There is no need to worry about future trade with the EU if we withdrew from it. We buy far more of their goods than we buy of ours. If trade stopped altogether, the EU countries would lose far more than we would.

The Germans will still want to go on selling to us their Mercedes, BMWs and Volkswagens, the Italians their Fiats and the French their Renaults, wines and perfumes. We could easily enter into a Free Trade Agreement with them, because they would be mad not to. Indeed, the EU has just entered into a Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, for example, which would suit Britain very well. Even without negotiating a Free Trade Agreement, the UK would be better off if we exported to the Single Market from outside the EU because our contributions to the EU outweigh our trade advantages by about £2 Billion per annum. Only about 14 per cent of everything Britain produces (Gross Domestic Product - GDP) is exported to the EU. This amount is declining and in deficit. Another 14 per cent goes to the rest of the world. The remaining 72 per cent of our GDP is our domestic economy. We should not let the mangy EU tail go on wagging our healthy UK dog. The need us far more than we need them. From Democracy Movement

What do we pay our contribution for?

Much of it is wasted running the absurdly over-regulated bureaucracy of the EU. The EU is like a paper-making factory. The number of regulations, directives and legal acts issued by the EU has increased more than tenfold since Britain joined and there are now over 25,000 in force. The EU spends most effort on the least important subjects. The Ten Commandments run to 300 words and the American Declaration of Independence to just under 1330. In contrast, the EU directive on the export of duck eggs runs to over 26,900 words - a time-consuming bureaucratic blizzard of bumf. From Democracy Movement

Europe: the wolf is here
May 12th, 2003

This is it: the moment that we have repeatedly been told would never come about. The EU is about to transform itself, de jure and de facto, into a single state. The European Convention, which has been meeting this past year under the chairmanship of the former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, will issue its final text in June. That draft will be adopted by the EU's leaders next year, and a new polity will be born.

We realise that we are making a huge claim. Some readers may think we are being alarmist. If we are honest, Euro-sceptics have occasionally been a little too ready to decry each new Brussels initiative as a mortal blow to Britain's independence. Like the boy who cried "wolf!", they may have damaged their credibility. But the point of that story is that the wolf does eventually turn up, and that is the moment we have reached now.

If you have the time, read the draft yourself (it can be accessed at european-convention.eu.int). Look at the number of areas in which EU jurisdiction is specified: competition, trade, asylum and immigration, foreign affairs, industrial policy, agriculture, fisheries, energy, transport, regional government, consumer health, social and employment policy, justice and home affairs.

The list goes on and on. In fact, it is easier to make the point the other way around by asking how many Whitehall ministries would be left fully in control of their own affairs. The answer is one: the Department of Health.

If this is not a plan for a United States of Europe, it is difficult to think of what is. In fact, just in case we miss the point, M Giscard has helpfully suggested a new name for the entity: the United States of Europe. It may be, of course, that British ministers will succeed in blocking this name. They may also get their way over the removal of the word "federal" from Article 1. But, whatever name is used, there is no disguising the content.

Article 9 spells out the legal position with brutal clarity: "The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it by the Constitution, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States." British Europhiles have been quick to point out that EU law has been supreme over our national statutes ever since 1973 - although we do not remember them being so quick to admit this at the time.

None the less, there is a world of difference between a treaty and a constitution. The former binds its states as signatories; the latter creates a new legal order, which does not depend on the member states to bestow powers upon it. On the day the proposed constitution comes into force, all previous EU treaties will be dissolved.

Legally speaking, we will then be a constituent province of a new state, without even the right of automatic secession. No wonder M Giscard and his fellow draftsmen like to compare their work with that of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787: they, too, are acting as midwives at the birth of a nation.

The subordinate status of the member states is underlined in virtually every clause of the text. The Commission will get new powers, and its leader will become a kind of President of Europe. There will be an EU "Minister for Foreign Affairs", and a unified diplomatic service. The Union will acquire legal personality, enabling it to take over from its member states on the UN and other international organisations.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights will be given binding force, making huge swathes of national life subject to the whims of European judges. An embryonic criminal code will be drawn up, with a European Public Prosecutor and a federal police force, Europol. There will be a mechanism for punishing recalcitrant states by removing their voting rights.

