The French say"non"

[exleckie]

The French have voted NO to a european constitution. Hurrah to the French. As one of the advocates of europinism( ie france gov), this is a real blow to the fools who think that there will be a united europe.


What a dead donkey.

Same goes For a euro defence force,

Without the Brits, there will be no stability in "europe" (I will not use capitals where europe is concerned.)

Respect to the French for voting "NON"





Exleckie.


Unleash hell.

[mbga9pgf]

damn right. currently enjoying a £20 bottle of French rouge to celibrate this momentous occasion. This will not only be a crushing blow for Brussels, but for that tosser Blair and all his cronies, as they are due to take the helm in europe in six months time. Rather embarrassing seeing as we havent even held a vote do you not think? No wonder that coward wants to leave the UK leadership. Not content with royally screwing our economy, he wants his filthy hands on the other 20 odd member states now.

[16 blades]

About time the french did something honourable. Good show, mes amis.

16B

[Scud-U-Like]

I think the French people gave this matter a great deal of thought. It seems the majority of 'no' voters rejected the EU Constitution on the grounds that it was too capitalistic and undermined traditional French levels of social protection.

Ironic really, as the rejection of capitalism and the virtues of the French aren't things that are normally celebrated in this Forum. But then, it appears some people here can be blissfully hypocritical and unprincipled, so long as it furthers the cause of Eurobashing.

[BEagle]

Allons citoyens de l'Europe
Le jour de gloire est arrivé
Cette constitution cyclope
Abandonne tout aux Marchés (bis)
Entendez-vous dans nos campagnes
Mugir ces ultra-libéraux
Vautours des paradis fiscaux
Ils licencient vos fils vos compagnes

Refrain:
Ensemble citoyens
Changeons de direction
Votons, NON, NON
Une autre Europe
Dépend de notre NON

Nous voulons une Europe sociale
Visant le développement humain
Empêchant le dumping fiscal
Et construisant les biens communs (bis)
Chassons les profiteurs cyniques
Qui rient des inégalités
Encourageons la gratuité
Améliorons les services publics

Vive une Europe politique
Avec plusieurs cercles distincts
Vive une Europe démocratique
Au service des citoyens (bis)
Sortons du piège ultra-libéral
Chantages, Délocalisations
Faisons de la coopération
Le vrai ferment du progrès social

Nous voulons être solidaires
Pas de féroces concurrents
Nous abolirons la misère
Nous sommes interdépendants (bis)
Nous n'avons qu'une seule Terre
Dégradée par la pollution
Cessons sa marchandisation
Avant qu'elle ne devienne un enfer

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Waiting with baited breath for the pr00ne spin on this:E ......

al spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[MrBernoulli]

Hurrah!!! Thats put the cat among Tony's effing pigeons.

BEagle, que? I don't do French. Any chance of a 'translation Anglais'?

[BEagle]

¿Qué? is actually Spanish, amigo. En français, on dit "Quoi?".

My French was last used pendant les GCE 'O' level examinations de 1965!, so est plus qu' un morceau rouillé!
Try cutting and pasting into Word, then 'Tools, language, translate' and do a web translation. Not perfect, but will give you the right idea!

Salut!

[exleckie]

MrBernoulli,

Cat amongst he pigeons oh yes indeed. No doubt Prime Sinister B.Liar and his henchmen are cooking up ideas to force us into europe as we speak.

Incidentally, I am pro europe but in the sense that France should be France, GB should be GB, Spain should Spain etc and not part of a federal state.

By the way, why is B.Liar so intent on this eu superstate when he went through the process of devolution for Scotland and Wales? It doesn't make sense.

the guy is a menace to our way of life.

Once again, well done France :ok:, I will just sit back now and watch the pro superstate brigade try to breathe life into this corpse.

[ImageGear]

Goes really well to La Marseillaise sung a' Cappella after copious quantities of Burgundy, Bon Appetit.

Who said the French don't do bottle, here's one in the eye for the slush farm for corrupt, discredited crony funded ex-politicians a' la "Mandy", and the like.

Now if we can only get this clapped out government to do the honourable thing and self distruct.

Vive l' Independence, Vive L' Solidarity, Vive La France.

Mon Dieu, the French are revolting

a' tout alors

Imagegear

[tablet_eraser]

C'est une décision magnifique! Vive la République Francais! Et, pour la Grande Bretagne, Dieu sauvent la Reine et règnent Britainnia!

Mon Français est faible, je suis désolé.

Tony Blair doit démissionner immédiatement. J'espère que nous trouverons un meilleur futur pour l'Europe. Un futur qui permet à chaque nation sa liberté.

[MrBernoulli]

Yuck! Revolting language.

[BEagle]

I presume you're referring to Afrikaans...??

[ScienceDoc]

1) The french vote has not much to do with the constitution but with the french government.
2) Can't see why a united Europe is such a bad thing.
3) The so called constitution is an attempt to make the current EU managable. Can't see why it is a good thing to have an unmanageable mess.
4) Involving the people in the constitution making process wóuld certainly have been a good idea.
5) Grow up!

[ZH875]

President (wannabee) B.Liar will avoid the Disappointment of a UK 'NO' vote, simply by deciding that if the German government can do without a referendum, it will be fair enough for the UK government to vote on the UK poulations behalf.

I wonder what how many referenda the French will hold until they get a 'OUI' vote.

But for the moment 'Viva La France'

[BEagle]

Yes, well done indeed to the French for seeing through this crock of $hite! Just saw Bliar on TV - not looking very happy. And talking total bolleaux (as usual). I really hope that we'll get a referendum on this - another opportunity to tell Bliar to get stuffed!

The original vision of the EU was fine; however, moves towards the wholly ersatz People's European Republic are repellant. Particularly with Bliar as El Presidente.....

And here's just one reason why Eurocracy needs a huge kick up the ar$e:


"B-17 Flypast at Madingley cancelled

Eurocharges keep Sally B grounded

It is with the greatest regret that in the absence to date of an exemption to the European regulation that puts the B-17 into the weight category of an airliner, boosting its insurance by an unaffordable 500 per cent, it will not be possible for Sally B to participate in the official Memorial Day flypast over Madingley

For the past thirty years, this has been this B-17’s most important and poignant annual engagement, carried out in honour of the 79,000 Allied airmen who lost their lives fighting for our freedom in the Second World War.

We are devastated not to be able to pay tribute to all those young men, especially in this 60th Anniversary of the end of the War. The idea that the aircraft that flew to liberate Europe and now flies in honour of all those young men who gave their lives for that cause, should be put out of action by the very people who owe their freedom to its existence, simply beggars belief.

We remain hopeful that a way can be found through this illogical and unjust law, so that Sally B’s 30th Anniversary season in this country might not be her last. "

Words fail me...........

[cazatou]

Just driving around for the last few weeks in this area of the Midi Pyrenees it was evident from the number and size of the "Non" posters that it was exceedingly unlikely that Government would get the result it wanted.

In addition, changes are being implemented in the French Health System which will remove the ability of patients to consult as many doctors as they like. All residents will have to register with a single Doctor by 1 July. There is a great deal of suppressed anger over this.

[Navaleye]

Beags has again taken my words once again. I think we can all relax for a while and take pat on the back that this euro crap won't take our nationality currency and identity away for now at least. Now we can assume that they will continue to try. The parasite Blair and his co parasites won't give up that easily. Be on your guard and enjoy the good news. Don’t trust this odious liar man any further than you can throw him.
:= :hmm: :O :D

[Flatus Veteranus]

It was amusing listening to Bill Cash talking to a French Europhobe in Paris the other morning. The reasons for their NON stance were exactly the opposite of Cash's NO argument.

BEagle , your version of the Marseillaise is super. I will send it on to my daughter who married a frog and teaches English in French primary schools. Do not denigrate your 'O' Level French; my daughter had to spend a fair amount of time sorting out her "Chéries' " grammaire français before they can tackle any Anglais

Do not despair. Out of all this may materialise what most people want: a free trade area encompassing the present membership of the EU and a very much reduced central secretariat to help coordinate policy. No more.

Much as I love the Turks, they will never be "European" in culture or values, and should never be allowed to have a powerful influence on the laws and institutions of "Europe".

[BEagle]

Regrettably not my version of La Marseilleise, FV, it's just something I came across recently!

Salut aux grenouilles!!

Et merde á l’emmerdeur qui s'appelle Blair!

[Tartan Giant]

Yes, well done indeed to the French for seeing through this crock of $hite! Just saw Bliar on TV - not looking very happy. And talking total bolleaux (as usual). I really hope that we'll get a referendum on this - another opportunity to tell Bliar to get stuffed!

Bloody ACE!

I am in agrement with you BEagle all the way.


Cheers

TG

[pr00ne]

My God there’s a lot of ignorant rabid right wing ranting nonsense being talked in this thread!

You may want to consider exactly WHAT the French have said NON to, or rather WHY they said NON.

The EU Constitution is known by many in France as the “Anglo-Saxon Constitution” as they believe that it threatens their comfy rather cloistered economy and opens it up to competition from the more aggressive economies of the UK and further east in the new Europe. The 35 hour week is one of many features that the French would dearly love to see enshrined in the constitution, though it is one of many factors crippling the French economy resulting in unemployment well over 10% and rising and even French firms now relocating out of the country.

Yet mbga9pgf still rants about Blair royally screwing our economy? What planet do you live on?

Actually, a No vote is most probably the best result for Blair, if the Dutch also vote No on Wednesday, as I suspect they will, then he will not have to bother with a referendum that he would have undoubtedly lost as it will be dead in the water and we will not have the embarrassment of the UK being the only country out of 25 to vote no.

As to a European super state, that died a death when the EU expanded to 25 nations, as it expands further it will become less and less centred and more and more a loose grouping, it was only ever going to be a super state if it had stayed at 6 or 7 nations all clustered together.

[John Eacott]

Waiting with baited breath for the pr00ne spin on this

15+ hours, was it worth waiting for ;)

[MarkD]

Don't worry, the rest of Europe will gang up on the miscreant country which voted no, just like Denmark and Ireland in the Maastricht and Nice referenda. How very un-communautaire they will say. Votez encore! First in line to bully will be the French... oh, wait, hang on :D

[Roland Pulfrew]

I think it was worth waiting for.....
My God there’s a lot of ignorant rabid right wing ranting nonsense being talked in this thread!
Like:
ScienceDoc - 2) Can't see why a united Europe is such a bad thing.
ZH875 - I wonder what how many referenda the French will hold until they get a 'OUI' vote.
BEagle - "B-17 Flypast at Madingley cancelled Eurocharges keep Sally B grounded [Interesting to note that the French B17 is still flying. As usual with the French, one rule for us and one rule for the rest of Europe - but good on them for keeping 'their' B17 airborne]
Scud - I think the French people gave this matter a great deal of thought. It seems the majority of 'no' voters rejected the EU Constitution on the grounds that it was too capitalistic and undermined traditional French levels of social protection.

Good to see prOOne resort to the default name calling of the left leaning chattering classes, actually supported by ScienceDoc with his oh so helpful "5) Grow up" T:mad:r.

I for one dislike the French, but I do respect them for their self-belief.

