the Government as Chairman.
Although the Government amended the Referendum Act to remove from the Referendum Commission the function of informing citizens of the main Yes-side and No-side arguments on particular referendum propositions in order to help get the Nice Treaty ratified, the Commission still retains its functions of telling citizens what particular referendums are about and encouraging maximum voter turnout. But it needs adequate time and resources to carry out these important democratic tasks. It was given ¤3.5 million for this purpose in the 2002 Nice Two referendum, although it could have done with extra time even then. The setting up of the Referendum Commission does not need to wait until the referendum date is decided on. The importance of the upcoming referendum is shown by the following facts about the proposed new EU Treaty: –
What the Renamed EU Constitutional Treaty would do:

1. Giving the EU a Federal State Constitution: The treaty would establish a legally new European Union, quite different from what we call the EU at present, with the constitutional form of a supranational Federal State that would be separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is separate from and superior to California, Texas etc. It would do this in three key legal steps: (a) establishing a new European Union with its own legal personality and distinct corporate existence for the first time; (b) abolishing the distinction between the supranational and intergovernmental “pillars” of the two existing European Treaties, so that all powers of government can be exercised by the new Union, either actually or potentially, through a uniform constitutional structure; and (c) making us all real citizens of this new Union for the first time, rather than just notional or honorary EU “citizens” as at present, for one can only be a citizen of a State.
2. Abolishing the national veto in 68 new areas or matters: the new Treaty would introduce qualified majority voting(QMV) on the EU Council of Ministers for 68 areas or matters for the first time – 48 of these referring to new areas of EU law-making and 20 to a shift from unanimity to majority-voting for existing EU legal bases. That would remove the national veto for these 68 areas or matters. This figure of 68 compares with 46 areas or matters moved to QMV by the 2002 Treaty of Nice, 24 by the 1998 Treaty of Amsterdam, 30 by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union, 12 by the 1987 Single European Act and 38 by the original 1957 Treaty of Rome and its associated Treaties. Each of these shifts of power from the national to the supranational level entails a shift from the Legislative arm of government to the Executive arm and from elected national Parliaments and citizens to Government Ministers and senior civil servants. They hollow out our democracy further.
3. Giving more voting power to the Big States: The new Treaty would introduce a new voting system on the Council of Ministers, making population size a key criterion, which would particularly advantage big States like Germany and reduce the influence of smaller ones like Ireland.
4. Removing the right to a permanent EU Commissioner: It would remove the right of each Member State to have an EU Commissioner for two out of every three Commission terms, i.e. for five years out of every 15. Big States would lose their right to a permanent Commissioner also, but they have other means of exerting their influence on this body which proposes all EU laws. Having a permanent Commissioner has always been recognised as much more important for smaller States like Ireland.
5. Giving the EU the final power to decide our rights: The new Treaty would give the EU the final power to decide our human and civil rights in all areas of EU law, including Member States when implementing EU law, which now constitutes the greater part of our laws each year. This would make the EU Court of Justice rather than the Irish Supreme Court, or the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the final decider of our rights in many areas. The EU Court of Justice would be more remote, slower to work and more expensive for citizens to get to as they seek to establish their rights.
6. A self-amending Treaty: The new Treaty would contain a mechanism enabling qualified majority voting to be sustituted for unanimity in eight policy areas by decision of EU governments, without need for new treaties or referendums.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan

Secretary

Filed under: Lisbon Treaty, Referendum | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

[09/05/2006] Open Letter to TDs/Senators re tomorrow’s “Europe Day” Dail debate: What they may not know about the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950