How often have we been assured by the Pattens and Kennedys and Blairs that "No one wants a European superstate"? This "No one" is plainly a pretty influential fellow in Brussels. Remember how "No one" wanted tax harmonisation, the social chapter, a European army? It seems that what "No one" wants today becomes law tomorrow.

It would be easier to respect Tony Blair if he were prepared to make his case from first principles - if he were prepared to say "I believe that Britain would be more prosperous if we had pan-European taxation", or "Britain would be safer if we were defended by EU armed forces" or "Britain would be freer if our rights were protected by European judges". We might disagree with him, but at least we could have an honest argument. What is dishonest and discreditable is to pursue this agenda while all the time denying it.

Whenever Mr Blair plans a new transfer of powers to Brussels, he falls back on a well-rehearsed three-stage plan. Stage one is denial: "No one is even talking about a European constitution (or a European police force, or whatever). It only goes to show how paranoid these sceptics are that they could suggest such a thing."

Stage two is bravado: "All right, they're talking about it, but don't worry: we have a veto and we're prepared to use it." Stage three is resignation: "It's no use complaining now: the whole thing has been settled."

Labour has been helped in its strategy by the invisibility of the Conservative foreign affairs team. Indeed, the one Tory MP on the Convention, David Heathcoat-Amory, has been doing the work of his front bench for them. In particular, he has grasped that the Convention could be turned into an opportunity, both for Britain and for the Tories.

For, if this country were to refuse to ratify, it would be offered a form of associate membership of the new bloc. Such a dispensation - being part of a single market, but not a political union - is what most British voters have wanted all along. If the Tories could offer it to them, they would reap a commensurate reward. What a pity if they were to leave it too late.

Taken from The Times

Young voices shouting against creeping tyranny
William Rees-Mogg, May 12, 2003

It is going to be difficult to get an adequate debate on the European Constitution. So far, the issues have not been properly explained to the public, either by the media or by the Government. The scale of the new proposal is immense, far bigger than the questions of the Euro, the Maastricht Treaty, or even of Britain's original decision to join the then European Economic Community.

The drafts so far published will be subject to further revision and negotiation. They involve a total change in the nature of the Government of the United Kingdom, and of all the other nations of the European Union.

In simple terms, we should all cease to be independent nations; the sole independent nation would be the EU itself. And that nation would not be a democracy.

The proposals include a common Defence and Foreign Policy, a European Economic Policy, a legal personality for Europe with universal citizenship, the supremacy of the new European legal system based on the Charter of Rights, and overriding European control in all the major domestic areas, including health, education, crime, immigration and the environment.

Instead of being self-governed, all the nations of Europe would be governed by the agencies of the Union, which are primarily bureaucratic. There is no parallel to this in British history; it is perhaps closest to the process by which the United Kingdom itself was created, and Scotland and Ireland lost their own parliaments. That has had to be reversed.

The process is very far advanced. The Government's first great failure has already occurred. Apart from his Cardiff speech of last November, in which he presented an extreme Euro-centralist view, the Prime Minister has not put the issues before the people, and he has not made clear to his European partners the limits of what Britain could accept. Indeed, the Government's position has been very confused.

The draft Constitution speaks clearly of a common Foreign and Defence Policy. In November the Prime Minister seemed to go a long way towards accepting this. He said of these policies that "we need more Europe, not less".

Yet the Iraq intervention has shown how divided Europe is on international issues. A common policy over Iraq would have been anti- American, and would have made it impossible for Britain to support the United States action.

This is the tipping point between a Europe of nations and a single nation of Europe; there is not all that much time. Giscard d'Estaing will present the draft Constitution to the European summit at Salonika on June 20. That is the first point at which the British people will see the whole Constitution in its final draft form. There has not been any full discussion in Britain so far; there is therefore no national consensus, except possibly a consensus to reject membership of a bureaucratic European superstate.