[Mad_Mark]

I think Prune had to wait for the stock letter to be circulated from Labour Party HQ before he could put his name at the end and post it as if they were his own words. This guy spouts so much party line s#!t that he is either spoon fed it or is a party activist. Either way, he always comes across on here as a right knob-head :ok:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[BEagle]

A joke told to me at Airbus (by a German/French team!):

A Brit, a German and a Frenchman are discussing something they intend to do with the aeroplane.

The Brit looks in the Flight Manual to see whether there's any rule which says that he can't do it.

The German looks in the Flight Manual to find the rule which tells him whether he can do it.

The Frenchman says "What Flight Manual"?

I do like the way the French treat bureaucrats. Although they have tortuous rules and regulations for themselves, it seems to be every Frenchman's duty to do whatever he can to get round those rules! Whereas we meekly submit....

[Pilgrim101]

As always, the spoon fed party line from Proone !:yuk:

Blair is now easing himself out of the mire and the naysayers are spinning to find an explanation for the people's rejection of this blunderbuss of a European "Project". Make no doubt about it dear Proone, the people have spoken and will now continue to speak loudly about Political incompetence, graft and corruption at the heart of Brussels.

When the best we can appoint to Europe is that mincing, deeply suspect W:mad: r Mandelson, then the whole thing should be binned by definition.

Your statement is exactly the case for no European Constitution in that the diverse reasons for it's failure exemplify the harsh fact that we are all different, with different personal, political and national aspirations.

Nothing undermines this crass piece of force fed legislation like the French rejection ! It was after all their pet project.

[Circuit Basher]

Like Beags, my French stopped at O Level (32 years ago!), but one of the many free translation Web sites at
Free Translation (http://ets.freetranslation.com/) gave the following loose approximation (I recognised the metre as being La Marseillaise):

Go European citizens
The day of glory arrived
This constitution cyclops
Abandons all to the Markets (encore)
Hear You in our countries
To Bellow these ************
Vautours of the fiscal paradises
They dismiss your sons
your companions

Refrain:
Together citizens
Change direction Vote, NO, NO
Another Europe
Depends on our NO

We want a social Europe
Aiming the human development
Preventing the fiscal dumping
And constructing the common
good (encore)

Hunt the cynical profiteers
That laugh inequalities
Encourage wantonness
Improve the public services

Lively a political Europe
With several
Lively distinct circles a democratic Europe
To The service of the
citizens (encore)

Go out of the trap ************ Blackmail
Délocalisations
Do cooperation
The true one close social progress

We want to be united
Not any ferocious competitors will abolish
Us the misery are for
Us interdependent
(encore)

have only Us an alone Earth
Layered by pollution let us
Stop his marchandisation
before she does not become a hell

Hope the gist of this is clear enough!

The worrying thing about all of this is that the French will just keep being asked the question until they give the 'right' answer! :(

President B Liar will obviously run a mile now from facing up to the UK electorate and actually asking them what they want from the EU!

If in any doubt, my views are that the original idea of a Common Market with free trade and employment was a good one. The move towards a pan-European state is not a good move for the UK, which has balanced trade outside the EU. Trade figures for 2004 show the following facts:

Exports to EU Countries: £m 106,304
Imports from EU Countries: £m 132,611

Exports to Non EU Countries: £m 110,804
Imports from Non EU Countries: £m 139,267
Figures from The UK Office of National Statistics Report Mar 05 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/trd0505.pdf)

I remain to be convinced how fixing our economy to known high inflation economies such as Italy and Greece can ever be a good thing! Nothing against the wops and zorbas per se, however!! ;) :D

[Edited 'coz I made an ar$e of identifying import and export figures correctly - now shown accurately!]

[exleckie]

Listening to the BBC World service earlier today, i heard some europhile spout,

"Well we don't necessarily need the constitution to be be ratified by all of the 25 member states, we may reduce that to 20 of the 25 states..............."

So somehow, bullying five states into a european federal superstate is obviously how business is done in such a democratic and free europe.

For all those who think that concept of a superstate is a good thing, just look at the people trying to engineer it, Kinnock and Mandelson spring to mind.:yuk:

Drop the dead donkey before it becomes a stinking ass.


Exleckie

[Scud-U-Like]

Perhaps we should have a good look at our own backward and shambolic little 'constitution', before we start knocking the proposed EU one.

Our head of state rules, but has no power. Our head of government acts (virtually unfettered) as de facto president and commander-in-chief. A minority of the population can decide who holds the majority in parliament (but then parliament has been reduced to a mere talking shop anyway).

I doubt the EU could come up with anything more bizarre.

[16 blades]

But at least it is OUR constitution, Scud - not the unliateral wet-dream of some geriatric, power-crazed, deeply corrupt ex-Frog president.

16B

[Archimedes]

I take it you're not a fan of Giscard d'Estang, then, 16B? :)

[16 blades]

Yes, that's the fella. Some of the pies his fingers have (allegedly) been in beggar belief - some involving African despots and diamond mines, ISTR.

Actually, we do have a written constitution in the UK - well, parliament does anyway. It's only one sentence, and paraphrases as some thing like "Parliament is sovereign but cannot bind its successors" - something the EU constitution aimed to do!

16B

[exleckie]

Our head of state rules, but has no power. Our head of government acts (virtually unfettered) as de facto president and commander-in-chief. A minority of the population can decide who holds the majority in parliament (but then parliament has been reduced to a mere talking shop anyway).

Scud, yes, this does seem bizarre but I don't think parliament should be passed off as a talking shop. However considering the present bunch in charge who are using a "confuse, baffle, divide and then take advantage of bewilderment strategy", it is easy to see why it is considered to be a talking shop.

the countries within Europe have fundamentally different attitudes towards politics and economics. Any attempt to bind the countries closer together through a complex constitution is bound to FAIL.

ga99js,

You may agree with my comment on an earlier post that France should remain France, GB should remain GB, Spain etc etc etc. But yes,you are right about the fundemental politics and economics of each european country in this ridiculous debacle.



I for one dislike the French, but I do respect them for their self-belief.

Roland Pulfrew,

Same here.



16B

the super euro state thing is indeed unilateralistic but is only a pipe dream of a few and the brainwashed lefties who follow suit.

As far as monetary values go, the eu as it stands can not account for missing billions so why should the average man on the street want the same as the inept social engineers that the pro lobby want.

Exleckie

[Scud-U-Like]

16 Blades

Even the convention (for that is all it is) that Parliament cannot bind its successors doesn't amount to much. For example, in passing the The Statute of Westminster 1931, Parliament did bind its successors, in that it removed the Westminster Parliament's power to make laws for the Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the then Irish Free State and Newfoundland. I'm not, of course, suggesting this was bad law, only that Parliament can and does bind its successors.

Our unwritten constitution is a dog's breakfast, which, particularly since the early 1970s, has allowed our cabinet style of government to turn into a presidential one. Parliament's only residual power is to press the self-destruct button, when the president (or prime minister, if you will) has done his (or her) worst and throughly outstayed his welcome. I imagine even the EU could design a better safeguard against autocracy than we've managed.

[16 blades]

Although I doubt they would, scud, sincde it's an autocracy of the few powerful lefty elitists by design, dressed up to look benign.

16B

[pr00ne]

Now the Dutch say No, around 63% by the look, who would have thought, say five years ago, that the first two nations to say No to a proposed EU Constitution would have been the French and the Dutch? Makes for interesting speculation to wonder what would have happened in Germany if they had had a vote?
If the Germans had voted no as well, what price the Daily Mail would have instantly swung behind the “Yes” campaign?


ga99js

Interesting post, I think that this fundamental difference you quote will be a STRENGTH of the EU post constitution, by promoting divergence and diversity in equal measure without over reaching itself in terms of regulation it could be a winner.

As it happens I have read the whole Constitution, for professional reasons I hasten to add, and, whilst not exactly making good bed time reading, it is NOT the slavish over regulatory monster the likes of the Mail would have you think it is. It concentrates very much on the individual rights and freedoms of actual individuals whilst promoting a competitive economy, the bit the French didn’t like!

This means it goes someway to addressing the lack of a constitution like that in the US, though to be honest ga99js, the US constitution is more like 10 pages and you shouldn’t really read it without also reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights, as they really are a whole.

16 blades,

Read the damm thing! It does not seek to bind anybody. Nor is it an “autocracy of the few powerful lefty elitists”
It is these very same French lefties who orchestrated the “NON” campaign as it is far too free thinking market economy driven for them!

[Navaleye]

Well done the Cloggies for kicking this in the nuts! We are all much better of because of them.

[BEagle]

One wonders how the UK General Election result would have differed had these referenda results been known beforehand? Would the gurning liar and his slimy gang have been returned to office - or kicked firmly into touch.

And it's hardly surprising, given Gordon-the-Greedy's plethora of stealth taxes, that our economy is doing reasonably well......

[Circuit Basher]

I'd like to add my congratulations to the kaskopfe for assisting the process of converting the lame duck into a dead one!!

Anyone for orange sauce with that??!! :D

Of course, President B Liar will now be claiming that it's not dead, just pining for the fjords!! :D

As forecast, however, there is currently talk of the French being asked by the EU to commit to going back to the electorate to get the 'right' answer! :( Which part of NO don't they understand?

[16 blades]

Pr00ne,

I HAVE read the damn thing.

1. We will lose what few vetos we have left.

2. Crime, social, economic, defence, immigration and foreign policy will be dictated from brussels - UK parliament will no longer have the power to overrule.

3. The constitution contains a clause practically making it a criminal offence for a nation to 'not act in the best interests of the Union (read the 'best interests' of the EC, the president, and all other unelected bodies and individuals).

4. It demands we give up our seat on the UN Security Council.

5. It creates a european foreign minister to speak for all member states, effectively neutering independent foreign policy.

With all the above, we will effectively cease to function as an independent sovereign state - if we try to withdraw from the Union, see 3. above.

Well done the French and the cloggies. The reasons they voted against are irrelevant - what matters is that they did. Brussels - BLOW IT OUT YER HOOP!

16B

[JessTheDog]

The best case scenario would be if the European political "elite" suddenly realised that their arrogant approach to decision-making had alienated the people of Europe, and changed their ways.

The worst case - and most likely - scenario is that the European political "elite" will vow never to let the great unwashed ruin their project again, and will push through the majority of the constitution in disguised form through national parliaments.

[pr00ne]

16 blades,

More in accurate myth I am afraid, here is what the constitution actually says about your points;

1.The veto is still there, in Defence policy, Foreign policy, Taxation and Law and Order.

2. Nonsense! See below and above to refute that claim.

3. The Constitution actually insists that the UNION act in the best interests of the member states. The EU President is nothing more than a spokesperson with no executive powers.

4. As the Union has no executive powers over Foreign Policy or Defence there is no chance of the UK giving up its seat.

5. The EU Foreign Minister has NO executive powers and there is a national opt out enshrined in the constitution safeguarding national foreign policy independence.


Enshrined in the EU constitution is the essential fact that the Union is subsidiary to member states and can act only when the aims of the member states can better be achieved at Union level rather than national level. This will require a unanimous vote of all 25 member states to activate. (Note, THAT is a veto)

It also clearly states the Union shall respect the national identities of member states and respect their essential state functions including the territorial integrity of state, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.