Posted on 9 Bealtaine, 2006 by NationalPlatform.Org
The open letter below has been sent today to all TDs and Senators to inform them of facts they may not know about the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, which is being commemorated iin “Europe Day” today and in the all-day debate they will be holding in the Dail tomorrow.
________________
The National Platform
EU RESEARCH AND INFORMATION CENTRE
For a Europe of independent democratic co-operating nation states
24 Crawford Avenue
Dublin 9
Tel.: (01) 8305792
Tuesday 9 May 2006
Dear Deputy/Senator,
As an addendum to the e-mail I sent you yesterday about the EU Commission Office in Dublin encouraging local broadcasters to break the law, may I send you for your information below the full text of the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950, which the Commission and the European Movement desire you to celebrate today and in the special Oireachtas debate tomorrow.
May I draw to your attention the phrases in the Declaration which state that it is “a first step in the federation of Europe”, and that “this proposal will lead to the realization of the first concrete foundation of a European federation”. These political objectives are usually omitted when the Declaration is referred to, and most people do not even know of their existence.
A federation is of course a State and yet for decades now the champions of EC/EU integration have been swearing blind that they have no knowledge of any such plans. This is the lie they have been telling the peoples of the different European countries as the EEC/EC/EU has steadily acquired ever more features of a supranational Federation: flag, anthem, Parliament, Supreme Court, currency, laws, battle groups, code of fundamental rights and now – they hope – its own Constitution and real citizenship and citizens’ obligations. That would leave the power to levy taxes as the only major power of government still remaining at national level. And the Eurocrats clearly aspire to obtain this in time.
The Irish people do not want to become citizens of the federal Europe which the Commission and its ideological hangers-on in the European Movement have been seeking to construct for decades now, while pretending that they are really only concerned with jobs and economic growth. Do YOU want to become a citizen of such a Federation? Is that what the men and women of 1916 had in mind, whom you were purporting to honour just a few short weeks ago?
Already the EU is the source of two-thirds of our laws here in Ireland. Under the proposed EU Constitution that proportion would increase. The power of the EU Commission would increase correspondingly, for it has the monopoly of proposing all laws in the EU. No wonder the Commission has the gall to lash out millions of our money on “Europe Day” gimmicks, on special supplements in our newspapers, and on political advertising in the print and broadcast media – all with the aim of persuading us that we should give it more power.
The proposed EU Constitution, if it were to be ratified, would legally abolish the present European Union and Community and would establish in their place a new Union that would be founded like any State upon its own Consitution. In other words, it would endow this new EIU with the constitutional form of a supranational State, which we would all be made real citizens of, and not just nominal or honorary EU “citizens” as at present. We would then owe this new European Union our prime obedience and allegiance, for it would be, and its Constitution would be, superior to our own State and Constitution, and the Irish Constitution would have to be amended by referendum to recognise that supremacy.
Do you, as an Irish legislator, and an Irish citizen, want to be a citizen of a federal EU State; for one can only be a citizen of a State?
Was this what De Valera founded Fianna Fail for? Or Griffith, Collins and Cosgrave when they laid the foundations of Fine Gael? Or Connolly, who founded the Labour Party, and who gave his life along with Pearse and the others to establish a State in which the Irish people would exercise their right to “the ownership of Ireland and the unfettered control of Irish destinies”? Is having two-thirds of our laws made in Brussels, in making which the Irish people have minimal input, exercising the unfettered control of Irish destinies?
So read Schuman’s Declaration of 9 May 1950 and know what you are really celebrating on “Europe Day”!
Yours faithfully
Anthony Coughlan
Secretary
PS. Did you see Commission President Manuel Barroso writing in today’s Irish Times “Europe Day” supplement on “the need to respect the views of the people of France and the Netherlands”, who voted against the EU Constitution last year, while simultaneously he and his fellow Eurocrats are urging as many EU Member States as possible to continue ratifying the “Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe” – which is the very opposite of respecting the views of the French and Dutch? This epitomises the consummate arrogance and profoundly elitist and anti-democratic mindset of these people. It is the reason why ordinary citizens are turning against them in every EU country, and will continue to do so.
____________________
Full text of the Schuman Declaration of 9 May 1950 (emphasis added below)
This is the full text of the proposal, which was presented by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman and which led to the creation of what is now the European Union:-
World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.