The Salonika meeting will refer the Constitution to an intergovernmental conference. The Italians will be in the chair of Europe for the second half of 2003, and expect to produce a second Treaty of Rome by Christmas. The British Government hopes to be able to water down some of the more extreme proposals which transfer power from the nations to the European centre.

No doubt it will have some success. In European negotiations there is always something which can be dropped in order to give each country its own little negotiating victory. But for those who see the Constitution as unacceptable in its entirety, because it destroys Parliamentary self- Government, the negotiations offer little hope.

We do not want to lose 100 per cent of our liberty in order for Tony Blair to come back from Rome claiming to have won back the last 20 per cent of it.

The tabloid press is beginning to explain what is proposed to its readers, or at least The Sun and the Daily Mail are doing so. It is not politically correct to thank heaven for The Sun and the Mail, but their coverage stands in striking contrast to the Europhile silence of the BBC. On Thursday Trevor Kavanagh in The Sun reported a particularly important parliamentary occasion.

There are two MP's who were appointed as members of the Convention; they have played an excellent role which may yet prove to be heroic. They are both now backbenchers, though they have successfully held ministerial office. They are both excellent constituency Members. I know because I have visited both in their constituencies. David Heathcoat-Amory sits for Wells in Somerset, and has held off repeated Lib-Dem attacks. Gisela Stuart sits for Edgbaston in Birmingham. These two members of the European Constitutional Conventional have tried to represent the British point of view. Mrs Stuart herself was born in Germany of German parents. She is no Little Englander.

Last Wednesday they were reporting on the Constitutional process to a Commons Committee. Heathcoat-Amory said: "It is time for plain speaking by this House on whether such a Constitution is reconcilable with our position as a self-governing nation. This is too important to be left to parliamentary procedure and must be given to the people." Gisela Stuart said that Europe risked turning into an unaccountable monster. "We should never trade bureaucratic efficiency in return for democratic accountability." That is, of course, the core issue; it is exactly what Giscard's draft Constitution proposes. These warnings came from two first-class Members of Parliament, one Conservative, one Labour, who have worked on every stage of the Constitutional Convention.

The Government is resisting the proposal that the Constitution should be ratified by a Rreferendum, though eight other European countries are expected to have one, and there is even a Referendum movement in Germany. What our Government at present proposes is to put whatever treaty is agreed in Rome, or next year, through the normal parliamentary procedure. It will use its huge majority from the 2001 election, in which the Constitution of Europe was not an issue, and it will use the power of the Labour whips.

In both Houses, amendments will be moved to the Bill, whenever it comes, to make ratification conditional on a Referendum. After all, we have had Referendums on the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and on the Mayors, and we are expecting to have them on the Euro and on Regional Government.

It would take a formidable revolt to win a Referendum vote in the House of Commons, though there is support for it. There will be a better chance in the House of Lords, where the Conservatives, probably a majority of cross-benchers, some Lib Dems and some Labour rebels will support the Referendum.

Everything will depend on public opinion, particularly the opinion of the young. A group of young people, of all parties and views on Europe, have been talking to each other. They were all too young to have had a vote when Britain last held a Referendum on Europe. Half of them were not born at that time. They feel that it is their future which is being determined. One of them is my youngest daughter, Annunziata, who is the Editor of the European Journal. They have set up a new website: www.trustthepeople.org to fight for a Constitutional Referendum.

We need to look at this debate from all points of view. So far, the BBC and the Government have failed to discharge their public duty. The BBC has not understood the historic nature of the choice. The Government has not even tried to create a coherent public view of the Constitutional issues. The BBC governors should ask the board of management to mount a full-scale debate on an impartial basis.

The nation is entitled to decide its own future, and to defend its own democracy; the new European Cconstitution itself cannot prosper without public consent and democratic authenticity. In Britain we are accustomed to being democratic; we expect to hold our Governments to account and to dismiss them when they fail. That was what happened to Chamberlain in 1940.

An integrated and centralised Europe, run by bureaucrats, would in any case be a weak form of Government; it would lack the strong basis of public support. But if it were to be created, against the wishes of the British people, the British would not support it in times of crisis, such as come to all Governments, sooner or later.

