The Europe Controversy

[Rory Winter]

The Europe Controversy



As it has been made clear that my attempts to defend the case for European union are no longer welcome and are seen as an attempt to "block discussion" of what has been maligned as the 'European fascist state' I have --after consultation with the Scottish Moderators and Coordinator-- moved this thread to the Scotland Group.

A Message from Keith & the Scots Moderator & Coordinator

This does not signify that everyone in Scotland is any more pro-Europe than south of the Border (though marginally on average we may do) but is a procedural move to give refugee status to a debate. We do not approve of shutting down discussions or sidelining them in the way that has been happening of late.

Freedom Come All Ye!

Welcome to bonnie Scotland, good people Everywhere!

"I take refuge in the sangha of free and fair discussions"

Keith Mothersson, Scots Mods & Coordinator

A Welcome from Rory

Welcome to Scotland and Freedom!

I look forward to meeting you all here in what I hope to be an open and lively discussion of the matters that are most important to us. For freedom is not just a political slogan to be bandied about by those who fantasise about being 'freedom fighters'. It is something we must cherish and live out in our every waking hour, lest the flame burn out during our slumber.

Rory Winter, Scots Moderator



The European Left

[Rory Winter]

Posted by Marky54: Wed Apr 02, 2008 5:13 pm

what exactly is being discussed? just europe in general?

my stance is that if europe stands for freedom and democracy, why is it they are not being open about it and allowing the vote of the people?

it seems more like a case of 'your having it wether you like or not wether you stand for it or not' and given the bigbrother state being put in place at the same time it is very worrying IMO about what exactly the motives are for it. i don't like the idea of being ruled by somebody who was'nt voted in by the people.

how can it be called democratic when nobody has a say? i though democracy was the ability to vote for a leader, not having one enforced upon you without any say.

[Rory Winter]

Welcome Marky54, so you found it! Problem with threads in Controversies it's like being sent to the Gulag Archipelago. Nobody hears from you again because --unlike the Dustbin-- posts to this thread don't get publicity in Latest Topics. So it's a pretty lonely sin bin.

Anyway I thought I might as well move before Tony relegated the thread there. The idea of starting a thread here was that there might be a place where anyone could publish without being threatened in the way I have been. This, however, is a temporary arrangement for now with other developments in the offing.

My intention all along was to try and reach a point where all sides could engage in a discussion freely with no coercion, harrassment or threats or fear of saying the wrong thing and offending a particular interest group. My main interest is to establish a forum where all sides can meet to engage in dialogue with each other rather than a slanging match.

The European issue concerns us all on this island and the sub-continent. It's an issue which cuts across all political views and concerns the future of our societies. Hence the need to discuss it intelligently without becoming overly emotional or reducing it to a point-scoring exercise.

[Rory Winter]

Posted by Marky54: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:24 pm

the problem with the EU is were getting it without a choice

they should give us all a referendum

if it really is good for the country then they will have no worries
they could tell us all the amazing things that we will get and how it will help us all


but i suspect that its mostly big bussiness that will have the major benifits

and here is the problem

for 99% of the population they will get nothing or less than they have now

so for what reason should they vote for the EU

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

.. And so the point has to be made and loudly: it is not 'Europe' or a European Constitution which threatens the fundamental rights of the British. It is the fascist attitude of our own governments (both Nu Labour and Tory) which are creating the police state!

It is Britain that is the odd-man-out when it comes to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. That is the reality. Yet what we read in most of the Murdoch media (utter lies of course) makes out 'Europe' to be the threat! These lies must be challenged by folk like you and me. The fascist policies of British governments must be challenged, by civil disobedience if necessary, and we must appeal to the European Union for help. It is our only, last chance!

This goes for all of us but especially for minority groups who are at the sharp end of the British government's fascist persecution.

The people of Britain are the victims of the treason of their own political leaders. In the name of God, how long will it be before they wake up to see the truth. The truth, not the nonsense that is being shoved down our throats by a Right wing, fascist establishment?

There is still time to fight these fascist chickenhawks. To give up the struggle before the battle is over is to be a coward and a defeatist. Worse still, to do so is to betray ourselves, our families and our most precious beliefs.

We must not surrender to them!

[Rory Winter]

Why are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown trying to deny us the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
Spy.blog, 23 June 2007
http://tinyurl.com/27uooz



What with all the media spin by the UK Government and the European Union and the shallow analysis and reporting by the mainstream media, we are puzzled as to what exactly has been agreed at the European Union summit in Brussels this weekend.

We are still especially worried about what exactly Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have agreed to with regard to the European Union Reform Treaty and especially, the legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights (.pdf) These sort of follow the European Convention on Human Rights and the UK's Human Rights Act 2000:

Article 7 Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

Article 8 Protection of personal data

1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.

2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.

3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

However, there are significant differences i,e, there are no explicit exemptions for the Government using vague weasel words like "national security" or "the prevention or detection of crime" or "public health" or "the economic interests of the UK" etc. which so much UK legislation has embedded into it.

Nothing seems to have changed since we commented on this back in 2004: Have the pundits actually bothered to read the EU Constitution ?

See also this confusing BBC background article on Charter of Fundamental Rights

Is there really a workable United Kingdom "opt out" from these clauses ?

If so, then why should we tolerate authoritarian Labour politicians who seek to deny us these human rights, which are enjoyed and legally enforced by the rest of the European Union ?

We demand that these existing human rights are upheld now and ratified by this UK Government and all future ones.
__________

Rory's Comments:

Although this article was published last June the points being made are still highly relevant. The Blair/Brown regime has cunningly cashed in on the innate Europhobia of the British (and in particular the English) by using a wholly unfounded disaffection among Brits for the European Union to exert pressure on other member nations and the Commission in order to extract 'concessions' from the Union, not in the interests of the common people but on behalf of the vested interests of British capital and the ruling classes.

The high level of ignorance and Europhobic prejudice amongst Brits was deliberately nurtured by British politicians and their attendant media in order to use it as a weapon against progressive European social and civil rights.

At the recent meeting at Lisbon, not only did the Brits insist on their right to opt put of the new Charter but went out of their way to water-down the Charter nevertheless. Proof indeed of the mischievous intent of the Brits to act as a reactionary force within the EU working, no doubt, in the interests of Washington's neocons.

The British, along with others on the Right in countries like Poland, are now seen by other Europeans to be a trojan horse for Washington. They play an entirely destructive role as an adversary of the EU. While doing so they ensure that their own people are kept ignorant of the deceptive game they are playing.