The contribution which an organized and living Europe can bring to civilization is indispensable to the maintenance of peaceful relations. In taking upon herself for more than 20 years the role of champion of a united Europe, France has always had as her essential aim the service of peace. A united Europe was not achieved and we had war.
Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity. The coming together of the nations of Europe requires the elimination of the age-old opposition of France and Germany. Any action taken must in the first place concern these two countries. With this aim in view, the French Government proposes that action be taken immediately on one limited but decisive point.
It proposes that Franco-German production of coal and steel as a whole be placed under a common High Authority, within the framework of an organization open to the participation of the other countries of Europe. The pooling of coal and steel production should immediately provide for the setting up of common foundations for economic development AS A FIRST STEP IN THE FEDERATION OF EUROPE, and will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims.
The solidarity in production thus established will make it plain that any war between France and Germany becomes not merely unthinkable, but materially impossible. The setting up of this powerful productive unit, open to all countries willing to take part and bound ultimately to provide all the member countries with the basic elements of industrial production on the same terms, will lay a true foundation for their economic unification. This production will be offered to the world as a whole without distinction or exception, with the aim of contributing to raising living standards and to promoting peaceful achievements.
In this way, there will be realized simply and speedily that fusion of interest which is indispensable to the establishment of a common economic system; it may be the leaven from which may grow a wider and deeper community between countries long opposed to one another by sanguinary divisions.
By pooling basic production and by instituting a new High Authority, whose decisions will bind France, Germany and other member countries, THIS PROPOSAL WILL LEAD TO THE REALIZATION OF THE FIRST CONCRETE FOUNDATION OF A EUROPEAN FEDERATION INDISPENSABLE TO THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE.
To promote the realization of the objectives defined, the French Government is ready to open negotiations on the following bases.
The task with which this common High Authority will be charged will be that of securing in the shortest possible time the modernization of production and the improvement of its quality; the supply of coal and steel on identical terms to the French and German markets, as well as to the markets of other member countries; the development in common of exports to other countries; the equalization and improvement of the living conditions of workers in these industries.
To achieve these objectives, starting from the very different conditions in which the production of member countries is at present situated, it is proposed that certain transitional measures should be instituted, such as the application of a production and investment plan, the establishment of compensating machinery for equating prices, and the creation of a restructuring fund to facilitate the rationalization of production. The movement of coal and steel between member countries will immediately be freed from all customs duty, and will not be affected by differential transport rates. Conditions will gradually be created which will spontaneously provide for the more rational distribution of production at the highest level of productivity.
In contrast to international cartels, which tend to impose restrictive practices on distribution and the exploitation of national markets, and to maintain high profits, the organization will ensure the fusion of markets and the expansion of production.
The essential principles and undertakings defined above will be the subject of a treaty signed between the States and submitted for the ratification of their parliaments. The negotiations required to settle details of applications will be undertaken with the help of an arbitrator appointed by common agreement. He will be entrusted with the task of seeing that the agreements reached conform with the principles laid down, and, in the event of a deadlock, he will decide what solution is to be adopted.
The common High Authority entrusted with the management of the scheme will be composed of independent persons appointed by the governments, giving equal representation. A chairman will be chosen by common agreement between the governments. The Authority’s decisions will be enforceable in France, Germany and other member countries. Appropriate measures will be provided for means of appeal against the decisions of the Authority.
A representative of the United Nations will be accredited to the Authority, and will be instructed to make a public report to the United Nations twice yearly, giving an account of the working of the new organization, particularly as concerns the safeguarding of its objectives.
The institution of the High Authority will in no way prejudge the methods of ownership of enterprises. In the exercise of its functions, the common High Authority will take into account the powers conferred upon the International Ruhr Authority and the obligations of all kinds imposed upon Germany, so long as these remain in force.