[teeteringhead]

Was interesting to see Neil (Lord!) Kinnock on the box yesterday. He said the No-votes were in part because the French and (particularly) the cloggies hadn't really understood the question!

Of course he'd have held the same opinion if they had voted "yes".:rolleyes:

And is this really the same Kinnock who once described the Lords as being inhabited by:unelected busybodies and the descendants of brigands, muggers, bribers and gangsters So ... er ... which one are you then Neil:confused:

[VitaminGee]

Understanding the question is one thing - understanding the implications is quite another. Judging by the content of this thread, there is a wide variety of opinion on what adoption of this constitution would mean and, indeed, what the relevant document is actually saying.

My worry is that a significant proportion of the electorate (here and in Europe) may not be sufficiently well educated on this subject to make an informed decision and end up voting for what the editor of the Sun/Mirror/Star/Sport tells them to.

In the broader scheme of things, one could question the need for referenda at all. Parties should make their stance clear in pre-election manifestos and then stand or fall on the public vote. Referenda just pass the buck (a not uncommon tactic of Labour councils)!

I observe that the German Chancellor is trying to wipe off the orange sauce and revive the duck - after all, only two countries have voted so far!! :hmm:

Mange-tout, Rodney, Mange-tout!!

[Tartan Giant]

I agree with 16 blades in whole.

It's a pity that a FJ driver turned lawyer just does not get this EU Constitution sh7t. Poor pr00ne.

The now defunct architect of the EU Constitution himself said, [QUOTE]"Our constitution cannot be reduced to a mere treaty for co-operation between governments. Anyone who has not yet grasped this fact deserves to wear the dunce's cap".[/UNQUOTE]
Valery Giscard-d'Estaing - President of the EU Convention - speech in Aachen accepting the Charlemagne Prize for European integration , 29th May 2003


Perhaps [B]pr00ne can remember reading Lord Tebbit's column in the Mail on Sunday a few years back (24 April 2001, page 29) when he said,
[QUOTE]I asked the government to list those departments whose work is not subject to rules laid down by Our Masters in Brussels.
Seven weeks later, they reluctantly confessed. There is not a single government department - not even Defence - whose work is totally free from interference by non-elected foreigners over whom we have no control. Could there be a better example of Britain becoming, if not a foreign land, a land governed by foreigners?[/UNQUOTE]

It is generally acknowledged that at least 70% of our laws are from the EU stable (you should know that egh - JF retired).
How bloody dare the EU tell us what to do and how to do it!

You can pick any area you like and you'll find there's an EU dictated Regulation/Law/Instruction/ in there somewhere - probably gold-plated by BLIAR.

SallyB is a sad and disgusting example where an EU Regulation comes across the water and grounds this wonderful machine through some dumb ass thinking.

How about some other examples? Farming.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050601b.htm

".............Additionally, it will fulfil an EU requirement."

"....... Commission Decision 2003/100/EC requires the establishment of a framework to recognise the TSE-resistant status of certain flocks of sheep."

"Horse Passports" - brought in on the back of those in France (bless them for saying NO) and such places who eat horse meat, wanting to make sure that anything coming from the UK is OK and does not have some vaccinations that will upset the tummy!


Fishing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3324405.stm

"To scrap a 30-year-old boat, that's okay," says Egun Dam, "it's done its job. But a three-year-old boat? That's criminal.
She could be used somewhere else in the world. The system is totally crazy."
They would have preferred to buy whole vessels but the EU insists that the hulls of decommissioned fishing boats must be completely destroyed.
As we watched the decommissioning process in Denmark last week, I wondered out loud what became of the piles of metal fragments formed from the destruction of Scottish fishing boats.

"They are recycled," came the swift reply from one of the wrecking crews. "They go to be smelted down for the German car industry."
----------------

How about the Metric Martyrs? A criminal record for selling bananas in lbs.

I had to have toughened glass (more expensive) fitted to the upper floor windows some years back, because of some stupid EU regulation demanded if my windows were below 'such and such' a height off the floor there was a risk of people falling through the windows - that might happen in EU Lego Land but not here in the South East.

There are Care Homes that have had to shut down in the UK because they cannot afford the huge expense of meeting new EU Health and Safety Laws.
My wife has first hand experience of an establishment where two old souls (bedridden) had lived in the same big room for years; but that was not good enough for the EU, and they had to have their own rooms and thus their friendship and companionship was severed by some bloody suit in Brussels.


I agree with 16 blades and disagree with you on items 1 thru 5.

I think it is wonderful that France and Holland have had the common sense to say NO to a re-run of the rough ideas Hitler had - a super power who wanted everything, but did not ask the people about expansion or anything like it. A bit like the Parliament Act.

Democracy Movement : http://www.democracymovement.org.uk

10-point summary : Updated in line with 29th October 2004 final version of EU Constitution

The EU Constitution will...

1. ...change the status of the EU from a treaty-based agreement between countries to a supra-national entity based on its own Constitution (Article I-1); give the EU legal personality to make legal agreements in its own right (Article I-7) and formally establish the primacy of EU laws over those of national governments (Article I-6). The EU's committment to promoting "economic, social and territorial cohesion" (Cohesion: "the act of forming a united whole") is reaffirmed (Article I-3). If ratified, this Constitution will be the foundation of a centralised EU State;

2. ...create a full-time EU President (Article I-22) who will be a considerably more powerful figure than the existing rotating Council president yet will not be directly elected by voters or even the European Parliament; 1. The European Council shall elect its President, by a qualified majority, for a term of two and a half years, renewable once.

3. ...give the EU the power to 'define and implement' a common foreign and defence policy (Article I-12), which will "cover all areas of foreign policy" and which member states will be required to "actively and unreservedly support in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
(Article I-16). An EU Foreign Minister will also be created, responsible for conducting the "common foreign and security policy" (Article I-28);

4. ...remove our elected government's right to make laws unless the EU decides not to in a vaguely-worded list covering almost all areas (Article I-14). Areas include the internal market, social policy, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer protection, transport, energy, 'freedom, security and justice', and 'common safety concerns in public health matters';

5. ...give the EU the power to take 'supporting, co-ordinating or complementary action' in a further range of vaguely-defined areas including the 'protection and
improvement of human health', industry, culture, education, youth, sport, vocational training, 'civil protection' and 'administrative co-operation' (Article I-17);

6. ...give the EU new powers to 'co-ordinate' economic, employment and social policies (Article I-15). Article III-210 lists the almost unlimited areas of social policy where the EU will have the right to 'support and complement' the activities of member states. Even the Treasury has commented "Many of the issues being considered in the EU Convention [which drew up the EU Constitution] could have far-reaching consequences for the future performance of EU economies, whether they are part of the euro area or not." (HM Treasury assessement of the five euro tests, 9th June 2003).
Article III-147 will allow the EU to enforce the 'liberalisation' of an area of economic activity, from which the EU has already confirmed public services like health, education and social services cannot be excluded (report: EUobserver);

7. ...abolish the national veto in almost all areas, so that Britain can be increasingly out-voted by other countries on new EU laws. This will cost us crucial influence in the EU Council of Ministers. Influence is based on power - without the power to veto EU laws, we can make our views about them known but there is no reason why they should be taken into account;

8. ...allow movement towards an EU criminal justice system on the continental model, which doesn't have juries or habeas corpus (the right to be brought before a judge to have your detention legally and publicly justified), through harmonisation of national laws and mutual recognition of judicial and extra-judicial decisions (Article I-42) and the power to set common definitions of criminal offences and sanctions (Article III-271).
The role of Eurojust is strengthened from 'co-cordination' of criminal prosecutions to also include their "initiation" and the extension of Eurojust's "structure, operation, field of action and tasks" is permitted (Article III-273).
An EU Public Prosecutor's Office is proposed (Article III-274). The EU would also be given the right to extend the powers of its rapidly-expanding police force, Europol (Article III-276), which enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution; [the old Soviet Union]

9. ...include the EU's 'Charter of Fundamental Rights' as Part II, giving it full legal force, including Article II-112 which sinisterly allows "limitations" of basic rights
"if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union".
Article II-114 forbids any political campaigning to reverse any aspects of the Charter. This is the document which former Europe Minister Keith Vaz said would have 'no more significance than the Beano' and which, just three years ago, the Government claimed to be completely opposed to giving legal force;

10. ...give all these new powers to the EU while setting in stone the EU's current undemocratic structure. The unelected European Commission will keep the sole right to propose new EU laws (Article I-26). The European Central Bank will stay politically unaccountable through a committment by all MEPs, EU officials and national governments "not to seek to influence the...European Central Bank" (Article III-188).
With increased use of Qualified Majority Voting in the Council of Ministers, the chances of being out-voted on EU laws and their being imposed on Britain regardless of whether our government, Parliament and people all oppose them will increase.


Far from a 'tidying up exercise' (that stupid phrase of Peter 'the pain' Hain had) of existing treaties and powers as the government claims, these changes add up to a fundamental and irreversible change in the nature of the EU and a significant increase in the centralisation of decision-making power with an undemocratic elite in Brussels - something that our forefathers did not lay down their lifes for in two world wars.

The German Bertelsmann Foundation demands a further streamlining of the military EU leadership structures, and the creation of an "EU security council"
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/article/1103151600.php


I'm still for saying NO - but the coward BLIAR will not play anymore!

TG

[pr00ne]

Tartan Giant,

Rather than read quotes from other people read the Constitution and you will see you are talking out of your behind!

[Tartan Giant]

Just to keep the pot boiling for pr00ne.

Would the ex-FJ jockey, now training to be a lawyer, AKA pr00ne like to explain how the handover of these powers to various units dotted across the EU equate to his idea that,
it is NOT the slavish over regulatory monster the likes of the Mail would have you think it is. It concentrates very much on the individual rights and freedoms of actual individuals whilst promoting a competitive economy, the bit the French didn’t like!


http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/features/viewarticle.aspx?id=177578

------------------

Almost unnoticed last weekend, while all eyes were on the breakdown of talks on the new European Union constitution, the same heads of government in Brussels were setting their seal on an astonishing coup d'etat.

In just a couple of minutes, after talks on the constitution collapsed, the European Council nodded through an agreement on the siting of the headquarters of no fewer than 10 new EU agencies, designed to take over a vast tranche of powers from national governments.

The purpose of these pan-European agencies, as outlined in the little-reported White Paper on EU Governance launched by President Prodi in 2001, is to set up a supranational system of government to give the European Commission control over national civil servants in ever-greater areas of policy and law enforcement, on issues ranging from aviation and food safety to human rights.

Working alongside the Commission, these powerful new agencies are taking over the powers of national governments, while leaving national officials in place merely to carry out their orders - with the added benefit for the EU that the bill for the new system, likely to amount to hundreds of billions of pounds a year, is then picked up by national taxpayers.

Among the 10 agencies parcelled out across the EU last weekend is the European Food Safety Agency, to be sited in Parma, Italy, which since 2001 has taken over from national governments control of all food safety law.

Britain 's own Food Standards Agency and the UK 's own food inspectors can only now act under the new agency's overall control, while the laws they enforce are made in Brussels.