Ultimately, it is the British people who will pay the price and that they have now begun to do with Britain's inexorable slide into becoming a full-blown police state. The time has already come when those of us in Britain who consider ourselves to be rightfully citizens of Europe to mobilize ourselves against these tinpot dictators. All is not yet lost and I believe the time has come, as European citizens, to make a direct appeal to the European Union to help us protect our fundamental civil rights against an oppressive, domestic government.

http://tinyurl.com/3dyefr

[TonyGosling]

Leaving the baggage behind.....

I remember an articulate and well organised Dutch campaign which was very active in the late 1990s called Coalition for a Different Europe.

They had a big presence at all the European Summits organising counter-conferences etc and pointing out practical methods to fill the the 'democratic holes' in the EU structures.

But Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) seems to be the best organisation of its type these days.

Coalition
http://www.snore.org/archief/1997/different-europe/about.shtml

Corporate Europe Observatory
http://www.corporateeurope.org/

[Rory Winter]

Welcome Tony! It's good to see you so here's a wee drammie in place of a stamp on your passport!

Aye, well the baggage is still probably at Terminal 5 going roond in circles. Best leave it there the noo!

Seriously, many thanks for the links to a Coalition for a Different Europe and the Corporate Europe Observatory. I will begin listing these and invite similar links from others.

It is precisely the idea of an Alternative Europe which I would like us all to consider and which I would encourage to put our energies into. For one thing is clear. None of us is happy with the status quo. That has to and will be changed by people like us!

[Rory Winter]

The Controversy Continues

This discussion took place earlier today, with an exchange of emails, between Andrew Baker, Paul Carline, Stefan Souppouris, Rory Winter and Ian Fantom. Others took part more passively. The conversation is in approximate order of sequence. It shows what can be done by email to be then presented to the readers for their comments.
___________________________________________________________

Andy: Let's not forget that Mussolini defined Fascism as state and business working together. If we take this definition then it probably would be applicable to the EU in it's current format


Paul: I don't think that analysis will do. In German fascism, the state directed industry - told it what to do (actually Roosevelt also did that in the "New Deal", which was admired by Hitler - does that make Roosevelt a fascist?).


The EU does not direct modern industry. It produces guidelines and regulations for certain aspects of business - social, employment- and health-related, environmental etc. which restrict the absolute freedom of business to exploit people and the environment. It's actually 'liberal capitalist' states like the UK which demand opt-outs of legislation which they see as restricting private enterprise - are you going to say that such restrictions are fascist? That you want unrestricted expoitation? Do you see how inconsistent the argument is?


Fascism - like its twin sister communism (of the Stalinist/Maoist variety) - they're actually virtually identical, not something the Left wants to admit - puts the state and its imagined historic mission before the individual. I don't see anything like that in the EU - otherwise there wouldn't be the Charter of Human Rights (which Blair didn't want to sign up to).


The argument that the EU as it presently operates is fascist just won't stand up. The relationship between business and the (national) state and between both of these and the citizens hasn't changed with the creation of the EU. They are still based on a corrupt liberal capitalism, wage slavery, profiteering, unlawful taxation etc.


But the Europhobes would have us believe that everything was fine until the nasty old EU came along and many of the laws and regulations started coming out of Brussels instead of London, Paris or Berlin.


It's another myth that there is a massive unelected bureaucracy in Brussels which is dictating to the poor citizens in the vassal states. It's rubbish, of course. The EU has less bureacrats than a medium-sized British city.


You'll have to come up with something better than a vague suggestion that a close connection between the state and business equals fascism.


Stefan: Paul, I have to disagree that the EU is in any way "liberal capitalist" - there is nothing liberal about the EU except for the propaganda campaign which is entirely based around framing people who disagree with this thoroughly right wing corporate project as nationalists and xenophobes.


A lot of the EU laws will be written by working groups - which are essentially made up of the corporations who those laws will benefit. Our elected representatives will have little more power than to debate the fine points of these laws.


I oppose the EU because it is a corporatocracy where democratic power is taken away from the person and law making power is given to the corporation.


Paul: I think you misunderstand the use of the expression 'liberal capitalism'. In that context, 'liberal' merely means having a commitment to the free market.


Besides that, everything you have said is mere assertion. That's what you think is going on. I suggest you have no real idea of how the EU works. "Working groups made up of the corporations"? That is total speculation.


Of course there is very heavy commercial lobbying - that's not exclusive to the EU - but the assertion that "law making power is given to the corporation" is just that, a mere assertion. If you want to persuade me (and possibly others), you'll have to give specific examples and specific and verifiable evidence.


How can the EU take away democratic power from the person when UK citizens have no democratic power to begin with? We can't have less than nothing. The truth is that as citizens we have gained greater democratic powers through the EU - but you cannot allow yourself to admit it.


Rory: Firstly, 'liberal capitalist,' 'liberalisation' , 'neo-liberalism' or 'NWO globalism' are all the same thing. A devil-take-the-hindmost anarchy which has no sense of social obligations.


Second, how the EU works: how many folk in Britain have any interest in this? It was only when I lobbied in the EU did I begin to appreciate the difference between doing that in Brussels/Strasbourg & Westminster. Give me the former everytime.


Third, we can't have less than nothing but through things like the Charter we have a llittle more (but not as much as other Europeans, thanks to the British government. So much for an external threat!)


Stefan: Paul. Why would I not allow myself to admit that? Honestly Paul it bothers me when people argue in that way - you are essentially inferring some kind of hidden agenda on me. What is my agenda? Would you perhaps like to assert I am a nationalist? A xenophobe?



The fact that working groups are made up of corporations is asserted by Irish politicians in the WAC Ireland documentary "end of nations" - the example being that representatives of the major pharmaceutical corporations form the working group on laws regarding the pharmaceutical industry. As far as democracy goes - sell it to me. If you think you can demonstrate how the EU as proposed by the Lisbon Treaty will increase and not destroy democracy - leave off the snide comments and made a coherent argument.



I've heard convincing arguments from both Tony Benn and several Irish MPs as to how the EU effectively makes democracy a charade. From the other side of the argument all I hear is "No it doesn't" followed by some veiled accusation of prejudice towards me - which is pretty much the New Labour line on this whole affair as well. And it's not enough.



Paul: When did I say I was in favour of the Lisbon Treaty? Why must it be either:or, (with us or against us - Bush reductionism), black or white?