Filed under: EU & Democracy, EU Superstate | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

[04/05/2006] EU Commission Office in Dublin induces Irish broadcasters to act illegally

Posted on 4 Bealtaine, 2006 by NationalPlatform.Org
Huge sums of EU political advertising to influence Irish voters in next EU Treaty referendum


The EU Commission Representation in Ireland has induced Newstalk 106 and local community radio stations across the country to act illegally during March and April by carrying daily political advertisements aimed at influencing voting behaviour and party attitudes in the upcoming referendum on the proposed EU Constitution, or an alternative Treaty based upon it, within the next year or so.
It is illegal for Irish broadcasters “to accept any advertisement directed towards any religious or political end” under the provisions of the Radio and Television Act 1988, s.10(3),which governs local broadcasters, and the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960, s.20(4), which governs RTE.*
The advertisements. which were paid for by the Commission Representation in Molesworth Street, Dublin, are one-sided propagandist statements of positive-sounding facts about the EU that are capable of influencing people’s attitudes and votes in a future referendum on the EU Constitution or other Treaty aimed at increasing the powers of the EU and its institutions, among them the Commission itself.
The advertisements are ostensibly aimed at telling people of the existence of a “Europe Direct” information centre, which people are urged to contact if they require further information on the EU or wish to obtain a speaker on it. Each reference to “Europe Direct” is preceded by a potent and one-sided propagandist statement about the merits and benefits of the EU, which is certainly capable of influencing attitudes and votes, and the views of political parties and the party allegiances of citizens, under the guise of providing objective information from and about this information service. On any fair and objective assessment this March-April advertising is directed towards a political end and is therefore illegal in Ireland.
Here are examples from the series of 10 or so different advertisements:
“Do you know that since 1973 Ireland has received over 5.5 billion euros from the European Community? To find out more about the EU, contact Europe Direct…” (phone number follows) (Mon.10 April, Newstalk 106, 7.15 a.m., During the Eamon Dunphy Breakfast Show)
“Do you know that as a citizen of the EU you are guaranteed the right to buy goods in any of the EU Member States? What’s more, the introduction of the euro enables you to compare prices and get the best value for your money in the EU. To find out more, contact Europe Direct etc.” (Tues. 11 April, 8.30 a.m. and Wed.12 April, 8.15, Newstalk 106)

“Do you know that the EU has an expert panel of speakers available to speak on EU policies and development? To hear a speaker, contact Europe Direct etc.” (Sat. 8 April, South-East Radio, lunchtime)

“Do you know that telephone calls cost less because of the EU?” (Sun. 9 April, Newstalk 106)

“Do you know that there is EU legislation to ensure the food you eat is safe?” (Tuesday 18 April, Newstalk 106)

“Do you know that the EU is the largest contributor of development aid to poorer countries?” ( Newstalk 106, Mon. 20 March)

Irish EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy stated at the launch of this advertising campaign in February: “Following rejection of the Nice Treaty in 2001, Ireland knows only too well the importance of communicating Europe. After the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitution, all of Europe knows it now. This campaign wll not only inform people of the different information sources available but will also show the benefits of EU membership, and provide very practical advice on how to avail of European laws to protect their rights.”