The European Aviation Safety Agency, which has recently taken over all matters relating to air safety (see story above right), will be based in Cologne, Germany.

The European Maritime Safety Agency, enforcing a wide range of laws relating to shipping and the running of ports, will be in Lisbon.

The Railway Safety Agency, armed with immense new powers over the operation of Europe's railways, goes to Lille in France.

As part of the EU's takeover of national responsibilities for justice and law enforcement, London is to be the site of the new"European Police College", to promote the EU-wide integration of police forces.

Eurojust, the agency which is to co-ordinate the harmonisation of the EU's criminal justice systems, is in Holland.

The office of the European Public Prosecutor, to whom all national prosecution services will ultimately be answerable, will be in Luxembourg.


In a move which may be seen as somewhat cynical, the new Fisheries Control Agency, responsible for enforcement of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy, will be in Vigo, Spain - the country whose fishermen are an international byword for flouting conservation rules.

Royal Navy fisheries protection vessels will thus operate under the direction of officials based in Spain.


Eyebrows might similarly be raised at the nation chosen as the base for the European Network Security Agency, in charge of regulating internet security - Greece, the country with the lowest internet use in the EU.

Another powerful agency, to regulate the EU's chemicals industry, is to be in Helsinki.

Sweden will have the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, duplicating the work of the World Health Organisation.


The elevation of the EU's existing Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in Vienna into a full-fledged European Human Rights Agency will create potentially one of the most powerful agencies of all. It will direct enforcement by national officials of all human rights legislation across the EU, such as the directive recently passed into British law under which it is suggested that it may be illegal for firms with any Muslim employees to serve alcohol at office parties. [that's got to be bloody stupid egh FJ pr00ne?]


Also on the way, agreed to by Tony Blair in October, is the EU's Border Management Agency. This will use an army of officials recruited by new national agencies to control all traffic across the EU's frontiers with the outside world.
In the old Soviet Union, it may be recalled, "guarding the Union's external borders" was one of the key functions reserved for the KGB.
(Sunday Telegraph Christopher Booker's Notebook 21/12/2003 )

----------------------

I'm all ears FJ pr00ne.

TG

[pr00ne]

Tartan Giant,

..."Training to be a lawyer?" I've been a Barrister for twelve years!


Read the draft Constitution and you too will then see that what you are posting is sensationalist nonsensical claptrap.

[Tartan Giant]

Me I'm just a lawn mower, you can tell me by the way I walk.
It's the walk that got me, and perhaps the wig too.


I retract the statement: now training to be a lawyer.
Had you the time to make that clear in your profile, then we would all know.

Would you mind pr00ne trying to answer the questions posed from my behind - at least it's only my mouth that's there.

-----------
explain how the handover of these powers to various units dotted across the EU equate to his idea that,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is NOT the slavish over regulatory monster the likes of the Mail would have you think it is. It concentrates very much on the individual rights and freedoms of actual individuals whilst promoting a competitive economy, the bit the French didn’t like!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TG

[pr00ne]

Tartan Giant,

Handover of WHAT powers?

“Agencies” and “Centres” have very little actual power, co-ordinating policies is not quite the same as governing or ruling.

Subsidiarity is enshrined throughout the draft constitution, the veto remains on all matters appertaining to sovereignty and national interest.

If you want to know more then either read the document or engage me professionally, £1900 should do for an initial chat, but I won’t be prepared to offer that discount on the afternoon.

[Pilgrim101]

A Barrister

We'd never have gussed Proone :hmm:

[ZH875]

I've been a Barrister for twelve years!


More like a barack room lawyer the way he rants and tries to protect the misfits and wrongdoers

[Tartan Giant]

pr00ne
Your next profession should be a Noo Labour politician - you display the essentials; slink away from answering questions and have a panache to gravitate to what drives you - money.

The arrogance of asking anybody for £1900 for a "chat" is bloody greedy, too flash, and disreputable here - who the hell do you think you are matey?

You purport to know how good this crap EU Constitution is for the UK, so I challenge you to answer the questions; and let's drop the greed and lust for money, OK.

Have a chat amongst some ex-pilot/aircrew colleagues here on this 'thread' and don't get high and mighty again asking for obscene amounts of money for the dubious privilege.


You ask, "what powers"........... OK here's somebody else who talks from where I talk, according to your strange grasp of anatomy.
Sorry about using their superior knowledge, but we all have to learn from somewhere egh.

I will feed you with more little bits of anti-EU Constitution evidence as we go, so there is no overload for you.

Your first FJ target is to answer the questions previously posed: can you hit the target this time pr00ne without asking for money like some slapper?

TG


[QUOTE]

Steam-rollered by the Euro juggernaut


Commentary by Edward Heathcoat Amory


ONLY three months ago, the Prime Minister solemnly assured the nation that Britain still had 'complete control' over its immigration policies. Indeed, we enjoyed 'the best of both worlds' because 'unless we opt in (to European rules) we are not affected by them'. This was total rubbish. When the Tories announced their immigration plans this week, within hours Eurocrats in Brussels had made it clear that what Michael Howard had proposed was illegal under European Law.


What the Prime Minister had neglected to mention, while praising Britain's opt-in option, was that he had chosen to opt into everything that Brussels had come up with and that, once in, there was no opting out again. So when Mr Blair chose to sign up to the so-called Qualifications Directive, which set out a common European definition of a refugee, he committed all future British governments to it, unless they chose to either leave the European Union, or managed by some miracle to persuade our EU partners to allow us to renegotiate our membership.
Thus Britain has taken another short step down the long one-way road that is leading us inexorably to a European Superstate, with each milestone along the way marked by a further surrender of British sovereignty.


For 30 years, a combination of tricky and determined Eurocrats in Brussels, and stupid, naive and deceitful politicians in Britain, have marched the British people along this track. [with ex-FJ jockeys trying to shove us too].
The result is that today Britain is principally governed from Brussels by a political and administrative structure over which the people have no control [that word again pr00ne] at all.

The rot set in at the very beginning. At the time of the referendum on entering the Common Market in 1975, every household was sent a Government pamphlet which promised that 'no important new policy can be decided in Brussels or anywhere else without the consent of a British minister'.
All lies, of course, and they've continued ever since, under Labour and Tory Governments.
Bit by bit, our precious veto [you mentioned pr00ne did you not?] – the ability to say no - has been conceded, with 80 per cent of all decisions in Brussels now made by 'Qualified Majority Voting'.
In other words, even if Britain disagrees with a policy, we are easily steamrolled by the leviathan Euro-juggernaut.


What Britain has not surrendered voluntarily, the European Union has taken by stealth, using a number of well-practised tricks.

The first is to move the goal posts. No doubt Margaret Thatcher thought that giving Brussels control over health and safety was relatively innocuous, but Eurocrats - backed by the resolutely federalist European Court - later concluded that the 48-hour week, a long cherished goal of European socialists, was a health and safety issue, and so Britain had no veto over its implementation. [did you not mention pr00ne we had a veto on everything?]

Another method is the 'salami slice' - the implementation of a controversial measure, slice by thin slice. The establishment of a Euro-army is a good example of this.
THIS proposal started with a very small technical measure to allow military co-operation between member states.
Then came the promise that there would be no joint EU military planning staff to rival NATO.
A little later, that promise was broken. A 'Rapid Reaction Force', was set up. And gradually that Rapid Reaction Force will become a European army. [and of course HOON the buffoon has shrunk everything in uniform or painted red/white/blue which will mean we have no real fighting force on the ground/air/sea!].

Meanwhile, British politicians have used a number of techniques to lull their electorate into a false sense of security.
One is the big lie.
Remember subsidiarity [you mentioned that too pr00ne, remember], the Munich-style piece of paper which John Major waved on his return from Maastricht? This was supposed to guarantee that nothing would be done at European level if it could more efficiently be undertaken nationally. Unfortunately, Brussels hasn't yet found anything at all that falls into this category.

So what is the result of all this? At present, nearly 55 per cent of the laws going onto the British statute books originated in Brussels.
They are given only the most cursory examination by the Commons, since any complaint is met by the explanation that the Government has already committed Britain to their implementation, so Parliament might as well shut up and wield the rubber stamp.
You might think that in the face of all this, Mr Blair would be slightly wary about a further surrender to the EU. But instead he has signed on our behalf the European Constitution, which gives up some or all of Westminster's control [that word again pr00ne - sorry] over virtually every other area of policy, including foreign and defence policy and criminal justice.


Thankfully, we will have the opportunity to vote in a referendum [looks as if BLIAR will forget his promise? A spin like an F-104 coming on] on this constitution and opinion polls currently indicate that 70 per cent of the British people will vote against it.

But while that may stop the rot for a time, history shows us Brussels never gives up.

-------------

Your move FJ pr00ne.

TG

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

The problem here is that Pr00ne posts, on every subject he enters into, with an extremely arrogant and argumentative "I'm right and your wrong nah nah nee nah nah" attitude:rolleyes: , which quite naturally irks the more central thinking folks who populate these threads.

Not quite sure what his drive or purpose is but, and i fully appreciate the "welcome" for all views that the "MILITARY" aircrew forum holds, but why an important barrister of 12 years standing who charges almost 2 grand just for a chat feels the need to enter these threads to debate with those who do as opposed to his own "tv watching" status is beyond me.........and just about everyone else in here it would appear :rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Tartan Giant]

Looks as if FJ pr00ne has had enough from this EU Jury - he's left the courtroom!

His last post here in our EU Constitution debate, 3rd June 2005 19:41.

He found time (free!) on the SAR issue, posted 4th June 2005 19:26.

More unpaid time to "chat" about the £18billion defence cuts, 4th June 2005 19:29.

More unpaid "chat" about PM's 5th June 2005 15:42.


I 'move' we have found him guilty of being an EU bullsh^tter, and unable to show any moral, financial or material good for the UK in this EU Constitution crud - and that we agree with the French and Dutch in saying NO to it.

As Sir Alan Sugar would say on The Apprentice, "pr00ne, you're FIRED!"

TG

[Pilgrim101]

TG

Careful, you might end up in expensive litigation.

On the other hand even that would be preferable to the constant bitching, dripping and moaning from him and the Blairites on their latest spectacular failure and , er, retreat from a promised referendum ?

I just can't believe how incompetent failures and wa:mad: rs like Kinnock, his grasping Glynis, and Mandelson and that 15 year old Jockinese Indian MSP get themselves onto the gravy train in Brussels - and Strasbourg !!

I have an apartment in Strasbourg to wash the sand out of my toes etc and my girlfriend and I are just amazed at the brass neck of these people. Their arrogance and strutting failure to comprehend that the people have spoken is just astonishing.

I wonder what it will take to fire them all.:confused: :

[Solid Rust Twotter]

A lot of black powder, I should think.

Precisely how far would you like to fire them?

[Jackonicko]

As a small c Conservative, I'm all for an EEC (a free trade area) and I even approve of some European institutions (The European court has occasionally been handy) but I don't want to fix what isn't broken. Until the French adopt English as the common European language, I'm not in favour of giving up the pound, or the right to use (in parallel with, not instead of, metric) our traditional weights and measurements. I want a Government in Westminster having sovereignty, not one in Brussels.