I've been campaigning for greater democracy in Europe for the last 6 years or so. I'm a member of the council of a institute/think tank committed to real democracy i.e. direct democracy, especially at the transnational level of the EU.



I don't accept that the EU as it is currently constituted is democratic. But the EU is not a monolithic institution with a single unified aim and action plan. It is dominated by the representatives of the nation states - the unelected Commissioners appointed by the national governments (sleazebags like Mandelson), and especially the Council of Ministers - heads of state and foreign ministers especially. They include the ones driving the agenda of global capitalism, the artificial clash of civilisations and permanent war.



The elected European Parliament is a different kettle of fish. It is, I repeat, vastly more democratic than the UK parliament. People from different parties work together instead of pursuing purely party interests. Much good legislation has come out of the Parliament, raising standards in many areas.



One thing one learns to accept (if one rejects a monocular and colour-blind vision of the world) is the phenomenon of paradox - which includes the fact that good can come from evil. Evil intentions and behaviour often have a habit of undermining themselves (have a look at the Prologue in Heaven from Goethe's "Faust" for an early 19th-century appreciation of the paradox).



The idea behind the EU might have been corrupt, a plot of the elites - but that doesn't mean that their plans always work out as they hope (look at 9/11!) - because people are both unpredictable and the majority have a sense of decency and integrity. So one has to hold two apparently contradictory ideas at the same time - that's paradox - i.e. the idea that the intention behind setting up the EU might have been evil (if you can prove that it was rather than just asserting it, I'd be interested to see the evidence), but that the evil intention can produce some good effects.



One unequivocally good effect (unless you are really stuck in a 19th-century nation-state paradigm which has outlived its usefulness) is that, thanks in large part to the creation of the EU, there is a growing sense of 'European-ness', of a solidarity between the peoples of Europe (and extending out to the rest of the world) - when this positive feeling is not undermined and corrupted by petty nationalist interests (UKIP and all the right-wing nationalist groups across Europe, who are not at all interested in democracy).



Wanting to smash the EU because it is in some respects evil and corrupt - and denying that there is any good or future potential in it - is both stupid and counter-productive. I repeat: what is yur alternative? A retreat into isolationism? Do you really imagine that you and others who feel like you can stop the slide into a fascist police state in the UK by detaching ourselves from the EU? I think this is pure delusion.



We need - and can, as the Amsterdam meeting showed - forge much stronger links with people across the EU to expose the false-flag terrorism, the phoney 'war on terror', the pseudo-democracy. On all those fronts we have potentially powerful allies in the European Parliament. Others will surely follow Chiesa's example.



On a wider scale, we need a 'one world consciousness' to replace the anachronistic nation-state idea which, whether you like it or not, breeds the "little Englander" mentality. I do not accept the idea of 'national sovereignty' - especially not the illegitimate claims to sovereignty of governments or parliaments - as something to wish to preserve.



We should all be working to democratise our national systems and support a federally organised Europe - not forgetting that in federal Switzerland popular sovereignty is a reality, there are 26 sovereign cantons, each with their own different constitution, the national 'government' is composed of 7 people from 4 political parties working on the principle of consensus (so no party can dominate) and citizens can and do challenge and overturn laws and proposed constitutional changes. Swiss citizens succeeded in imposing (by referendum) a 10-year moratorium on building nuclear power stations, and they even got 40+% of a vote in a referendum to abolish the Swiss army. Multinationals are not allowed to dominate the market in Switzerland, and each canton has its own bank and sets its own tax rates - by agreement with the people.



A Europe federalised on that model, with strong democratic constitutions which would prevent the possibility of governments waging war, would be real progress. It seems to me that your vision represents a retrograde step into a model which has been shown not to work. I'd prefer to move forwards.



Andy: Crikey Paul, have you actually looked into the treaty of Lisbon?? Whose interests do you think Peter Mandelson will be looking after whilst writing the trade laws for Europe. How are we the people, across europe, able to effect change within the council of Ministers. Saying that the current EU set up is a sham does not make me anti - Europe or nationalistic. I also agree that what we live in at the moment is not real democracy. To say that we have gained greater democratic powers through europe, the sentence after declaring we have no democratic power does not make any sense. The Lisbon treaty is the nail in the coffin of democracy but you cannot allow yourself to admit it



Paul: Please consider my reply to Stefan ...



Stefan: Paul, perhaps I should make it clear that since the topical reality of the EU at this moment is the Lisbon Treaty - it is the EU as described in that treaty I (and I think most people here) assume we are all discussing.



I am against the EU - as proposed - as described - by the Lisbon treaty. Not any EU that might be conceived - but we are working in reality here right? Not imagination? How can we have a discussion about whether or not we want the EU based not on the EU as it is proposed but some magical dream EU we all hold in our hearts?



Under these terms the EU is resolutely NOT unable to be dominated by big powers - in terms of nation states who wield any power we have Germany, the UK and France - the three of whom (with any minnow state to make numbers) can veto any action. The working groups, if the politicians speaking on WAC Ireland's documentary are dominated by corporate special interest groups. So we have corporations writing laws and The Corporate Big Three able to effectively veto any attempts to water down those laws other states may harbour.



Bring me an EU that matches the dream you describe and I will support it. Meanwhile, back in reality, I have the very real reality of a tyrannical corporatocracy to campaign against.



Rory: We won't effect change through the Ministers. No chance.



If implemented fully the Treaty would have afforded us more protection in areas such as Human and Workers rights. These would have been clearly to our advantage. Who stopped that? The UK Government. So much for a threat to our freedom & democracy from outwith!



Yes, what we have is very far from real democracy. So why do the anti-EUers claim that our freedom and democracy is "under threat" from Brussels?!



Actually we have gained various protections from EU legislation (eg environmental protection, sewage clean-up directives etc) which has been of a social-democratic nature up until now. And more democracy through the use of PR in European and assembly electionsd is just one major gain. If we hadn't been forced into having to use PR for Europe it is highly unlikely that we would have got it for the assemblies. We in Scotland prefer to deal directly with Brussels than to have our relationship interefered with in London. The question of the Europarliament lacking democratic power is a different matter concerning an institution which was set up badly.


The growth any new nation entails the rearrangement of power. That is what is happening in the EU. It is up to the people of Europe to launch popular campaigns demanding more democracy in the key institution of the Europarliament. Only through struggle will real gains be made. It has always been so.