This political advertising campaign is the first time that the EU Commission, through the office of its Dublin Representation, has financed anything of this kind in this country. It is possible that the Commission and its Secretary-General in Brussels are unaware that its Irish Representation is encouraging Irish broadcasters to act illegally.
On the other hand, if the Commission Representation in Ireland, or its superiors in Brussels, can get away with these political advertisements on the pretext that they are only providing “information” and stating objective facts, the citizens of Ireland may as well throw their hats at any attempt to protect their democracy from external, politically motivated manipulation from now on. They will be exposed to having their political attitudes to the EU and its affairs moulded by a self-interested Brussels Commission with effectively limitless amounts of money at its disposal to influence the voting intentions of Irish citizens in future EU-related referendums here, thereby increasing the Commission’s own powers.
The background to the emergence of the EU Commission as a major political advertiser in Ireland, and as a direct player on the local political scene is this:
The EU Commission has been allocated some 200 million euros to spend in the current period to encourage “reflection” on the situation regarding the proposed EU Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters a year ago. The ratification process of The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe**, to give it its proper title, has now been resumed, as if the French and Dutch referendums had never happened. Belgium decided to ratify the EU Constitution in March. Finland is expected to do so by parliamentary vote next month, before it takes over the six-month EU Presidency in July. The remaining parliamentary ratifications will then follow, with possibly an Irish referendum at their end, so that by this time next year all EU States will have ratified the EU Constitution with the exception of France, the Netherlands, Britain and possibly Poland. Germany will then be in charge of the EU and a new French President will be in office, and steps will be taken to finesse the French and Dutch Nos and put maximum pressure on the countries still to hold referendums.
This is the real reason for this EU-funded political advertising campaign that has commenced in Ireland at this time. The Commission’s 200 million euro “information” budget is being targeted mainly at the countries where referendums on the EU Constitution are necessary, with a view to influencing eventual voting behaviour there. While pleading that it is providing “impartial information” through its betwork of some 300 Europe Direct Centres across the EU, the Commission is in fact producing potent propaganda – all as part of the real-politik of reviving the EU Constitution.
If an Irish political party such as Fianna Fail or Fine Gael sought to advertise the existence of a party information line or speaker-service on Irish radio, or to used advertisements to tell people that they had done such-and-such when they were last in Government, broadcasters would immediately refuse such advertisements as illegal. The EU Commission, a much more powerful body than any Irish political party, must not be allowed to use its virtually limitless funds to subvert our democracy in this way.
Unsurprisingly, the advertisements for “Europe Direct” do not draw public attention to less palatable facts about the EU: For example that only one-third or so of our laws now originate with the Oireachtas, the rest coming from Brussels Š Or that Spanish and other EU fishermen have the same legal entitlement to exploit Irish fishing waters as Irish fishermen do Š Or that the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy raises food prices for families and discriminates against Third World agriculturalists Š Or that it costs Irish taxpayers so many millions to adapt the country’s bridges and roads to accommodate the 50-ton lorries permitted by EU law.
Patricia McKenna, former Green Party MEP, is making representations to the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland and to the RTE Authority, asking them to take steps to ensure that Irish broadcasters cease breaking the law in this matter, as they have been doing, perhaps unwittingly, by carrying these EU-funded political advertisements during March and April. She is also making representations to the Secretary-General of the EU Commission in Brussels to take steps to prevent the officials of the Commission’s Representation in Ireland from abusing their responsibilities by encouraging Irish broadcasters to act illegally and misusing EU funds for purposes that are illegal under Irish and possibly EU law.
Patricia McKenna comments: “If the EU Commission is allowed to get away with this type of political advertising at taxpayers’ expenses, including Irish taxpayers, it will undermine the entire thrust of the Supreme Court’s 1995 McKenna judgement which was supposed to protect people from having their money used to persuade them to vote in a particular way.” In 1998 Patricia McKenna made representations to the EU Commission in Brussels which led to its telling its officials in the Commission Representation in Dublin to desist from disseminating one-sided pamphlets geared at influencing Irish citizens to vote Yes in the Amsterdam Treaty referendum as being in contravention of both Irish and European law.
Ms McKenna can be contacted for further information if need be, at (01) 8300818 or 087-2427049
We appeal to all Irish democrats, whatever their vews on the EU, all fair-minded citizens and all responsible media bodies, to raise their voices on this matter.
If you should hear any of these broadcasts on your local community radio station, please phone the station to tell those in charge there that they are acting illegally by broadcasting it, and then inform the local police that the sttaion in question is breaking the law.
(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan,
Secretary (01-8305792 /6081898)


* A discussion of the case-law on this topic up to 2003 may be found in Marie McGonagle, Media Law, Round Hall Press, 2003. There have been some further relevant cases since the latest edition of this book.

** The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe would repeal all the existing EC/EU treaties and establish what would be legally quite a new EU, based like any State upon its own Constitution. It would give the EU the constitutional form of a supranational State for the first time and would make us all real citizens of that, owing it our obedience and allegiance, rather than be notional or honorary EU “citizens” as at present. It would give the EU a political President, a Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps and would increase the EU’s policy-making powers in nearly 100 new areas.

Filed under: EU & Democracy, EU Corruption, Referendum | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

[10/04/2006] 1916 & the EU: A question to ponder on the 90th anniversary of the Easter Rising

Posted on 10 Aibreán, 2006 by NationalPlatform.Org 
A QUESTION TO PONDER ON THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE 1916 RISING

"We declare the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland
and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies, to be sovereign and
indefeasible"

-  1916 Proclamation of the Irish Republic

QUESTION:  Is the right of the Irish people "to the ownership of Ireland
and to the unfettered control of Irish destinies", proclaimed in 1916,
compatible with having two-thirds of the laws we must obey enacted by the
EU in Brussels, in making which the Irish people have a very minor say?