I welcomed the 'Non' and the Dutch 'Nie'.

I'm hardly 'pro European' in other words.

But maybe prOOne is tired of wading through some of the more inarticulate and impenetrable, daft scare mongering, or the envious abuse he gets from some of those here.

[Zoom]

Bl**dy h*ll, pr00ne, £1900 for a chat!! That is a diabolical outrage in any profession. I wouldn't pay that to a barrister, and certainly not to a Barrister.

[Pilgrim101]

SWT

Bagram ? Kandahar ? Anywhere a C130 might drop them off on a low pass, preferably on a European standardised pallet made in Bulgaria ! With Drogue Chutes made in Latvia :}

Jacko

Old expression for Proone "If you can\'t take a joke, don\'t join !"

I cut out of the forum for a while after some neocon abuse was levelled at me but what the hell, it\'s only an internet game :}

What do you fly by the way Jacko ? :E

Were (was?) it not for your eloquent and balanced posting and obvious diligent study into the subject matter, whatever it might be on any particular thread, you might be fair game for us illiterates too !

[Tartan Giant]

Pilgrim 101

Thanks for the advice......... I still belive the greatest defence in any court (or web forum) is the TRUTH - and you nor I can be charged with anything for what we unearth here.
I get too emotional about this EU crap at times and I cannot but let my inner thoughts surface all too readily.

My father and his father - and their like - did not fight (and some paid the ultimate price) in two world wars to let some bunch of unelected political elites take over our country, thorough deciets and back-door laws, that have peppered us for too long now.

I am delighted the French and Dutch have put a bloody great spanner in the works and hopefully buggered the engine forever.


I think it will take a few Sir Alan Sugar types to fire them all (EU Constitution suckers) - they all seem teflon coated, like the occupant of number 10. I thought only cats had nine lifes.

Imagine you or I trying to fiddle some First Class rail warrants like Blunkett - do you think we would not be 'floored' for that.
Not him; stayed in his quarters, got paid as if nothing had happened and he's back.

The programme, "The Apprentice" had me glued; Sir Alan's opener should be the creed of MP's and MEP's and the EU masters ........

"I don't like liars....... I don't like cheats........ I don't like bullsh^tters........ I don't like schoomzers......... I don't like ars^-lickers".........."

Where would that place a lot of the public's payed servants of high?

TG

[Jackonicko]

Q: What do I fly, rather than what am I flown in?

Good question, and the answer reveals that I'm an interested outsider, with only tenuous links to military aviation!

A: Not much these days - mainly my desk. My PPL is as often valid through a certificate of experience as through getting enough hours in a year, alas. Though by coincidence I had half an hour solo in a very nice Chipmunk the other day. But it's mainly much less interesting fare, and I haven't logged solo or proper legit P1 hours in one of Betty's aircraft since 1982.

[pr00ne]

Oh good grief!

I appear to have attracted a stalker…………………………..

Tartan giant,

I simply do not have the time, the compulsion nor the will to answer endless posts of lists of points on other peoples opinions on the EU, especially when it becomes rather personal and antagonistic like yours, do you sit on your own in the corner of a pub dribbling?

My fee was rather tongue in cheek, mainly in the hope you would go away, though those of you who expressed outrage at the amount should see what the rates you CAN get charged for, say, a top libel Barrister.

Pilgrim 101,

….”constant bitching, dripping and moaning from him and the Blairites on their latest spectacular”………

What? Who said I was in favour of a referendum? Who said I thought the No vote was a success or a failure?

Zoom,

Barrister comes from Barrister in Law, the Bar bit comes from the Bar Council.


The draft EU constitution is dead, and I think that is a good thing as it did not appeal to the majority of Europeans who have had the chance to vote on it. I just get a little tired of the right wing zealots who claim that the EU is so undemocratic that it is an insult to what their fathers and grandfathers fought for. Read your history folks and see where democracy and true representation actually came from.

[Pilgrim101]

Jacko

I placed you much younger ! Hope the Chippie kept your libido in gear ? It always does mine ! :E

Proone

It's your sanctimonious tone (Tone ?) that gets up my nose - If you really charge so much for your time, why waste it on us here ?

Pilgrim (a simple ex soldier)

[pr00ne]

Pilgrim101,

I am hardly going to disclose my actual fee charging structure on here now am I?

Afraid if you don't like my tone, you know what you can do?

Being in the job I am means that I do tend to put forward rather aggressive arguments, it becomes a habit after a while.

[Pilgrim101]

Me too Proone, but I was usually armed ! :p

[BEagle]

I welcome the removal of frontiers in Europe, both trade and physical - and their single currency. No stopping to change Francs, Belgian Francs or Guilders into Deutchmarks etc every few miles...sorry, kilometres. But national character must be retained; no-one wants President Tone of the Peoples' Republic of Europe! Except Trust-me-Tone - and perhaps one other?

However, Bliar's slimeballs have now abandoned the UK's chance to have a referendum, doubtless depriving the vast majority of an opportunity to tell him to ram it where the sun doesn't shine. As with most things these days, the Noo Labour liars don't like to be confronted with the truth, they find it rather inconvenient.

Thieving banks which add 1.75% to every foreign transaction - or, in Lloyds case, 1.75% + £1, profit hugely out of our non adoption of the Euro and will continue to do so irrespective of the exchange rate. Personally I would be quite happy to see the UK adopt the € !

But having some gravy train of Eurocrats telling us to drive on the right and/or drink beer in litres etc? I don't think so......

Hmm - a highly paid libel lawyer? Perhaps I should direct one to act against someone who publicly accused me of 'racist ravings'.....

[ORAC]

On the other side of the coin, the Swiss have voted to join the Schengen zone.....

Associated Press
Monday, June 6, 2005; Page A12

GENEVA, June 5 -- A narrow majority of Swiss voters approved joining a European Union passport-free zone, abolishing checks on the country's border by 2007, according to final results from a national referendum Sunday.....

Signaling Swiss desire for closer integration with the E.U., about 55 percent of voters, or 1.47 million people, supported joining Europe's passport-free "Schengen" zone by 2007. The name refers to the town in Luxembourg where the agreement on cross-border travel was signed in 1985. The zone allows travel through all participating countries without border checks. The 15 current members are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

Because Switzerland is not a member of the E.U., Swiss customs controls would remain in place after the country joins the zone......

[ImageGear]

I can't afford to keep one government in jobs, Jags and freebies, why in "Bliars" name would I want to keep two. All this beaurocracy comes at a very steep price.

I have seen the effects of unjustifiably high taxes on my frequent visits to France, the expansion of a well developed black economy which is worth billions, where anything can be bought cheaper for cash.

Questions of nationality, or registration being often overlooked when doing anything other than central government business.

The golden goose is getting more than well cooked in parts of Europe and there is no doubt that the UK is fast developing it's own black economy in response to the excesses of this government.

There is a price to pay :E

Imagegear

[teeteringhead]

I have this theory about Us and Europe (2 different things) which is my own theory which is mine etc etc, and based on a basic difference in "national character" however un-PC and indefinable that is.

UK/GB, us lot, have traditionally had very few written laws, which we have scrupulously obeyed. Johnnie Foreigner, or at least Johnnie European (and particularly Jacques Crapaud), has equally traditionally had many many written laws, most of which are ignored. Which accounts for the heartache we have over Europe and why we will never be European.

Example 1. Sally B was mentioned earlier, and how "EU regulations" prevented her from flying. Many Ppruners will know of the other, France based B-17, "Pink Lady" who continues to fly. How so? France waives/ignores the regulations.

Example 2. Food safety/elfansafety. Food regs prevent a pipe-smoking mine host selling crisps behind the bar, whilst the kitchen of Jacques' Routier or Giacomo's Pizzeria reeks of Gitanes or whater the Eyetie fags are. Same regs, different enforcement because of different traditions.

And I'm sure that there are many more examples.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not a little Engerlander - I frequently enjoy what Jacques and Giacomo have to offer, accompanied by the vin du pays - and have not (yet) succumbed to food poisoning.

One size won't ever fit all.......

[Tartan Giant]

pr00ne
I don't take lightly being called a stalker
I appear to have attracted a stalker…………………………..
I am sure you will get my drift about Libel......... so wind your neck in pr00ne before you overstep the mark.

Having participated in this 'thread' you then disappeared from 'here' for a couple of days, but by minimal fact finding (you have another word for it) you make time to "chat" on other threads, which gave me (and probably others) the idea that you run scared when asked to defend the EU Constitution.
Is that what you do when you can't defend your client - slink off to sit on your own in the corner of a pub dribbling?
You have a way with words putting your case!

My fee was rather tongue in cheek, mainly in the hope you would go away
What a stupid defence you put forward about mentioning your fee! Is that the best you can do? Pretty lame ole son....... and you charge people to have a chat! Tch Tch.

I'm not going away - so how about taking off your wig, take your tongue out of your cheek (I'm being kind), and forgetting fees, tell us all here how democratic this UNSELECTED bunch of EU political elite are?
They screw up (I'm being nice) the accounts to such a degree they have not passed the audit for 9 odd years. Some crook organisation that!

right wing zealots who claim that the EU is so undemocratic that it is an insult to what their fathers and grandfathers fought for

"Right wing zealots" now are we? Well without too much further reading of history, freedom is not what the EU Constitution is on about is it FJ pr00ne? It is about CONTROL from afar - by unelected officials.

I want this country to be in CONTROL of its own destiny and I want a say in it - perhaps even on behalf of those who died for that principle. Is that too much for you? Is it too much to ask for a Referendum here in the UK? Waste of time now is it? No need for a UK jury?

Transcript: John Humphrys and Tony Blair. Sept 29 2004 Extract:
" ..Look. - in the end with this thing, I totally understand why people have a very strong view on it and, you know, you're entitled to have a view and everyone is entitled to have a view. Just understand why I took this decision. I took the decision - I, you know, as I said yesterday - I'm as fallible as anybody else, I may be wrong in it, but I don't believe I'm wrong..."

Bliar got it wrong, and he still can't see why or how.......... must be a bit of right wing zealot talking egh!

Let's talk on your new grounds: trial by jury.
David Blunkett said, "the right to jury trial dates back to 1855, not the Magna Carta". (he was of course talking through his asp). This EU Constitution would tear up the Magna Carta would it not? Tell me I am wrong pr00ne.

Jack Straw issued proposals to abolish the right to trial by jury for a wide range of middle raking offences. He also said other countries regarded our system of jury trials as, "Eccentric". (Guardian 29/7/98). Has he dropped that plan FJ pr00ne? Just curious you understand.

If we were drugged into joining this EU melting pot, tell me the Continental system of law and order (Inquisitorial System) would NOT prevail, such that the UK would end up playing their game thus:
1. Suspicion

2. Arrest

3. Investigation

4. Charge

The EU Citizen (we have no option being called that if we joined) can be arrested, and imprisoned - and that's without anyone having to produce any evidence against him. There goes Habeas Corpus - is that not so pr00ne?


If we join this EU Constitution through some sort of political rape, we cannot just "leave" can we pr00ne?
Article I-60 : Voluntary withdrawal from the EU.
'They' can sit on the final decision way after the two years "notice" can't they. Why is it so difficult to leave this funny club?