Paul:I'm against the Lisbon Treaty - how could I not be? So I support all demands that international treaties have to be ratified by 'the people', not just approved by governments on our behalf. I have argued and continue to argue for a genuinely democratic constitution-making process in Europe which would remove power from the national governments and restore it to its rightful owners.

That's why I want the democratic process within the EU to continue, where others want to close it down in the name of preserving 'national sovereignty', which is a disaster.



It's not about some "magical dream EU" - I could respond by saying that anti-EUers also have a 'magical dream' alternative - the somehow magically transformed nation-state. I differ from you in believing that it's easier to reform the EU - because there is a potential constituency of 500 million to back reform and there is already a strong reform movement in Europe, unlike here - than it is to demolish the EU and try to democratise each separate nation state.


I hope I've made it clear that I actually want a strong transnational entity within Europe to overrule the corrupt nation-state systems - especially that of the UK - which are the real root of the problem.


Stefan: I've heard convincing arguments from both Tony Benn and several Irish MPs as to how the EU effectively makes democracy a charade. From the other side of the argument all I hear is "No it doesn't" followed by some veiled accusation of prejudice towards me - which is pretty much the New Labour line on this whole affair as well. And it's not enough.


Rory: Benn's speciality is constitutional history from which he analyses current power operating. He makes such analyses of Britain as he now does of Europe. But he has made it clear that he does not advocate withdrawal but the need to establish the basis of a constitutional balance within the EU institutions giving sovereign power to its Parliament
.

Now here's a question for your consideration. Why is there so much anti-EU feeling at present in Britain when in Europe there is a general acceptance that countries will remain in the EU despite any feelings of hostility they might have about the Treaty? And why is a Referendum on the Treaty so often confused with a Referendum for withdrawal in this Forum?


Anything to do with Murdoch's SUN & the way we are brainwashed by the mainstream media?


IanI find the arguments about the EU and Common Purpose very interesting, but we should remember that:


We are a Truth Movement, and interested only in researching and distributing facts. Any political decisions that arise from research are just that: political and not truth-seeking. Personal attacks should have no place in truth-seeking.


In the case of the EU, if it were to be established that the EU is being controlled by the CIA as part of a wider program for world domination, any conclusion with regard to whether the UK should remain in the EU or leave is a political decision. Different interpretations are allowable.


UKIP believes that reform of the EU is not possible, and that the only option is to withdraw. Others believe that withdrawal would throw us more into the hands of the CIA. So what? That's politics. We should be focusing on finding out what is actually going on.


Rory: A great analysis, Ian, with which I fully concur.


Paul: Couldn't agree more - that the discussion should be based on fact, not suspicion or assertion - whilst also accepting, as I said in another reply, the paradox that good can come from evil or that, as I think the Old Testament has it, "out of the strong came forth sweetness"!


I strongly believe that if we had all the facts and could look at the different alternatives more objectively, without preconceptions, pressure for retaining at least a European Parliament and developing a Swiss-style federal structure based on cooperation, solidarity and consensus would be the wisest option.


Britain's political system is so corrupt that we need the help of other Europeans to transform it. Supporting the campaign to name and shame the war criminals throughout Europe - and to pressurise the EP to investigate FFT - are two very practical means to that end.


Stefan: Paul, it appears through crossed wires we haven't noticed how similar our views are. I am not calling for a knee-jerk withdrawal from the EU yet, certainly not a withdrawal from the ETA. I have little interest in "sovereignty" or nationality (being made of more than one nationality would make that a difficult position for me to hold).


I like the ideas you propose. I'm not convinced they are anything but ideas. I have not seen any evidence there is any will at all to try and craft and EU which would give power to people and away from central governments - I see a project to remove power from governments people elect to corporations who wish to rule the entire region through a centralised power structure which they have emminent control and influence over.


Even taking the corporate issue out of the equation - I don't see how a federal Europe could ever increase my democratic power.


If I'm a group of ten people - my vote will represent 10% if we cast ballots to decide something which is quite powerful. If my group of ten people joins 10 other groups of 10 people my vote now represents 1% less powerful.


Now add back into that the fact that our elected representatives only debate and suggest amendments to any laws made and the mind boggles to call it democracy at all.


Now add back into that the fact that the three big nations of the EU (yes, including ours) ultimately are the only ones with any control and it very quickly starts to look like a quest for domination and not a peaceful union.

Despite all this, on an instinctual level - I want to be a part of an EU - two years ago before I learnt some facts about it - I would have described my self as a Pro-EU - breaking down of boundaries between different nationalities, increased cooperation between neighbours - all sounds great on a press release. For the same reason couldn't we say one world government is a good idea? And why not - the boundaries between us are illusory - we are all of the same people?


The reason why not is such huge centralised power structures rely on benevolent leaders who work for the people and not corporate PR me - as politicians today are.


I say our #1 priority - all of us - is to fight the Lisbon treaty - let's debate what sort of an EU we could forge when we have time to gaze at our navels.

Paul:There is a large body of will to democratise the EU - but that cannot be turned into effective change largely because of the way the national political systems are set up i.e. despite PR, voting tends to be along party lines, and the parties are the problem: their interests are always sectarian. So the composition and behaviour of the EP doesn't reflect the views people hold within the EU.


In any case, because there has never been a proper popular debate about the structure and powers of the EU, few people are informed: they just parrot the standpoint of whatever party they tend to support.


The blame lies as much with party-dominated systems, complicit media - and lazy voters - as it does with any deliberate evil intentions within the EU. It's a travesty to imagine the EU as some kind of evil organisation which deceives 'good, ordinary people' for corporate ends. Where is the intelligent analysis and concern and effective action in the UK to change the system here?


A federal Europe can increase your power if it were to adopt the direct-democratic mechanisms which are an intrinsic part of a genuinely democratic system - compulsory and optional referendums, and citizens' initiatives.


These exist not only in Switzerland, but also at regional (Laender) level in Germany, in Estonia, in Slovenia, in Liechtenstein and other places. When initiatives and referendums were introduced in Bavaria (as the result of decades of hard campaigning work by the pro-democracy group Mehr Demokratie (More Democracy) there were 1200+ citizens' initiatives in the first few years.


These constitutional rights give people real political power. That's what we ought to be campaigning for, here and in the EU as the first transnational polity in the world. Why is the UK government bitterly opposed to direct democracy? Because it is effective in re-distributing power away from the centre. The other 'mechanism' for re-distributing power is federalism itself. The UK would be far better off with a federal system, taking power away from Westminster and bringing greater accountability.

