• Recent Posts

  • Really Simple Syndication

  • 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

  • Archives

  • Posts by Category

  • Blog Stats

    • 43,941 hits

[11/03/2005] EU Superstate: from the horses’ mouths

Truth from Europhile German and Spanish leaders on the EU
Constitution

________________________

German Europe Minister: The EU Constitution is "the birth certificate of
the United States of Europe".

Spanish Foreign Minister: "We are witnessing the last remnants of national
politics"

Hans Martin Bury, the German Minister for Europe, said during a debate in
the Bundestag that, "This Constitution is, in spite of all justified calls
for further regulations, a milestone. Yes, it is more than that. The EU
Constitution is the birth certificate of the United States of Europe." (Die
Welt, 25 February 2005)

He also contradicted claims by British Foreign Secretay Jack Straw that the
Constitution would "draw a line" under EU integration. Bury said, "The
Constitution is not the end point of integration, but the framework for -
as it says in the preamble - an ever closer union."

Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos was interviewed this week
by the EU funded think-tank "Café Babel". Moratinos was asked, "Does
accepting the European Constitution mean a surrender of member states'
sovereignty?" He replied, "Absolutely. The member states have already
relinquished control
of certain economic and social competences, including justice, liberty and
security. Now the difficult part is approaching: the giving up of
sovereignty in the dual arenas of foreign affairs and defence." He argued
that, "The post of European Minister for Foreign Affairs is revolutionary."

Moratinos stated: "The concept of traditional citizenship has been bypassed
in the 21st Century. We are witnessing the last remnants of national
politics" (28 February 2005).

[01/02/2005] Bizarre EU rules & regulations

More bizarre EU rules ... For your information
__________________________

Tuesday 1 February 2005

Dear Friends,
Below for your information is an article from today's Daily Telegraph about
a major new EU law which came into force on 1st January and which none of
us have heard anything about until now.

So far it seems to have has gone unmentioned in the Irish media, which
concerns itself mostly with other things.

This law comes from an EU that promises to reduce over-regulation!

Can you imagine the lunacy described below being implemented?  Just
conceive the complexity of labelling.  Just imagine the field day for
inspectors of Trading
Standards.  Imagine how your local shopkeeper, greengrocer, fruit & veg
stall or butcher will cope. And your  local fishmonger as he attaches the
label: "Caught by Joe Bloggs at 2 am on 2nd February 2005 200 miles west of
Malin Head in a north-easterly gale and processed by Joe McCarthy of
Killybeggs"!

And what will restaurant menus look like?  As the restaurateur comes back
from Moore Street or Smithfield Market he will have to change his menu
because the steak has come from a different farmer this week!

Yours etc.

Anthony Coughlan

===============

DAILY TELEGRAPH  1/2/05

New EU laws track food from "farm to fork"

By David Rennie in Brussels

The European Commission yesterday unveiled a mammoth new system of
regulations, obliging the food and drink trade to track and record all food
and food ingredients from "farm to fork", then keep those records for up to
five years.

Under a European Union law that came into force on Jan.1 this year, every
business in the food and drink trade must keep detailed records of every
delivery from a supplier and every delivery out to a customer. EU guidelines
published yesterday spelled out the meaning of that new requirement,
technically known as Article 18 of the General Food Law.

According to the Commission, those affected do not just include established
companies but individuals, such as those running a private catering firm out
of their kitchen, or a "gastro-pub" buying fresh game from a hunter at the
back door.

The new law also affects charities, who are now obliged to record all food
donations, "if only with a notebook and pen", according to Philip Tod, a
Commission spokesman. All records must be kept for five years, unless the
products are perishable, like fresh meat, in which case records must be kept
for six months.

The intention is to have standardised "traceability systems" across the EU,
so authorities can track food almost instantly in the event of a crisis,
such as an outbreak of food poisoning or contamination. Transport companies
that merely ship food from place to place are also obliged to keep batch by
batch records of every delivery they make to a restaurant, grocers or
canteen.

The guidelines were agreed to by senior officials from the United Kingdom
and other EU member states, working under Commission auspices, and aim to
clarify the law and ensure "harmonized implementation".

As a general rule, every link in the food chain is obliged to keep records
"one up and one down" - to have clear records and knowledge of the supplier
immediately below them in the chain, and the customer above them.

Restaurants, shops and those who sell to the public are the end of the chain
and are not obliged to keep track of the names and addresses of those who
eat their products.

However, there are few other exceptions. Gone are the days when a chef
working in the countryside can buy freshly shot hares from "Old Bert" at the
back door, no questions asked, or baskets of wild mushrooms from a Middle
European emigre, with not a word of English, but an expert eye for fine
fungi.

Charities accepting donations of food are covered by the new law and would
be breaking it if they did not record who left each packet of soup or pasta
at the church door. However, member states are urged to evaluate charities'
conduct "on a case by case basis", when it comes to enforcement and
sanctions.