Just going back a little on this thread............. your reply to 16 blades

posted 3rd June 2005 12:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

16 blades,

More in accurate myth I am afraid, here is what the constitution actually says about your points;

1.The veto is still there, in Defence policy, Foreign policy, Taxation and Law and Order.

2. Nonsense! See below and above to refute that claim.

3. The Constitution actually insists that the UNION act in the best interests of the member states. The EU President is nothing more than a spokesperson with no executive powers.

4. As the Union has no executive powers over Foreign Policy or Defence there is no chance of the UK giving up its seat.

5. The EU Foreign Minister has NO executive powers and there is a national opt out enshrined in the constitution safeguarding national foreign policy independence.


I don't agree with you on the above, as you might expect: Take the EU Constitution opener,

Article I-1: (ex Articles 1, 49 TEU)

Establishment of the Union

1. Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.



Notice the bit about, "the will of the citizens" did you pr00ne?

The EU bulldozer driver has not ascertained the 'will' of the citizens of the UK yet has he pr00ne? Tell me I'm wrong.
He has not actually procured the, "will of the people" in Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Germany - he got the nod from a government base, NOT the people. That is NOT democracy.
I say that because this present government is only riding on 22% share of the total possible electorate (38.7% did not vote). Now the man from Essex (who dares to speak for a nation, yet holds the mandate from only 22% of that nation) has shelved our right to express that 'will' of the UK people - some democracy.

How about your idea the UK would have a veto under your item 1 (reply to 16 blades above). The EU Constitution does not say that does it pr00ne!
4. The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.

I'm all ears JF pr00ne................. bring it on! But you haven't the time, the will, or the inclination..... we know, we know!!


TG

[pr00ne]

Tartan Giant,

Your a mentalist!

Bye

[Tartan Giant]

Your a mentalist!

You cannot even get your grammar correct pr00ne can you!
How do you manage?

Game, set, and match to me...........


TG

[16 blades]

Pr00ne,

Whilst TGs style is somewhat combative (as mine can be on issues close to my heart), he has made valid, researched points and backed them up with extracts from the draft constitution itself, or at least references to the relevant articles. You have yet to produce anything, other that outright, Nu-Labour style dismissals, that supports your argument. I am reasonably confident that you do not walk into court and simply pronounce that the defence / prosecution (according to which side you are representing at the time) are talking out of their hoop.

If you have something to say in defence of this monstrosity, and agree with some commisioner's assertions that the EU citizens who have thus far been given the priviledge of a vote (a priviledge we are now to be denied) "did not understand the question", then please enlighten us all.

I have defended you on another thread this evening. I would like to think I will not regret having done so.

16B

[SASless]

The concept that is foreign to me (sorry...poor choice of words) is the ability of each nation to "veto" and thus not have to comply with the EU directives. (or do I have that wrong?) What value is it to have this EU bunch of goons drawing fat checks and busily scribbling new rules....if you can merely opt out of doing what they say? Or does the veot kill the rule across the board for everyone? If that is so....any rule that someone does not like drops dead.....

Where is the gain?

Seems a huge pipe dream to me....what is wrong with some simpler set of trade agreements....mutually agreed to and set in place? Agree what needs to be "commonized" and skip all the rest. Write the treaty....sign the thing....and get on with business.

[SASless]

We in the south opted out of the United States....the bloodiest war in our history....and the 13 states that seceeded were forced back into the union by force of arms. That is the danger to these things....once you opt in...you cannot opt out. How long will the "central" government last....before the members form up sides again. Seems a bit of wishful thinking to me.

[Circuit Basher]

Happytruckin - how I would dearly love to believe that one!! However, I get the feeling that in 10 years time, much of what is currently in the constitution will be enshrined in law, even if not all of the member states have gone to the populace for a democratic endorsement of it. :(

SASless - My understanding of the term 'veto' is that if legislation is proposed that is unacceptable to any single member state, they can veto this and prevent the introduction of the legislation - it's not so much a case of choosing to ignore the legislation once it's introduced.

I also can see that the currency exchange vultures are hovering in the background, waiting to pick the flesh off the bones of the Euro as it fails to provide a 'one size fits all' solution to the inflationary pressures in Italy and the pending recession in France / Germany / Holland. Bring back the Common Market / EEC (when exactly was that term renounced??!) - stuff the Federal Europe idea in the bin where it belongs!

[pr00ne]

I can’t believe I am doing this! You put your request in such a way as to persuade me 16 blades.

Tartan Giant, I don’t care WHAT you think about this;


From the introduction;

“remaining proud of their own national identities and history”

From the Definitions and Objectives;

“the Union shall coordinate policies by which the member states aim to achieve their objectives”

“the Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity”

From relations between the Union and member states;

“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Constitution as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.”

From fundamental rights;


“Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.”

From areas of exclusive competence; (there are NO others!-pr00ne)

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the
internal market.
(c) monetary policy, for the Member States whose currency is the euro,
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries
policy.
(e) common commercial policy.

I simply do not have the time to go through the document and pick out statements to counter what tartan giant has quoted, here are a few comments though;


There is no continental system of Law and Order, the EU constitution does not affect individual member states judicial procedures, it merely confirms the current position with regard to the EU legislating where it is allowed to, as it has for a long time now, what changes is that the EU now has a legal personality. Blunkett did what he did in English law, not some vague EU law.

The EU constitution has NO affect whatsoever on arrest, investigation or charge. You can be arrested and imprisoned in the UK without a shred of evidence or a trial under the anti-terrorist legislation, legislation that is far more draconian than most EU member states.

The constitution enshrined within it the right of a member state to leave, something that does not exist at present, the constitution now confirms that the EU is a voluntary association.

Veto retained on Defence, foreign policy, territorial integrity and taxation.


I know this damm draft so well because I have had to get to know it so as to be able to advise CEOs and Chairmen of major multi nationals of the impact of it upon their operations. Nevertheless, it is now dead and it will not be ratified in this form.

Incidentally, I have NEVER stated anywhere that I support this draft constitution, I have only challenged statements about what it is NOT and what it does NOT say.

[Tartan Giant]

Circuit Basher

I think I may have the answer for you here about that name change, but it's a bit long drawn out......... here we go.

The present EU Constitution is the distillation of several treaties and subtle name changes over 30 odd years, and by treachery and deceit we in the UK now find Straw and company now renege on another Election promise that we could have a Referendum on the EU Constitution - coming up with tripe about a period of reflection and not wanting the UK linked to killing the thing stone dead.

Forgive me going back to the EEC days when we knew where we stood (sort of) in what was this European Economic Community. Note the title well, for 'they' change the name without further direct authority from the people.

The Treaty of ROME
Signed on the 25th March 1957 by the founding SIX - Belgium, Germany, Italy, France, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.
Edward Heath signed this treaty on the 22nd Jan 1972 and the UK officially became a member of the EEC on the 1st Jan 1973.

All looked "rosy" but unbeknown to the voters, in order to became members of this new club, Heath had to sign away British sovereignty of its territorial fishing waters. Check it out!

Whilst this was kept under wraps, Heath in one of his White Papers called, "Britain in Europe" was telling the country, "the government is determined to secure proper safeguards for the British fishing industry". Determined it may have been, but that meant sweet nothing!
With back-up from Geoffrey Rippon (Cabinet Minister at the time) in the Commons on the 13th Dec 1971 (see the Sunday Telegraph 14 Jan 01) saying, ".......We retain full jurisdiction over our coastal waters". He should have know better, for it was not quite correct as it happened!
It was not until the Maastricht Treaty was signed that we, the voters, saw the formal acknowledgement that our fishing waters had been surrendered without our authority those many years before! That was the death knell of our fishing.
I could go on about farming, and closer to pr00ne's wallet, EU Law, and a host of other industries now lost, but we are trying to trace the subtle names changes that lead us to the stupefying position we are in today - a dead EU Constitution that the political doctors will not pronounce dead!

The Single European Act
Margaret Thatcher signed the Single European Act 1986 on our behalf; the purpose of this Treaty was to make the process of, "...... ever closer Union" (Article A) another sly and deadly step along the hidden way.
That Treaty dropped the word "Economic" from the previous title, "European Economic Community" (EEC) which of course meant we were now playing a game called the European Community.

The "Common Market" was now the "Single Market" - who would notice?
Who would bother with this thing called 'Qualified Majority Voting' where the Council of Ministers lorded over 24 areas; would the people on the street notice they had lost sovereignty as their magic veto in these areas had been culled. Some did, but not a lot.

The Treat of Maastricht
Signed by John Major in Oct 92 and came into force (good word for it) 1st Nov 1993. THAT was the time where 'they' dropped the word "Community" from the old title and inserted UNION.
We were, by stealth, deceit, smoke screens and mirrors and cover ups, now a member of the European Union without our express permission!

The long game (which Straw and BLIAR are now wanting to play still, as of 6th June 2005) of decades saw us move from a "Common Market" to the EEC and then the EC to the fully fledged EU which the political elite had long planned for.

These political rapists want our country to sign up to this EU Constitution, and now we cannot even have our say whilst the iron is hot and spelling out NO.... NO.....NO.
Rapists don't listen or hear the word NO......... they want castrating - like the real thing!

The UK is witnessing the lies and deceit of political rapists once more as they deny they have done us wrong, and will not let us have a say.

Thank the French and the Dutch for having the courage to say NO........ and damn those who deny us the chance to repeat the message. NO........... now and forever more........... are you listening Mr Blair? Tell your bully boys to back off.

TG

----------

PS: I see pr00ne is back - holes in his argument as per usual, I shall tell him where later.

[pr00ne]

What on earth is a "political rapist?"

[SASless]

pr00ne.....

Political Rapist?


For lack of a better example...Bill Clinton is one! Remember Juanita Broderick?

But then that would depend upon what "is" is?

[Roland Pulfrew]

TG

Calm down, calm down!

As has been pointed out on many topics before prOOne doesn't want to debate the case on any matter of issue. He just uses the 'I'm too busy' argument or resorts to anti anyone else tirade of 'you are a racist', 'I'm more intelligent than you', 'you don't know what you are talking about', 'you are a facist' or 'you are a Little Englander'.

Don't ley him get to you! He has not yet come up with any proof of an increase in the defence budget (that is not countered by RAB and savings measures) and that the Constitution is nothing more than a 'tidying-up' process. (Straight from the heart of new Labour?). The chap? knows no more than you or I and certainly nothing of recent military experience (assuming the 'Toom was his last jet). He believes everything that comes from Labour Central Office, which proves he has no original thought, and fails to debate any point where his knowledge is found to be lacking other than resorting to the school playground 'I'm right and your wrong' mentality. Proof, if proof were needed, that he is as morally bankrupt as the rest of his colleagues in the chattering classes.

All typos are Grolsch induced!

[nav attacking]

My suspicions are that they will keep presenting it in a slightly different forms until everyone finally gives in and agrees to ratify it (vote or no vote) Once in and ratified there will be no way of going back on the agreement.

This seems to be the way our present democracies work anyway.

Just take a look at the laws against hunting, whether you agree with hunting or not I can't remember the number of times it was presented to parliament to be voted against only to be eventually forced through anyway. Do we ever get a chance (or do our voted representatives ever get a chance) to get rid of a law once it is accepted.

