Most recent :
|
CAN WE PLEASE HAVE SOME OF OUR MONEY BACK?
|
|
|
|
Brussels' propaganda is below the belt
|
|
|
|
Landmark Challange to National UK ban on smoking now imminent
|
|
|
Search Speeches and Articles
| |
| News and Articles |
|
|
The EU is not a federal superstate - or so we are told!
|
The European Union may have its own flag, anthem, currency, police force, central bank, parliament, civil service, police force, army (sorry - European defence force), multi-billion pound budget, and court. But the euro-federalists are desperate to tell us that the EU is not a federal superstate. They fear the backlash of public opinion if the establishment were to dare to admit the truth.
The proposed European Constitution was due to take this process further, creating a President and Foreign Minister. Already the European Union is implementing parts of the Constitution which has twice been rejected by voters.
The French and Dutch are patronised, being told that they only rejected the text because they didn’t understand it. Perhaps if they listen carefully next time and don’t ask too many awkward questions they might be allowed the privilege of voting again to give the ‘right’ answer next time. And if you don’t cause too much fuss about it, Mummy just might give you a sweetie.
Meanwhile, the relentless march towards integration continues. The European Commission has just won a landmark ruling establishing its authority to force member states to jail polluters. Maybe they should be jailed, maybe not. Maybe they would have been jailed anyway under the relevant legislation, maybe not. The point is that the principle has now been established, and power has been given to the European Commission.
As ever, it is left to the pro-EU Liberal Democrat MEP Chris Davies to rush gallantly to the EU’s defence. “This Court ruling gives (the Commission) more teeth with which to bite”. For once, we agree with him. That is precisely what the ruling does, and it is exactly why we oppose it. We remind him that the European Commission is unelected. We also remind him that eleven EU governments - Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, France, the UK, Spain, Portugal and Greece – opposed the measure, but it was adopted anyway.
European doublespeak was in overdrive, with this profoundly undemocratic measure described by Commission President Barroso as strengthening “democracy and efficiency in the EU”.
The British government has protested that “We firmly believed it was inappropriate to harmonise criminal law at an EU level”. What action does the British government plan to take to correct this injustice? How do they intend to regain the sovereignty conceded by this judgement? Or is it business as usual – using rhetoric to appease the British public, but making no practical effort to halt the progress towards a single European state?
--
Jonathan Arnott |
| Back to content list
To print this story click here. The story will open in a pop up window, Click on File and then click print, you can then close the pop up window.
|
|
|
|