The German Federal Ministry for Justice has stated in answer to a
parliamentary written question that between 1998 and 2004, 23,167 legal
acts were adopted in Germany, of which 18,917, or 80%, were of EU
origin(See the German and English texts of this question and answer below).
Presumably Ireland, being a unitary rather than a Federal State like
Germany, would have a higher proportion of domestic national laws enacted
centrally; so it seems plausible to assume that the EU makes two-thirds or
so of our laws rather than the 80% in Germany. The Taoiseach or Minister
for Foreign Affairs might usefully be urged to give the public the exact
figure for the Irish State, as the German Government has done.

Having to obey laws made mostly by others means being ruled by others. It
is the opposite of a country being independent, sovereign and democratic.
What role do the Irish State and Irish people have in making EU laws?  We
have one member out of 25 on the EU Commission, the body of nominated,
non-elected officials which has the legal monopoly of proposing all EU
laws. That is 4% influence.  We also have one Minister out of 25 on the EU
Council of Minsters, which makes EU laws on the basis of the Commission's
proposals. That is again 4% influence there. In practice most EU laws are
adopted nowadays by qualified majority vote on the Council of Ministers,
where Ireland has 7 votes out of 345, that is 2% of a say, and in which it
may be outvoted on most matters.

The European Parliament may propose amendments to draft laws of the EU
Council of Ministers, but it cannot have these amendments adopted without
the agreement of the Council and Commission, and it cannot itself initiate
any EU law. The Irish State has 13 members out of 732 in the European
Parliament, that is 2% of a say, and the North has 3 MEPs.

Yet when the whole of Ireland  was part of the United Kingdom between 1800
and 1921,it had 100 MPs out of 600 in the British Parliament, of which some
70 were Nationalists. That gave Nationalist Ireland 12% of a say at
Westminster; yet the Irish  people were unhappy with majority rule from
London then and aspired to a Parliament of their own in an independent
Irish Republic.

As for "the right of the Irish people to the ownership of Ireland", how can
Irish politicians pretend to exercise that right when under EU law it is
illegal for an Irish Government to adopt any measure that would prevent the
450 million citizens of the other EU States from having the same rights of
ownership and establishment in this country as Irish citizens, in relation
to land-buying, fisheries, residence, employment or the conduct of any
economic activity?

In addition to being subject to laws made overwhelmingly by non-Irish
people in Brussels, the Irish Government is regularly fined for breaking EU
laws by the EU Court of Justice - something no sovereign State anywhere in
the world is subject to. How is that compatible with "the unfettered
control of Irish destinies"?

As well, EU membership means that Member States lose their right to sign
trade treaties with other States, as this is done by the Brussels
Commission acting for the EU as a whole. It means that the Member States
are legally obliged to work towards a common foreign and security policy
and common rules in crime and justice matters. Last September a judgement
of the EU Court of Justice laid down that the EU can adopt supranational
criminal sanctions such as fines, imprisonment or confiscation of assets
for breaches of EU law by means of majority vote. This means that Ireland
and its citizens may be subjected in future to such criminal sanctions even
if they had voted against them, and for matters they do not necessarily
regard as crimes.

Before Ireland joined the EEC in 1973, Article 15 of the Irish Constitution
stated that "the sole and exclusive power of making laws for the State is
hereby vested in the Oireachtas: no other legislative authority has power
to make laws for the State." The Irish State was constitutionally sovereign
then in a way that it clearly is no longer.

As a member of the Eurozone Dublin has no control of either the rate of
interest or its currency exchange rate, which are classical economic tools
of all independent governments that seek to advance their people's welfare.
As regards interest rates and the exchange rate we have to abide by
policies decided by the EU Central Bank in Frankfort,Germany, whose
priority necessarily must be the economic needs of the more populous EU
countries.