[Rory Winter]

Here is what the European Greens had to say about Britain's opt-out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights:



EU Summit : British opt-out from Fundamental Rights Charter is unacceptable
23.06.2007

Commenting on the outcome of the EU summit Johannes Vogggenhuber, MEPand Vice-President of the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, today said:

"Europe has come close to a deep division, which has only been avoided at the very last moment. This summit has shown that the political integration of the continent, which has been pursued for 50 years now, has adversaries within. An alliance of nationalists, neoliberal ideologues and Rumsfeld's New Europe is at work to reduce the continent to an internal market plus NATO. The 18 member states, which ratified the Constitutional treaty, underestimated the determination of this coalition and closed ranks too late.

Despite the absurd menaces and blackmail attempts of the [Polish] Kaczynski twins, the real bad guy of the summit is Tony Blair. The opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights he secured for the United Kingdom is unacceptable. Bearing in mind the universal principle of human and citizen rights', this opt-out is extremely destructive for the credibility of the European Union as a community of shared values both at home and abroad. These values are at the very heart of Europe and if the UK doesn't share in them is it openly putting into question its own Community membership. Instead of allowing an opt-out, the EU should rather accept that the UK leaves the European project for good."

http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/188/188278.eu_summit@f r.htm

Charter of Fundamental Rights, PDF Version

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

[Rory Winter]

Our problem is not too many rights, but too few
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060519/ai_n16417549

The Independent (London), May 19, 2006

If we are to believe our most senior politicians, ours is a country shackled by its international commitments on human rights, a nation now incapable of conducting the daily fight against terrorism and organised crime. Afghan hijackers, released foreign offenders, illegal migrants have all fuelled high-level calls for the amendment of the Human Rights Act, or even its repeal.

Yet, as a report from the European Parliament shows, the Government is far from being a stickler for international conventions. Three important international agreements guaranteeing basic human rights still have to be implemented by the UK. Worse, the Government's cowardly and shortsighted refusal to take a stand on basic rights is undermining both its position abroad and the fight against organised crime at home.

Take, for example, the failure to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. This, entirely sensible, international agreement ensures that women who have been trafficked into the sex trade are given medical support and counselling rather than simply being thrown out of the country. It is controversial for the Government because it allows a cooling- off period of 30 days before victims can be deported.

Yet the point of the breathing space is to allow those who have suffered the evil of human trafficking to escape their abusers and agree to co-operate with the authorities. There is evidence that, until recently, police investigations were languishing - and gang- masters escaping - because the immigration authorities were deporting trafficked women as soon as they could, without investigating their evidence. Though the Home Office now says this problem is solved, it could not have arisen had the convention been in place.

Incredibly, the Government has also fought shy of agreeing a declaration to ensure that migrant workers are afforded basic human rights and are not forced into any form of slavery. Too often the political reflex has been to ratchet up the rhetoric, however counterproductive the outcome.

But serious consequences flow from this disastrous loss of perspective. Basic standards once taken for granted are swept aside in the rush to crack down on illegal migration. As the European Parliament report shows, around the EU, "policies to address illegal immigration have moved so far as to curtail the ability of asylum- seekers to exercise their human rights".

Meanwhile the ability of the UK to act as a beacon of human rights on the international stage is fatally weakened. As yesterday's report puts it: "To have credibility on the international stage, EU member states need to be firm in setting dates for the ratification of all key human rights conventions and their optional protocols." For example, the UK's international stand against child soldiers is compromised by its incomplete endorsement of the relevant convention (a problem for the Ministry of Defence because it recruits from the age of 16). More generally, the world's more odious regimes have an easy retort when lectured by Britain on matching international agreements: practise what you preach.

Other European countries are not much better. When a visa ban was slapped on Uzbekistan last year, it was flouted by Germany which gave the country's interior minister a visa to visit for medical treatment days before the blacklist was published. The EU's human rights "dialogue" with China takes place, it emerges, without simultaneous interpretation. Some dialogue.

But for Britain, the message sounds loud and clear. Far from rolling back agreements already in place, the Government should look to its conscience and sign up to the provisions it has dodged.

Copyright 2006 Independent Newspapers UK Limited
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

[Rory Winter]

EU treaty threatens Thatcher revolution
Last Updated: 1:58am BST 20/10/2007
DAILY TELEGRAPH
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/10/19/cneu 119.xml

Gordon Brown is signing away Britain's right to preserve its economic freedoms to a bunch of Euro-judges, writes Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The European reform treaty to be agreed by Gordon Brown and fellow EU leaders in Lisbon today marks a profound shift away from free market reform, and creates an EU-wide supreme court with sweeping powers over economic affairs.

The text whittles away the national veto on social security, self-employment law, intellectual property, transport, and areas of fiscal policy, among others.

Crucially, it rejigs the voting structure, making it 30pc harder for Britain to recruit a blocking minority to stop new laws. This will have an impact because the EU's free-enterprise bloc (Britain, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and the Baltics) is already on the back foot.

Derek Scott, Tony Blair's former economic adviser and now head of Open Europe, said the voting shift could open the door to a blast of irksome legislation. "We have, with great difficulty, been able to stop some of the dafter things in the Financial Services Act and MIFID [Markets in Financial Instruments Directive]. Now it is going to be that much harder," he said.

On the insistence of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, the goal of "free and undistorted" competition has been stripped from the EU's core objectives for the first time since the 1957 Treaty of Rome.

A chorus of EU trade experts have warned that the downgrading of competition to second-tier status will make it nearly impossible to police the EU single market and prevent politicians stopping foreign takeovers. "It is the first step towards disintegration," said Mario Monti, the EU's former competition chief.

The goal of achieving a "high level of employment and social protection" will have a superior legal rank, obliging the European Court to rule in favour of social rights whenever they clash with free market goals.

This may enable trade unions, Left-wing parties, and advocates of the Rhineland social model to push through an agenda that effectively rolls back the Thatcher revolution through court rulings....

[Rory Winter]

Blair's treaty opt-out is worthless, admits EU
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/12/neu112 .xml
By Bruno Waterfield in Strasbourg
Last Updated: 2:16am BST 12/07/2007

Senior European Union officials confirmed yesterday that Britain's "red line" opt-out from the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is not worth the paper it is written on.

Margot Wallström, the European Commission Vice-President, insisted that the charter will apply to huge swathes of British law, the 75 per cent or more that is derived from EU legislation.

"Citizens will be able to claim before the courts the rights enshrined in the Charter," she said. "The Charter will be binding for the European institutions, and also for member states when they implement EU law, even if it does not apply to all of them."