I think not, unless we want to follow in the footsteps of Guy Fawkes.

Anyone got a spare laser designator and Paveway III???

[Tartan Giant]

Hi Roland
I tried to calm down, but I had these thoughts on my mind and had to share them in the court of you know who....... here goes....... all mostly for FJ pr00ne........ the pr00ne who cannot get his grammar correct, asks what does, "political rapist" mean - his literary imagination for the use of the metaphor is obviously not his strong point either. I will not bother trying to explain.

Forgive this fairly long look, at what pr00ne still offers in defence of the EU Constitution:

From the Definitions and Objectives; “the Union shall coordinate policies by which the member states aim to achieve their objectives”

It is not the member states that have this terrible hunger to achieve their objectives, but the small group of ego power maniacs at the heart of the beast.

Article I-12 on division of competences creates an institutional ratchet to transfer more powers to the EU.

It says that member states may only choose to act in areas where powers are "shared" if the EU chooses not to exercise its powers.
Straw said, "......I set out a set of red lines for the United Kingdom. In the negotiations we delivered on each and every one of them". The UK Government tabled 275 requests for changes to the EU Constitution - only 27 were accepted and acted upon.


“the Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity”

From relations between the Union and member states;

“The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Constitution as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.”

From fundamental rights; “Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship; it shall not replace it.”

From areas of exclusive competence; (there are NO others!-pr00ne)

1. The Union shall have exclusive competence in the following areas:

(a) customs union;
(b) the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market.
(c) monetary policy, for the Member States whose currency is the euro,
(d) the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries
policy.
(e) common commercial policy.

What pr00ne deliberately and wilfully missed out was this OTHER all embracing exclusive:

"2. The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union or is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its internal competence, or insofar as its conclusion may affect common rules or alter their scope. "

Seems to me that is one hell of a lot of sea room for manoeuvre - am I wrong pr00ne?
Ill defined EXCLUSIVE for their own purposes!

"Article I-16: (ex Articles 17, 11(2) TEU) The common foreign and security policy: 1. The Union's competence in matters of common foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union's security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence."

Here's where pr00ne's idea of what a veto means comes into question:

"Article I-16: (ex Articles 17, 11(2) TEU) The common foreign and security policy.

2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."

Plenty of room there to tell 'them' to piss off when we want to egh pr00ne?

Just in case some right-wing UK zealot/s moan about an EU course of action, 'they' have thought of that too:

"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty) Flexibility clause

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."

It is called moving the goal posts when 'they' want.

pr00ne declares these five, "exclusive" competence areas and NO others. What does he make of:

1. "EU law shall have primacy over the law of member states."

2. "The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."


3. "The Court of Justice of the EU shall rule on actions brought by a member state."

4. "The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy." Article I-12

5. "EU member states...must refrain from any measure which would jeopardise the attainment of the Unions' objectives."


I simply do not have the time [well that's handy] to go through the document and pick out statements to counter what tartan giant has quoted, here are a few comments though; There is no continental system of Law and Order, the EU constitution does not affect individual member states judicial procedures, it merely confirms the current position with regard to the EU legislating where it is allowed to, as it has for a long time now, what changes is that the EU now has a legal personality.

Well pr00ne how do you like this case of the Continental system of Law and Order and the "personality" of it.

Chris Lees, a British businessman (and Lib Dem Cllr) spent a whole year in a Spanish jail awaiting a trial - the charges were dismissed owing to complete lack of evidence....... Why and how did that happen?
The EU Commission's "Corpus Juris" plan for a European Public Prosecutor, laying down an "embryo criminal code for Europe", explicitly rules out, "simple jurymen and lay magistrates" (Art. 26.1 as amended) to be replaced with career judges.

It also makes provision for the European Prosecutor to "request" (really meaning to 'order') the arrest and imprisonment of a suspect for up to six months, renewable for three months, an unspecified number of times (Art. 20.3.g as amended) with no provision for any public hearing or check of evidence.
Is that not so pr00ne?

With this crack-pot EU Constitution, there will be no veto to stop this from being introduced to the UK if 'they' slip it through the back door - is that not so pr00ne?

Blunkett did what he did in English law, not some vague EU law.
So for breaking the UK code of honour and the House rules, nothing happened to Blunkett! Sent to the sin bin to cool off for a bit, no fine, no loss of pay, or thrown out on the street; now he is on-side again and playing the game.


The EU constitution has NO affect whatsoever on arrest, investigation or charge. You can be arrested and imprisoned in the UK without a shred of evidence or a trial under the anti-terrorist legislation, legislation that is far more draconian than most EU member states...

And how did that PARTICULAR law come about pr00ne? The Civil Contingencies Bill that was bulldozed through, that is how that dreadful piece of legislation became law - it's all to do with TERRORISM and nothing else.

Tell the good people here what the definition of an "emergency" is according to the dopes who dreamt that CCB up!
I'm glad you restricted the arrest/imprisonment/no trial only under the TERRORIST banner - for you cannot do it for anything else can you!


The constitution enshrined within it the right of a member state to leave, something that does not exist at present, the constitution now confirms that the EU is a voluntary association.

If you call waiting TWO years to leave something, and that is only allowed if 'they' agree you can leave, is that really a voluntary state of affairs? If so, I do not like your definition of "voluntary" one little bit pr00ne.
Imagine being in "a voluntary association" such as the RAFA and you wanted to stop your subscription (be it monthly or annual in any association) and your request was on the books for TWO years, then the Association Committee met to discuss your case and said, NO he cannot leave right now, let him fry for a while - that's just a completely dreadful rule is it not pr00ne?

For something to be voluntary, it must be by the agreement of the individual. If you do not ask the individual then it cannot be voluntary.
My point is, the voters of Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, and Germany were NEVER asked for their permission to become part of this UNDEMOCRATIC giant superstate were they - it was their government who took them in whether they liked it or not.

Veto retained on Defence, foreign policy, territorial integrity and taxation.

Sounds great pr00ne but you must know it is just not so.
As a hint, here is what a QC said of such matters, when he was given time.

Mr Alister is a QC and an MEP for the DUP in NI. He was talking in the EP on the 11 Jan 2005, debating the Treaty Establishing a Constitution For Europe.

Allister (NI)
Mr President, though this House, in self-congratulatory euphoria, will embrace this Constitution, thankfully the ultimate decision rests with the Member States. It is their votes that really matter. What I despise most is the false pretence, particularly prevalent in the United Kingdom, that this Constitution is merely a tidying-up exercise made necessary by enlargement and that it will settle the constitutional shape of Europe for generations. That is demonstrably false.
Those who peddle that deception are best exposed by the Constitution's own most ardent and more honest proponents.
In the Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have observed at first hand the strategy and scheming of arch Europhiles. They make no secret of the fact that this Constitution is not an end in itself, but a work in progress and they do nothing to conceal their ambition to have it, in their terms, strengthened at the first opportunity - without, of course, the troublesome obstacle of further national consultation. Their undisguised candour gives the lie to those who would deceive voters into thinking that this is a mere tidying-up exercise: it is not.
The choice for the nation-states is this: a choice between a Europe of cooperating sovereign nation-states, or a Europe that is itself a superstate. Despite all the denials, this Constitution is a framework for superstatehood. It declares its supremacy over national constitutions; it proclaims the subservience of national law; it appoints its own president and foreign minister. It relegates national parliaments to mere consultative sounding boards; it trades meaningful democracy for the pseudo_democracy of this House; it neuters the last defence of the nation-state by increasingly supplanting the national veto with radically increased qualified majority voting; and it provides an unbridled path to further integration by permitting amendment by heads of government rather than by the people. Anyone with pride in his or her own nation, who does not want to see it subsumed into a hideous conglomerate, will reject this tawdry Constitution.



pr00ne says, "I know this damm [sic] draft so well because I have had to get to know it so as to be able to advise CEOs and Chairmen of major multi nationals of the impact of it upon their operations. Nevertheless, it is now dead and it will not be ratified in this form. Incidentally, I have NEVER stated anywhere that I support this draft constitution, I have only challenged statements about what it is NOT and what it does NOT say."

So pr00ne were you for the EU Constitution or not - before it died?

Will you further argue the toss over all the above?

TG

[pr00ne]

TG,

No I won't argue the toss over a document we so obviously disagree strongly on, we could go on all night quoting little snippets and trumpeting what we believe, it would be pointless as we do not agree.

You ask me "am I wrong Proone?"

Yes TG, you are.

The veto WAS there on defence, foreign policy, national security and taxation-fact.

Would I have voted for it? Probably not.



Roland Pulfrew,

Believe everything that comes from Central Office? I don't think so old chap, not by a long way.

Toom certainly was my last jet, and in the Strike/GA role too, never went AD with it.

[16 blades]

The one glaring fact that comes out of Pr00ne and Tartan Giant's ping-ponging is that the constitution, if accepted in current form, is wide open to interpretation. It appears to contradict itself in several places - Guaranteeing 'respect' for national identities and laws, whilst at the same time including so many broadly-drafted catch-all clauses, such as:
"Article I-16: (ex Articles 17, 11(2) TEU) The common foreign and security policy.

2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests or likely to impair its effectiveness."
...and...
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty) Flexibility clause

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
...and...
"EU member states...must refrain from any measure which would jeopardise the attainment of the Unions' objectives."

What concerns me most is just WHO will be doing the interpretation that will be required in any number of forseeable and unforseeable circumstances. It will be left up to an unelected cabal of Eurocrats to decide what is in the 'Best Interests' of the 'Union' - it certainly WILL NOT fall to either the parliaments or people of member states! In effect, a referendum on the ratification of the constitution is the LAST CHANCE that ANY 'EU Citizen' (spit!!!!) will get to have any kind of say on this, since the constitution itself gives authority to the aforementioned cabal to dictate the future evolution of the 'legal personality' that the EU will become. THIS clause is what chills my spine the most:
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty) Flexibility clause

1. If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in Part III, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Constitution, and the Constitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures."
This TRULY is a catch all clause - paraphrased, it means that 'We, the great and the good of the United States of Europe, can do whatever the fcuk we like, provided that the EU parliament has rubber stamped it first (easily done, given how the EU 'Parliament' operates), without ANY further reference to the great unwashed or their elected representatives in their own country'.

Now, do we really believe that the EU Cabal of 'Ministers' will really carry out the will of the people or follow some even more altruistic path in making such an interpretation? Since some members of this cabal have already displayed their disdain for 'EU citizens' (spit!!!) by proclaiming that those who voted 'Non' or 'Nie' didn't really understand the question, it is easy to deduce the potential results of this clause.

As is so often the case in English law, it's all down to interpretation, Pr00ne, as you well know - when clauses such as the above leave such a massive and influential entity open to the interpretation of a few untouchable individuals, only danger can ensue. Wars have been started over much, much less.

16B

[Tartan Giant]

Hello 16B
Through all the smoke and mirrors, we have seen how the tricks are performed by the unelected EU masters.

It is a great shame some men of law in the UK cannot come to the same conclusion as we do. Not just a probably vote, make it a bloody definate NO! vote

They do not mention the "catch all" do they!