All this is clearly incompatible with "the right of the people of Ireland
to the ownership of Ireland and to the unfettered control of Irish
destinies", proclaimed in the Declaration of the Republic in Easter 1916.
Yet the Taoiseach and leaders of Fianna Fail who have put us under European
Union rule and who desire to give the EU more power still by ratifying the
proposed EU Constitution, proclaim themselves to belong to "The Republican
Party".

On Easter Sunday next they will perpetrate the hypocrisy of professing to
honour the men and women of 1916 against the background of these facts
which make a mockery of their professions. And they will be supported in
that by the leaders of the other major Dail Parties, who glory in their
servitude to EU rule and who equally support the discredited EU
Constitution that was rejected by the peoples of France and the Netherlands
in their referendums last summer.

_______
GERMAN VERSION OF QUESTION RE RATIO OF EU LAWS TO NATIONAL LAWS
_______

Abgeordneter: Johannes Singhammer (CDU/CSU)

Wie viele Rechtsvorschriften mit Wirkung für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
wurden in den Jahren 1998 bis 2004 auf der europäischen Ebene und auf der
nationalen Ebene neu beschlossen?

Antwort des Parlamentarischen Staatssekretärs Alfred Hartenbach
Vom 29. April 2005

In den Jahren 1998 bis 2004 wurden insgesamt 18,167 EU-Verordnungen und 750
EU-Richtlinen (einschließlich Änderungsverordnungen bza.-richtlinien)
erlassen.

Im selben Zeitraum wurden auf Bundesebene insgesamt 1195 Gesetze (davon 889
im BGB1.Teil I und 306 im BGB1. Teil II) sowie 3055 Rechtsverordnungen
(einschließlich Änderungsgesetzen bzw.-verordnungen) verkündet.

________

ENGLISH SUMMARY OF QUESTION AND ANSWER
_______

To ask the Minister what proportion of the legal acts passed in Germany
between 1 May 1998 and 1 May 2004 had their origin in European Union
regulations or directives and how many were were solely national in origin.

On 29 April 2005, the German Federal Justice Ministry replied that between
1998 and 2004, 23,167 legal acts were adopted in Germany, of which 18,917,
or 80%, were of EU origin.

Filed under: EU & Democracy, EU Superstate, Lisbon Treaty | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

[10/04/2006] Review: The most important book ever on the EU

Posted on 10 Aibreán, 2006 by NationalPlatform.Org 
Christopher Booker and Richard North, "THE GREAT DECEPTION: CAN THE
EUROPEAN UNION SURVIVE?"; revised paperback edition, 2005; Continuum
Publishers, London and New York;ISBN 0-8264-8014-4; Euros 14.60 or £10
sterling Web-site: www.continuumbooks.com; E-Mail:<info@continuumbooks.com>

Reviewed by Anthony Coughlan

This is the most important book ever to be written on the European  Union.
It is a detailed 600-page account of the European integration project from
the first mooting of the idea in the 1920s to the rejection of the proposed
EU Constitution by the voters of France and the Netherlands in summer 2005.
This paperback edition contains substantial revisions of the widely
acclaimed hardback, which sold 10,000 copies when it was first published
three years ago, as well as much new material on the EU Constitution debate.

Europhiles as well as EU-critics will find the book illuminating. Its
production by leading British political analyst Christopher Booker and
economist Richard North is likely to be seen in time as itself a
significant event in the history of the integration project, for no one who
reads it will ever be able to look in the same way at the European Union
again. The book is relevant to  the people of every European country.

Meticulously researched and packed with revealing quotations, "The Great
Deception" not only gives new insights into EC/EU history, but it analyses
the EU's administrative structures and such key policies as the monetary
union, the farm and fisheries policy and the EU's foreign and military
ambitions. It gives fact and instance on the corruption and scams of
Brussels.

The authors show that it was the US Government's insistence on German
rearmament in 1950 to meet the needs of the Cold War that precipitated the
European Coal and Steel Community, the foundation of European integration.
The pooling of coal and steel under a supranational High Authority, the
precursor of the Brussels Commission, was crucial in overcoming French
hostility to this step.  Jean Monnet, America's man in the affair, saw it
as a way of pursuing the project for a supranational Europe that he had
been nurturing since World War 1.