Sensitive national legislation, such as Britain's opt-out on a Brussels directive that sets the length of the working week will, officials predict, be challenged in the EU courts because it implements European laws.

The commission's legal service estimates that British opt-outs to the charter are "limited" and point to German studies showing that up to 80 per cent of national law originates in Brussels.

"The charter will test some member states applying European law and to what extent a UK judge can be alien to this jurisprudence elsewhere is unclear," said a legal source. "The opt-out is potentially very thin."

If the EU Treaty mandate agreed by Tony Blair is ratified, Gordon Brown will quickly find the charter, including a "right to strike", becoming enforceable in the European courts as trade unions seek to roll back Margaret Thatcher's reforms of the 1980s.

A senior European Parliament source, close to negotiations on the new EU Treaty, has told The Daily Telegraph that Euro-MPs are planning to sponsor early challenges to Britain's opt-outs.

"We are going to make sure that this issue is constantly before the European Court of Justice," he said.

"There is 30 years of EU jurisprudence to say there can be no two-tier system of European rights."

Research by the think-tank Open Europe suggests that EU judges will not be backward in coming forward to apply the charter.

"The Court of Justice will decide for itself whether member states are implementing European law and interpret their national laws for them," said Neil O'Brien, Open Europe's director.

"Trying to stop the charter changing our laws will be like trying to carry water in a sieve."

[conspiracy analyst]

European Left? Rifondanziona is in the government with Italy having troops in Afghanistan and having agreed to build new US bases there.

They have as much to do with the left as Brown has. Left in name neocons by day.

[Rory Winter]

And here we have it, what we've been talking about for years. The US economy is finally going down the pan. Hence why it is so vital for Europeans to stand by each other through the troubled times ahead.

Dollar Trades Near Record Low Against Euro as Writedowns Grow

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601083&sid=amYEOzdBliCI&refer =currency

[Rory Winter]

FTI calls on Britain to stop acting as the black sheep of the EU
http://www.fairtrials.net/index.php/news/article/fti_calls_on_britain_ to_stop_acting_as_the_black_sheep_of_the_eu/
October 18 2007

Fair Trials International has today called on the British Government to stop acting as the black sheep of the EU, and commit to Justice and Home Affairs measures that better protect fundamental rights and access to justice.

In advance of a meeting of EU Heads of State in Lisbon on Friday, Amanda Cumberland, Head of Research and Campaigns at FTI said:

“FTI strongly supports the adoption of the EU Reform Treaty because of its potential to make EU Institutions more democratic and transparent. We particularly welcome the prospect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights finally being incorporated into EU law.

“The likely agreement of the revised Treaty is a significant achievement. However, FTI is disappointed with the British Government’s continued ‘cherry-picking’ approach to Justice and Home Affairs issue at EU level.

“The ‘red lines’ demanded by the British Government mean that Britain can opt out of key Justice and Home Affairs issues, such as the proposed Framework Decision on Procedural Safeguards which would extend basic fundamental rights (such as access to legal representation and interpretation) for defendants in criminal cases to all EU citizens.

“We are deeply concerned at the British Government’s lack of commitment to addressing the inequality of arms in the development of EU justice measures.

“FTI today urges the British Government to stop acting as the black sheep of the EU and to face its responsibilities by committing to justice and home affairs policy measures that better protect fundamental rights and access to justice”, concluded Mrs Cumberland.

For comment, contact Amanda Cumberland on 020 7762 6400 / 0781 3369754

Fair Trials International
59 Carter Lane, London EC4V 5AQ
http://www.fairtrials.net

For background information please refer to notes below
THE NEW EU TREATY


BACKGROUND

After the adoption of the Nice Treaty, the European Council decided to look at how the Union could be made more democratic, transparent and efficient. A Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was drawn up, which was intended to replace the existing treaties and was subsequently signed in October 2004.

The problems encountered in 2005 during the process of ratifying the Constitutional Treaty led the Union to engage in a process of reflection on future reform. This resulted in June 2006 in an invitation from the European Council to the future German Presidency to prepare a report on the way forward.

This report, together with the work undertaken by the German Presidency, allowed the European Council at its meeting on 21-22 June 2007 to agree to draw up a "Reform Treaty" amending the existing treaties with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the enlarged Union, as well as the coherence of its external action.

This text has been further amended and on October 5, 2007, the Portuguese Presidency released a revised text of the reform Treaty.

On October 15, 2007 EU Foreign Affair Ministers have in Luxembourg to discuss the new EU treaty. A few member states have some minor concerns with the new text, however they should not prevent EU leaders finalising the Treaty.

On October 19, 2007 an informal meeting of EU Heads of State in Lisbon will conclude discussions on the Treaty, which should then be signed in December and ratified by June 2009.

It is hoped that the Treaty will be finalised on Friday during the meeting of the Head of States in Lisbon.

For more details please click here
CONTENT OF THE EU REFORM TREATY

The new Treaty will amend the existing Treaties in order to make the changes necessary for an expanded EU of 27 to work effectively.

The Treaty will establish:

* a long-term president of the EU from 2009;
* a more powerful Foreign Policy chief;
* a simpler, more democratic decision-making system;
* more power for the European and national parliaments;
* Last but not least, it will incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into EU law, with a view to ensure that EU institutions respect fundamental rights enshrined in the ECHR and in EU laws.

On October 5, 2007 the Portuguese Presidency released a revised text of the reform Treaty that aims to enable all member states to reach an agreement on the provisions of this Treaty:

* Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice will be restricted over pre-existing policing and criminal law measures (Protocol on transitional provisions, article 10).
* Protocol IV of the Treaty will enable the UK and Ireland to opt out of all Justice and Home Affair matters, including amendments to legislation from which they have already opted in.
* The UK and Ireland will be given the right to opt out of part of the Shengen acquis.

For further detailed analysis of the provisions in the Reform Treaty please visit the Statewatch website.

Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has publicly expressed the view that this text does not go far enough in replacing the defunct Constitution. However, he said that “it is better to have opt-outs for one or two countries than not to have any progress at all for the EU”.

[Rory Winter]

Irish State gets opt-out clause in EU rights charter
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/0626/1181771870509.htm l

The Government has been given the right to "opt out" of key provisions designed to boost human and civil rights within the new EU "reform treaty", it has emerged. Jamie Smyth in Brussels reports.