There are two levels of records to be kept. The first level must be kept by
all "players'' in the food industry, no matter how small. It includes the
name and address of all suppliers and the nature of products supplied by
him, with a date of transaction or delivery, plus the equivalent information
for customers.

Only larger businesses must keep the second "highly recommended" level of
information, defined as volume or quantity; batch number, if any; and a more
detailed description of the product, such as the variety of fruit or
vegetable and how it is packed and processed.

[24/01/2005] EU permanent military industrial complex

From EU REFERENDUM  blog . . . Saturday  22 January 2005

THE NOOSE IS TIGHTENING

European defence integration took another lurch forward this week when it
"became known" without any formal announcement that the EU Commission had
finalised plans to inaugurate "a permanent group of government and defence
industry officials" to advise it on the EU's future defence research
projects.

This is to be the European Security Research Advisory Board (ESRAB), which
will consist of approximately 50 experts from government research institutes
and European defence companies.

Participants will come from all 25 EU member states, some countries will get
more representatives than others. Britain, France and Germany are expected
to get four representatives each, with Italy getting perhaps three, said the
industry executive. Those four nations contain the bulk of the EU defence
sector.

Their purpose is to identify security-oriented projects for funding in the
union's rolling five-year research budget, known as the Framework program.

This will run from 2007-2011 and is expected to set aside at least E:1
billion ($1.3 billion) per year for security and defence-related research
projects.

It is described as "an unprecedented step in the ever-growing EU involvement
in defence policy," and will include considerable private sector
participation, at the highest level.

This means that much of the defence research effort in EU member states will
now be dictated by - or at least co-ordinated by - an EU institution.

Slowly, insidiously, therefore an EU defence policy is gradually taking
shape, adding to the steps reported on earlier by this Blog. And all of this
is leading up to the ratification of the EU constitution which -
unrecognised by many pundits- will turn the European Union into a
fully-fledged military alliance.

This is set out clearly in Art. I-41 of the proposed treaty, which states
that a common security and defence policy "shall be an integral part of the
common foreign and security polity" and that:

If a member state is a victim of armed aggression on its territory, the
other member states shall have an obligation of aid and assistance by all
the means in their powerŠ

This is, in fact, a much stronger obligation than is set out in the Nato
Treaty, the operative article (Art.5) merely stating that the parties agree
that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America
shall be considered an attack against them all.

That treaty merely states that: "If such an armed attack occurs, each of
them Š will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith,
individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems
necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the
security of the North Atlantic area."

It is all very well, therefore, for Blair to argue that the position of
Britain is safeguarded by retaining a veto over defence matters, but the
fact is that he has signed up to a rigid text that binds the UK into a
defence alliance with the rest of the EU. There is no veto involved here -
we are in that alliance the day the treaty is ratified by all member states.

Furthermore, according to Art. I-41 (3), member states "shall make civilian
and military capabilities available to the Union for the implementation of
the common security and defence policy" - another provision that specifies a
straight obligation.

And tucked into that section is another little provision, that has a
significant impact. Member states, the article states, "shall undertake
progressively to improve their military capabilities". Again, this is not
optional. It is a treaty obligation.

Crucially though, this is give effect in the treaty by the establishment of
a European Defence Agency (EDA), which is charged, inter alia, with
identifying operational requirements and, promoting measures to satisfy
those requirements.

Despite the constitution not having been ratified, this agency is now in
place, and this week we have also seen another piece of the jigsaw puzzle
locked into place: the European Security Research Advisory Board, which will
assist the EDA in its work. The noose is tightening.

[21/01/2005] They don’t like the EU Constitution? Quick, send in the force

THE TIMES, London,  Friday 21 January 2005:  World News

They don't like the EU Constitution? Quick, send in the force

By Anthony Browne, Brussels Correspondent

THE European Parliament is to establish a "rapid reaction force" to address
what it considers to be unfair criticism of the European constitution in any
EU member state.

The move has angered opponents of the proposed constitution, who say that
the rapid reaction force is made up entirely of MEPs who support the
constitution but is funded by taxpayers' money. One leading Eurosceptic MEP
said that the move was reminiscent of totalitarianism.

Jens Peter Bonde, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP, said: "It is a good idea to have
a rapid reaction force, but you must have both sides to clear up real
misunderstandings. You can't have a rapid reaction force with taxpayers'
money and represent only one view - it's a totalitarian tendency."

As part of a campaign by Brussels, to combat Euroscepticism in the Union in
time for a wave of referendums on the constitution, the Parliament has told
its representative office in each country to monitor the press and note
unfair criticism. MEPs will then be asked to write letters to the newspapers
to put the record straight.

The European Parliament is also sending delegations consisting of only
pro-constitution MEPs to parliaments in London and Paris, and last week
spent E375,000 (£260,000) on a pro-constitution rally in Strasbourg.