Tony Blair should understand this: the British people will not be hijacked into a bureaucratic European superstate.

Taken from The Times

We cannot join a feeble Euro-zone
Liam Halligan Mon, 12 May 2003 09:02:56 +0100

The outcome of a Referendum on British Euro membership would probably hinge on one apparently simple factor. Those fighting for UK Euro membership can only hope to win if one magic ingredient is in place, which is a strong public perception that the Euro-Zone's economy is in better shape than ours.

On that basis, the pro-Euro lobby should be grateful that the Treasury's assessment, due to be published the week after next, rules out a vote for now. The idea that the single currency "isn't working", that members actually suffer from being inside the Euro-Zone, is rapidly taking hold. Even if our war-emboldened Prime Minister put his full weight behind the Yes-camp, against that adverse backdrop he would find it difficult to win.

Germany, of course, is the cause celebre. Europe's largest economy is set to grow a mere 0.4 per cent this year, compared with 2.2 per cent th the UK. Unemployment, close to 10 per cent, is twice the British figure. Upcoming data may show Germany contracted in the six months to March, placing it in technical recession.

The country badly needs a cut in interest rates and a falling currency to encourage exports. A boost to demand from increased Government borrowing would also be helpful. But in the Euro-Zone, all of this is beyond the German Government's control: interest rates are kept higher than is appropriate for Germany by the European Central Bank, its budget deficit is restricted by the so-called growth and stability Pact, and the value of the Euro is rising

The Europhiles retort - that Germany is special case, given the traumas of reunification - would be more convincing if other members weren't now going the same way. France joined Germany in recording a GDP contraction in the final quarter of 2002. And every month since Euro notes and coins were launched, French unemployment has risen.

Austria, too, is in its worst state for over 20 years. Growth was O.75 per cent last year, compared with an average of over 2.5 per cent during the 1990s. Finland, similarly, has situated .

The Netherlands, traditionally a high-growth economy, is close to stagnation - GDP grew by only 0.2 per cent in 2002. Even the Italians, who saw the Euro as salvation from years of financial mismanagement, are now having second thoughts. Italy's economy grew by only 0.4 per cent in 2002, as consumer spending dried up.

A lot of these problems may not be caused by the Euro. The launch of the currency has partly coincided with prolonged global uncertainty and plunging markets worldwide.

But a compelling case can be made that the Euro-Zone's performance has been particularly bad because of its "one size fits all" monetary policy. Low-inflation countries like Germany are saddled with high real interest rates (the rate adjusted for inflation) whereas high inflation members such as Ireland endure low real rates - with both cases, the, exact opposite of what is required.

Meanwhile, the constraints on Government spending have sparked popular discontent . In Italy, Portugal and Greece, Euro-inspired spending cuts have sparked mass demonstrations. The building of Dublin's new metro system "won't happen", the Irish government says, unless Brussels changes the rules.

Even more contentious have been Euro-inspired price rises, as retailers "rounded up" during the launch. In Germany, the Euro is known as the "teuro" - a pun on the word for expensive.

Britain's pro-Euro camp needs to stress any kind of positive it can. No surprise, then, that much has been made of the Euro's recent surge. The pound's fall last week, to its lowest level since the single currency's launch, brought observations that we could "lock in a competitive exchange rate".

The trouble is, the Euro's new strength can only exacerbate the Euro- Zone's economic head-aches. Equity markets take a dim view of this Euro surge -and with good reason, given the likely dampener on exports. If the single currency remains at this level the case for joining can only diminish.

Should we ever vote on the Euro, issues of political Sovereignty, and raw emotion, will also play their part. But economic comparisons will be right up there too.

In 1975, the Yes camp reversed unfavourable opinion polls, securing the Referendum victory thet kept us in what was then called the European Economic Community. But back then, Britain was the sick man of Europe.

So if the Yes-camp wants to win this time, it probably needs to prove that the Euro-Zone is a more robust economy than the UK's. On current form, that will be challenging.

Taken from The Times

Designed by TAMBA Internet