EU officials confirmed last night that Ireland and Poland had both sought to reserve their right to follow Britain in opting out of the charter of fundamental rights.

The charter is a document that contains a range of citizens' rights, such as the right to life, the presumption of innocence, and the right to engage in collective bargaining and strike action. It would become "legally binding" for the application of EU law under the "reform treaty", a blueprint of which was agreed at an EU summit at the weekend.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern made no mention of the Government's negotiation of a possible "opt out" from the charter at a press briefing at the conclusion of the summit.

"While the charter of fundamental rights will not be contained in the body of the reform treaty, the legal status is unaltered," Mr Ahern told journalists early on Saturday morning.

"We are satisfied with the protections against intrusion into domestic law that we secured in the charter itself."

He later said that the charter would be a huge selling point for the "reform treaty" in a referendum planned for sometime next year.

But the draft mandate for the talks to finalise the legal text of the new treaty notes: "Two delegations reserved their right to join in the [ British] protocol."

It does not specifically name either state, but EU officials have said they are Ireland and Poland.

The protocols negotiated by British prime minister Tony Blair on the charter state: "The charter does not extend the field of application of Union law beyond the powers of the Union or establish any new power or task for the Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined by the treaties." It continues: "For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the charter creates justifiable rights applicable to the UK except in so far as the UK has provided for such rights in its national law."

Mr Blair made the negotiation of an additional protocol on the charter one of his four "red lines" at the talks. Some opposition politicians have argued that the European Court of Justice could use the charter as a basis to extend labour rights in Britain. Of principal concern is the right to strike, which is laid down in the charter.

But most legal experts disagree, leading one EU official to claim yesterday that the British argument on the charter was only about presentation.

"They got an 'opt out' from the charter so the treaty could pass the Daily Mail test," said the official.

Eugene Regan of the European Lawyers' Group at the Institute of European Affairs said individuals could not rely on the right to strike in the charter because the EU had no competence to legislate in this area.

"These social rights, therefore, serve as possible guidelines for union policy, but are only legally enforceable if member states adopt legislation in line with such guidelines," he said.

Trade unions argue that these rights may develop over time given the fluid nature of EU law. Blair Horan, general secretary of the Civil Public and Services' Union (CPSU), said it was possible the charter could develop to influence domestic law in the future.

He said he was shocked the Government had negotiated an "opt out" from the charter. "In my view the trade union movement in Ireland would never support a treaty with an opt out, which would be doomed to failure in a referendum.

"The CPSU motion at the Ictu conference next week in Bundoran will seek support for this position," he said.

[Rory Winter]

Britain accused of scuppering EU's renewable energy plan
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190269,00.html

· UK officials support permit trading plan for members
· Ministers dodging target, say environmental groups

Ashley Seager and David Gow, Brussels
Saturday October 13, 2007
The Guardian

Britain was accused yesterday of trying to wreck planned EU legislation to enforce a binding target of using renewable power to produce 20% of Europe's energy by 2020.

The ambitious target, agreed by Tony Blair last spring, is challenging for Britain since this country produces only 2% of its power from non-fossil fuel sources such as wind and solar.

British officials attending a meeting in Brussels yesterday supported a system of mandatory trading permits between countries so that member countries that did not meet the renewables target would be able to buy in permits from other countries that had surpassed it.

This would enable Britain to get to, say, 10% of its energy from renewables by 2020 and buy in permits from countries, perhaps outside the EU, to cover the rest.

While there is much debate about the best way forward on renewables, groups such as Friends of the Earth and the WWF suspect that Britain, endowed with wind and wave resources, is trying to wriggle out of its European commitments.

The Guardian revealed an internal government document two months ago which showed officials had advised ministers that the UK had no chance of achieving the 20% renewables target and should work to undermine it at a European level or try to use "statistical interpretations" to get round it.

William Rickett, an official at the Department for Business and Enterprise whose team is believed to have prepared the paper for ministers, represented Britain at yesterday's talks.

Campaigners say an EU trading system would destroy the successful "feed-in tariff" schemes operating in countries including Germany and Spain. Such schemes, which are rapidly being adopted by other EU countries, involve paying micro generators above-market prices for electricity they feed into the grid.

Robin Webster, of Friends of the Earth, said: "Government talked a good talk on climate change but it's vital they demonstrate genuine leadership when it comes to delivery. The target is ambitious but it's only by being brave that the government can really tackle climate change. The can't-do attitude to renewable energy is deeply worrying and a self-fulfilling prophecy."

The groups argue that a trading system will discourage EU member countries from developing renewable energy sources at a national level if they can buy green electricity from others.

It would lead to an unbalanced concentration of renewable energy production in countries which have already managed to successfully produce renewable electricity cost-effectively. The price of renewable energy would rise, whereas it is falling in countries that have feed-in tariffs.

Critics accuse Gordon Brown and his senior officials, with France and Poland, of trying to scupper legislation which is due to be unveiled by the commission in December. EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs confirmed he and his team were working on a scheme to trade renewable certificates.

Germany, Europe's leading producer of renewable energy, said the scheme would put at risk its feed-in tariff which is credited with giving the country 10 times the installed wind power and 200 times the solar power that Britain has. Mr Piebalgs and his officials insist that the two schemes are compatible.

But Oliver Schäfer, policy director of the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC), said they would end up destroying each other. "[The British] don't want an ambitious target whereas they have a huge potential in wind, for instance, and their main goal is to kill the whole legislative package while paying lip-service to the goals."

But Mr Piebalgs insisted that the aim of the proposed trading mechanism would be to enable poorer countries, to realise their potentials for renewables.

[Rory Winter]

UK 'worst EU state pension system'
AOL Money
http://money.aol.co.uk/uk-worst-eu-state-pension-system/article/200711 12191709990001

The UK has the worst state pension system in the European Union for the second year running, a report has said.

Consultancy firm Aon Consulting said the "inadequacy" of the UK's state pension system was "beyond question".

It said the state pension in this country provided workers with an income equivalent to just 17% of average earnings, that this was the lowest level in Europe and that it was well below the average for all EU countries of 57%.

[Rory Winter]

Europhobia and Where it's Taking Us


Alf Garnett, Patron Saint of British Europhobia & Bigotry

As I’ve been away from this thread whilst dealing with the Europe issue elsewhere, I thought it would be a good idea to summarise what has been going on.

It started with my publishing the European Left’s Athens Declaration in order that forum readers could be given an insight into an alternative Europe which they would otherwise miss given the totally distorted, black-and-white caricatures they are presented here by the Europhobes and the UK’s tabloid mainstream media (MSM) from where they mainly seem to get their information.