Richard Corbett, the Labour spokesman for the constitution in the European
Parliament, who helped to set up the new system and who is being paid E2,000
in expenses to promote the constitution, said: "There are a lot of occasions
when people get things totally wrong. We will have a system going to pick
out the stories to respond to."

Jo Leinen, a German Socialist MEP who leads the European Parliament's
Constitutional Affairs Committee, said: "Within three hours, or at least
within the same day, we want to react to lies and distortions about the
constitution."

There is concern that one or more of the 11 countries holding referendums on
the constitution may cause turmoil by rejecting it. There is a high chance
that Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic will vote "no", with rejections
possible in France, the Netherlands, Denmark and the Irish Republic.

Each country has different concerns about the constitution. The Germans and
Irish worry that it may lead to the EU becoming a military pact; the French
fear that the EU may become too free-market; and the British worry that the
EU may become a superstate.

The European Commission has set up a special "communications strategy
committee" and is promoting a website to rebut "Euromyths" spread by
the
British press in the hope of winning the propaganda battle over the next two
years.

Eurosceptic MEPs complain that many of the reaction force's "corrections"
will just be pro-constitution opinions dressed as fact. For example, the
force will leap to defend the constitution if someone says that it will lead
to the creation of an EU president, even though it will indeed lead to the
appointment of a new high-profile and powerful president of the European
Council for two and a half years.

It will also rebut the accusation that the constitution makes EU law supreme
over national law, when national governments have already accepted that fact
as necessary to make the EU work.

The constitution will be the first time that any country has signed a treaty
making EU law supreme over national law, making it almost impossible for
national governments to revoke this principle later.

[20/01/2005] COMMISSIONER CHARLIE McCREEVY AND THE REFERENDUM ON THE EU CONSTITUTION

COMMISSIONER CHARLIE McCREEVY AND THE REFERENDUM ON THE EU CONSTITUTION
______________

Press statement from The National Platform EU Research and Information
Centre, 24 Crawford Avenue, Dublin 9;  Tel:01-8305792

Thursday 20 January 2005

Mr Charlie McCreevy has been appointed an EU Commissioner, yet he stated
last week that he intends to play an active part on behalf of the Yes
Campaign in the upcoming referendum on the "Treaty Establishing a
Constitution for Europe".

While Mr McCreevy, like any civil servant, will have a vote in the
referendum as an Irish citizen, is it really appropriate for him as a
supranational public official to campaign in such a fashion? Is it
compatible with a proper appreciation of his role as an EU Commissioner?

EU Commissioners take an oath to put the EU's interests before any national
interest when they take up their jobs. Whether Commissioners are Irish,
Italian or Danish does not mean they are there to work for Ireland, Italy
or Denmark. They may like to believe that expanding the EU's power and
functions is identical with their own country's interests, but it is not
necessarily so.

The EU Commission has no role in the ratification of EU treaties, which are
exclusively a matter for the Member States. Yet the Commission, which has
the exclusive right to propose European laws, is very much an interested
party.  It will gain a huge increase in its own powers at the expense of
national Parliaments, Member States and their citizens if the proposed EU
Constitution is ratified and a further 60 or so national vetoes are
abolished.

As an EU Commissioner Mr McCreevy is paid a substantial salary for his
services in implementing the existing EC/EU treaties, but surely not to
campaign for ratifying new ones?  If Mr McCreevy can devote his time and
resources that should be spent on Commission business to political
campaigning in the Irish referendum, what is to stop other Commissioners
from doing the same thing?

If the principle of Commission interference of this kind is accepted as
regards Mr McCreevy or his colleagues, what is to prevent the Commission
using its huge financial and personnel resources to interfere in a
one-sided fashion in the Irish and other Member State referendums, against
the principles of constitutional fairness in referendums laid down by the
Supreme Court in the 1995 McKenna case, and quite possibly in violation of
European law as well?

In 1998 it took the threat of legal action by a local citizen, Mr Owen
Bennett, to prevent the European Commission Office in Dublin from
disseminating large amounts of  one-sided pamphlets in the Amsterdam Treaty
referendum under the guise of providing objective information on that
treaty. When the matter was referred to the Commission's Legal Services in
Brussels, they concluded that this action was legally inadvisable. The
Commission's resources, including the salaries of its officials, are
contributed to in part by Irish taxpayers. Those resources should not be
used to forward the ratification of a
Treaty-cum-Constitution that would hugely increase the Commission's powers
at the expense of Irish and other EU citizens who ultimately provide those
resources - a Treaty moreover that may never come into force if it is
rejected by one of the 25 EU Member States.

Irish voters should be permitted to make up their minds on the EU
Constitution without outside intervention of any kind from the EU
Commission or its Commissioners. Commissioner McCreevy should think again.

(Signed)

Anthony Coughlan

Secretary