There followed the  scheme for a European Army and  Defence Community in
1952.  At the time Monnet and Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak
wanted the Coal and Steel Community and the proposed Defence Community to
be over-arched by a European Political Community and a European
Constitution. The rejection of the Defence Community scheme by France's
National Assembly in 1954 forced Monnet and the European Movement, still
well funded by CIA money, to change their tactics. Thereafter they dropped
their open espousal of federalism and an EU Government and concentrated on
economic integration by a series of gradual steps during the following
decades. Now that that has been achieved, the European Constitution has
been produced again as the political dome to top the economic edifice.

The "Great Deception" of the book's title has been the pretence to the
citizens of the European countries concerned that successive treaties
embodying economic integration were needed to give more jobs and economic
growth, when the real agenda throughout has remained political integration,
the construction of a Federal European Superstate under the joint hegemony
of France and Germany.  The promised extra jobs have proved a chimera also
for the larger EU countries.

The book shows that the fundamental reason why France's President De Gaulle
kept Britain out of the EEC during the 1960s was his concern to have the
financial arrangement for the Common Agricultural Policy established first,
whereby the EEC as a  whole  underwrote high subsidies for French farmers,
who in 1961 still accounted for a quarter of France's employment as against
only four percent in Britain.  Britain would never have agreed to the CAP
if she were already an EEC member. Once the CAP funding was settled,
British membership of the EEC became a matter of French interest, and De
Gaulle's veto was abandoned.  As a condition of her membership Britain cut
her imports of cheap food from around the world and replaced them with more
expensive French and continental products. At the same time the levies she
paid on what foodstuffs she imported from outside the EEC were
automatically transferred to Brussels to subsidise French and other EEC
farmers. The recent agreement on the EU budget up to 2013 shows that
continued subsidies by other countries for her farmers remain central to
France's EU policy.

Britain took on  this burden in the hope of preventing France and Germany
dominating the EC/EU together, or hopeful that they would co-opt Britain to
run it as a triumvirate. The book shows how these hopes turned to ashes.
The authors  describe sardonically  how successive British  governments and
the supposedly "Rolls Royce minds" of Britain's Foreign Office continually
deceived the British people, in the process often deceiving themselves, as
to what the  EU was really all about.

This reviewer would have liked more coverage of the role of the European
Round-table of Industrialists and UNICE,the EU Employers Confederation, in
being the first advocates of all new EU treaties since 1986; but even 600
pages cannot cover all aspects of this long and complex story. Hugo Young's
book, "This Blessed Plot", has been the best-known general history of the
EU/EC up to now. Booker and North expose some significant historical errors
in that work, which their own book undoubtedly supersedes.

The authors write: "Behind the lofty ideals of supranationalism in short,
evoking an image of Commissoners sitting like Plato's Guardians, guiding
the affairs of Europe on some rarefied plane far above the petty egotisms
and rivalries of mere nation states, the project Monnet had set on its way
was a vast, ramshackle, self-deluding monster:  partly suffocating in its
own bureaucracy; partly a corrupt racket, providing endless opportunities
for individuals and collectives to outwit and exploit their fellow men;
partly a mighty engine for promoting the national interests of those
countries who knew how to "work the system", among whom the Irish and the
Spanish had done better than most, but of whom France was the unrivalled
master.  The one thing above all the project could never be, because by
definition it had never been intended to be, was in the remotest sense
democratic."

The EU's fatal lack of democracy is why the project is historically doomed,
and why it will in time, the authors write, "leave a terrible devastation
behind it, a wasteland from which it would take many years for the peoples
of  Europe to emerge."

If ever there was an organisation that is trapped in its own history,it is
the EU. In order to understand it one must know its origins and
development. "The Great Deception" enables one to do this.

This is a powerful new weapon in the struggle for national democracy and
independence. Everyone who cherishes these democratic values and who is
opposed to the institutional monster that has grown up in Brussels should
spread news about this book, ask for it in their bookshops, write to
editors suggesting they review it, and try to get it translated into their
own languages if these are other than English.

Filed under: Anthony Coughlan, Review | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

« An Leathnach Roimhe Seo — An Chéad Leathanach Eile »