To hell in a basket with this EU Constitution, and to any attempt Noo LIAbour has of trying to slide bits and pieces of the junk under/onto our UK table.

We have managed very well for a 1000 years without this EU superstate sniffing and sucking away our success and as the 4th richest country in the world, the proof is there without the need of a Flexibility Clause!!!!!!!
"Article I-18: (ex Article 308 TEC, 235 Rome Treaty)".

Keep the blades safely turning.

Cheers

TG

[teeteringhead]

without the need of a Flexibility Clause!!!!!!! But we don't need flexibility, we need sanity ........


..... oh ........ I forgot ............

























......"Thre ain't no Sanity Clause!" (Chico Marx 1935 "A Night at the Opera" )

[Gegene]

I propose you guy do something honourable too (for a change) and use, to the best effect, one of our stored guillotine that we could dispatch to you from Musee Grevin. We can take care of Chirac without it, how about you take care of your politicians?

Goohie. Salut.

[16 blades]

A very tempting offer, mon ami.

You'd have no shortage of volunteers!

16B

[cazatou]

Gegene,

"I propose you guys do something honourable too (for a change)."

May I regretfully suggest that the last of your Governments major decisions in a world crisis resulted in a capitulation, and subsequent subservitude, to one of the most vile regimes the World has ever had to experience.

A few, a very honourable few, of your Countrymen found their way to the UK and continued the fight in the dark days until the entry of the US into the War brought the certainty of final victory.

Equally a few, a very honourable few, of your countrymen created the Maquis and its various networks that contributed to the Allied Victory.

Let us not forget, however, that your countrymen fought AGAINST the Allies during the initial stages of Operation TORCH; and that Vichy France had a price on the head of Generals de Gaulle & Leclerc.

[SASless]

Ah but Caz....the had to defend the honour of France by killing a few Allied soldiers before throwing their arms down and showing us their armpits! Don't you understand......please. It is easy to get confused during war time....fog of battle and all that.

[ZH875]

Pr00ne - Please explian what 'NON' means, first in English, then in French. (Please try to avoid the term 'OUI')

[Tartan Giant]

In case pr00ne has time to visit us in this democracy!

He will be interested to know (?) that we can have our say about keeping monkeys, but we cannot have our say when WE want it about the EU Constitution!
Wonderful priorities this Noo Liabour lot set out.

Thanks Tony and Jack, you are stars....... bloody DIS.ass.stars


http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2005/050608a.htm

234/05 8 June 2005

PUBLIC TO HAVE THEIR SAY ON PRIMATES KEPT AS PETS

Members of the public will be able to have their say on the keeping of monkeys and other primates as pets, as part of a review of Government policy.


How about these EU arrogant morons carrying on as if nothing has happened! The inertia is too much for them.

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm050606/debtext/50606-05.htm#50606-05_wqn1

Andrew Rosindell: Now that we have seen the death of the European constitution, will the Secretary of State give us a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no further development of the European defence project, and particularly the European Defence Agency?

John Reid: No, I will not give the hon. Gentleman such assurances .................


More good news for the EU lovers:

The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe

Article III-254. To promote scientific and technical progress, industrial competitiveness and the implementation of its policies, the Union shall draw up a European space policy. To this end it may promote joint initiatives, support research, technological development and demonstration programmes. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

The second meeting of the Space Council – concomitant meeting of the ESA Council at ministerial level and of the European Union Competitiveness Council (Internal Market/ Industry/ Research) – was held at the Kiem Conference Centre in Luxembourg today (Tuesday 7 June).

In consultation with private and public stakeholders, the Space Council is working on the definition of a coherent space policy and associated programmes, covering the activities of the EU, ESA and their Member States. The objective is to endorse, at the third Space Council meeting planned for November this year, a European space policy and European space programme for the period to 2013.

We have not yet agreed on this EU Constitution and here they are slipping things in under our noses............ as suggested they might by NAV ATTACKING

Of course we have the veto - don't we FJ pr00ne.

TG

[Tartan Giant]

Here is some more EU inspired rubbish - put in the landfill by a world famous author.

Frederick Forsyth, author and patriotic defender of our England of historic counties, received a surprise letter from the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) inviting him to become an 'East of England Ambassador'.

EEDA's letter is below, as is Mr Forsyth's response, in which he turns down the chance of becoming 'Ambassador' in no uncertain terms.


Dear Mr Forsyth

East of England - space for ideas

A chance to contribute

By 2010 the East of England Region region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe. Made up of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, the East of England is a diverse and fascinating region and one that you are closely associated with.

Key to its future success will be our ability to promote the East of England on the world stage. One way that our goal will be achieved, for the good of all who live, work, visit and invest in the region, is by building a strong brand for the region. This brand is called 'East of England - space for ideas'.

In 2004 we, the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) have some very exciting plans for the brand. And this is where we would like your help. A diverse mix of companies, individuals and organisations has already committed their assistance, and as a recognised member of the regional community I would like to invite you to become an East of England ambassador.

I will call your offices over the next week to explore the possibility of setting up a 15-minute East of England - space for ideas introduction meeting to talk you through both the commercial and non-commercial opportunities available.

Please be assured that any commitment you do make will take up a minimum amount of your time.
If, in the meantime, you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me on 0845 226 0803/07771 964 595 or email [email protected].

Through collective effort and commitment we hope:

'to make the East of England a world-class economy, renowned for its knowledge base, the creativity and enterprise of its people and the quality of life of all who live and work here' East of England strategic review goal 2002

Ambitious as it might be, we are all 100% committed to our goal and would ask you to recognise both the personal and community based rewards of investing in the East of England's future.

I look forward to speaking to you and/or your representative over the coming weeks.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Caruth
On behalf of East of England - space for ideas


............................................................ ..............


Now the broadside...........



Dear Mr Caruth

For some ten years, since I became fascinated by the sheer duplicity and mendacity of the Europe Project I have studied it with some intensity and no little research. I presume you are in the same position, so we need not fool each other.

We both know that, for the Europe of (say) 2010 (your own choice) there are only two viable visions. One is what we thought, back in 1972, we were being inducted into until we learned we had been comprehensively lied to. This was the Europe De Gaulle had referred to as 'Une Union des Patries.' Brits have always translated this as 'A Europe of Nations'. It is what the Conservative Party has always claimed to support and what New Labour also pretends to seek, though once again it is lying.

Basically, a confederation of self-governing and sovereign nation-states who have chose by free volition to cooperate towards a goal of enhanced mutual prosperity by the creation of a huge Free Market. That vision was effectively terminated by euthanasia in the Maastricht Treaty, though fools and liars continue to employ the phrase.

The other vision can best be described in the title of a recent pamphlet from the Comite des Regions in Brussels: 'A Europe of Cities and Regions in an Integrated Continent.' This is a Europe where so-often pooh-poohed words like 'ever closer union', 'complete political integration' and United States of Europe, have become literal realities. That clearly is the vision to which you and yours aspire with self-denying fanaticism.

But like all Euro-integrationists, you are being less than frank with the public. Behind the Utopian propaganda lie several less happy truths. The creation of the USE and the continuation of the nation-state are quite simply mutually incompatible. The creation of the USE must mean the End-of-Nation, now at last being openly mentioned in print, though a long-held dream of the Post-Modernists.

Now I happen to be one of the (approx) ninety per cent of the citizens of the UK who regard this country with love, affection and loyalty. I find the end-of-nation, with its concomitant partner end-of-democracy anathema. So I look carefully at how this nightmare might be achieved.

Clearly not by free vote, by fair referendum. Therefore, as ever, by deception, mendacity, dissimulation and fraud. But via which vehicles? One is clearly the abrogation and abolition of the national currency. There has never been a single example in history of a nation abolishing its currency to adopt the currency of a larger neighbouring unit which was still a self-governing country ten years later.

Second, there is abolition of the national constitution, or its supercession by another alien constitution. Parliamentary democracy is the only known governmental system which requires as an absolute need the consent of the governed. All other systems are variants of dictatorship. What Giscard d'Estaing has prepared (and Gisela Stuart MP recently confirmed this in her brilliant Fabian Society pamphlet) is a blueprint for oligarchy, warmly supported by all the oligarths of Europe and the UK. That is why Tony Blair dare not permit the people to speak.

The third way of terminating the nation-state is break-up. That is your chosen road. If you can break provincial England into eight parts, an unavoidable development must then be the abolition of District, Shire, and Borough as units of real local government. That is a given, even admitted by Prescott in an unguarded moment.

The second unavoidable consequence must be the reduction to irrelevance of the national government and its Parliament at Westminster. But there must be two levels of government, for the Region cannot be a nation-state on its own. It must defer to something bigger than itself. That 'something' if not Westminster, Crown in Parliament, can only be the Federal Government of the USE in Brussels. QED.

So when you say to me: 'By 2010 the East of England region aims to be one of the top regions in Europe,' you should, if you were to be scrupulously honest, phrase it thus: 'By 2010, following the abolition of this and other outdated nation-states, and in a New Europe of devolved regional territories, the East of England region....' etc.

Your problem is not me but Abraham Lincoln. 'You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all the people all of the time.' Regionalism, behind its mask of local democracy, enhanced prosperity for all, but in truth standing for millions more unaccountable gravy-slurping jobsworths, has got to fool enough of the people enough of the time; i.e. until the referendum, which will be as rigged as Prescott and Blair can fix it.

But you run into a group of people far more numerous than yourself, just as committed to the retention of England as you are to its disappearance, just as smart and just as moneyed. Before the fight is over you and yours will have learned the hard way that this old country of ours is not yet prepared to be led into the knacker's yard.

So, Mr Caruth, until Philippi, ave atque vale.

Frederick Forsyth - 27 February 2004


http://www.regionalassemblies.co.uk/39688.html?*session*id*key*=*session*id*val*

----------------

Needless to say, Frederick Forsyth has the measure of these EU lackies down to a tee.

pr00ne still likes the idea - probably?

TG

[Tartan Giant]

Here is some more ammo against this EU Constitution.

Memo to the Rt Hon. Tony Blair, MP:
Nee and Non mean No!

Dear Mr Blair

For your information the Bruges Group would like to translate two important words.

The translation of the Dutch word Nee in English is No. The Dutch use Nee to express refusal or denial or disagreement or especially to emphasize a negative statement. The French word Non has an identical meaning also translated into English as No.

No signifies:
- A negative response; a denial or refusal
- A negative vote or voter

It is used to express strong refusal.

This is what the French and Dutch peoples said to the EU Constitution. But you are still permitting the EU to implement aspects of the EU Constitution including:
- The EU External Action (Diplomatic) Service
- A European President and EU Foreign Minister
- A European Defence Agency
- A European Gendarmerie
- The Rapid Reaction Force
- The Fundamental Rights Agency
- A European Space Policy
- Asylum and immigration policy

Moreover, by not implementing those costly measures, there is less need to surrender any of Britain’s rebate.

If you do not cancel the implementation of those policies then you must honour your election pledge and allow the British people their say on the EU Constitution and the future of Britain’s relationship with the EU.

Yours sincerely,



John Hayes, MP The Rt Hon. David Heathcoat-Amory, MP

Please do not let these sly Labour elite slip anything through.

TG