Far from being a monolith, ‘Europe’ as it is labelled by the Europhobes is a conglomerate of nation states, cultures and languages where folk go about their lives, organising themselves into interest and pressure groups as they do everywhere. The European Left is just one of these, bringing in many of the Left parties throughout continental Europe. Significantly, there is no representation from the UK which suggests a lack of interest in things Continental by what remains of the UK Left.

Europhobia in Britain is not just a thing of the Right and its raggle-tag hangers-on. It goes right across the political spectrum and as an old UK-watcher I have often suggested in past columns in this forum that the malaise has resulted from centuries of imperialist brain-washing to which our population has been subjected by its ruling classes. The myth of the “freeborn Englishman”, in particular, has a lot to answer for and this falsehood, of course, ran in parallel with the belligerent, jingoistic idea that Britannia ruled the waves and could simply do no wrong wherever her soldiers and missionaries went. The world was her oyster, there to plunder and rape at her pleasure.

But British hypocrisy couldn’t behave in this barbaric manner without a cover. And together with Britain’s Anglo-Saxon descendants busily wiping-out the Native Americans while calling it their “Manifest Destiny” to do so, Britain’s savagery abroad was quickly and self-righteously justified by Rudyard Kipling’s pompous concept of the “White Man’s Burden”.

It took a Polish writer like Joseph Conrad to show up the White Man’s Burden for what it really was, exposing the descent into savagery of the all-powerful white man who found himself suddenly free and a long way away from the restraints of social and legal control deep in the Congo.

Conrad’s Congo was, of course, the Belgian Congo but the message was the same, given in the protagonist’s last words before his own death: “Exterminate the brutes!”

Those three words, “Exterminate the brutes!”, neatly sum up the colonial past of the white man everywhere. And behind the cant and hypocrisy of British Victorian imperialism it was to be found alive and well there.

“Exterminate the Brutes” was the policy used by Britain after the Indian Mutiny where the Indians, particularly Muslims, were terrorized into centuries of subjection. Curiously enough, a similar terrorisation of Muslims is still being practised by the British state which has neatly immunised itself from race laws by using the police and judiciary to bring about a regime of political terror against Muslims under the guise of a spurious ‘War on Terror’, a nice Orwellian twist.

Racist by nature, Britain’s rulers have long practised rule-by-terror. It was also used against the ‘Black Irish’ and the Gaelic-speaking Highlanders who, after the defeat of the Battle of Culloden, were subjected to the most unspeakable crimes by Butcher Cumberland’s redcoats. Gaelic was forbidden and anyone caught speaking it would have their tongues ripped out. If not exterminate then rip out their tongues, teach them who their rulers are and learn ‘em hard!

Exterminate the Brutes was practised by the British Army which shot down innocent Irish Folk on Bloody Sunday but thirty years ago. It led to the rape and torture of black Kenyans by British Tommies during the manufactured Mau-Mau uprising in the ‘fifties. It was used by the British rulers of the Punjab in WWII when 4 million Indians died in a famine that was entirely preventable but was allowed to happen by the Raj. It is seen once again in the cover-ups going on by the British Army of the atrocities its soldiers have and are committing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The violent, pathological nature of Britain’s ruling classes was stirred-up once more by gangsters like Bush Jr and Cheney and the killing goes on.

Racist attitudes thrive in contemporary Britain, on the one hand when it rears its ugly head in the persecution of Muslims by the police and legal system and on the other in the mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis by both the British and their Anglo-Saxon Alliance US counterparts. It’s there on the streets as well.

The violence and bigotry never went away with the end of Britain’s colonial era. It’s still there, well-embedded into the British psyche, waiting to pop out again like a ghoulish jack-in-the-box.

It is against this background that I see Britain’s current epidemic of Europhobia. For that Europhobia is just another facet of the pathological mind which now sees Britain somehow under threat from “imposed values” from the European Union as well as from the immigration of ‘hordes of East Europeans’.

The idea has been spread that somehow the Commissioners in Brussels are tinkering not just with our laws but with our actual culture! Britain is under threat! Light the beacons and prepare to take on a new Armada!

Well it must be true because that’s what the Brits are being told in their favourite newspapers, especially in Rupert Murdoch’s SUN and the erstwhile Hitler-and-Mussolini-worshipping DAILY MAIL. The fact that Murdoch is an ardent supporter of the gangster Bushco outfit and US global imperialism is never allowed to stray into the minds of the lumpen masses, given their daily dose of brainwashing bilge in a comic-book form, reading-age seven.

A wonderful thing, dumbing down.

Similarly on the TV where, as John Pilger observes, news reportage is now not so much a case of reporting the news with any attempt towards objectivity but about entertainment. Entertainment. The news is there to entertain you and me, not to inform or to encourage one to think. It’s a kind of ghastly, horror-story version of Page Three boobs and bums. The real death and carnage is sanitised and kept off our screens in the same way that Samantha Fox’s extremities were airbrushed and the pubic hair in girlie magazines neatly trimmed and clipped with every hair in place. Reality is a plastic bubble in which we all live, The BBC’s news-readers are invariably giggling, blonde dolly birds who appear to be retarded teenagers and often most probably have their mental age.

In a dumbed-down society that has been deliberately created to keep us all dumb and under control, it’s not surprising to read the dumb views of Europhobes on this forum who clearly have got their information from closet-fascist rags like the DAILY MAIL or the SUN or from their closet-fascist political groups like UKIP and its extremist hangers-on. These same Europhobes present themselves in their talking-shop here as fighters for freedom, banging the 911 drum as it were sufficient to provide their credentials, show just how liberationist they are when in fact, by having allowed themselves to be duped by the latter-day imperialists of the Right, they have become, in effect, part of the problem of the slide into a domestically-produced totalitarian, police state that Britain is experiencing.

Blissfully ignoring the real threats to our freedom they, with a lot of help from the gutter press they read, have found a nice scapegoat to blame all their troubles on. Whilst it would be politically incorrect to blame it on blacks it’s ok simply to turn a blind eye on the racist persecution of Muslims by the very institutions they protest are now under threat from Brussels. While grumbling about the threat to Corpus Juris they are quite happy to turn their backs on the actual corpses resulting from the killing and torturing going on by British Tommies, the 8 million dead in Iraq and Afghanistan since 1991 when successive British governments committed a series of war-crimes across the world.

All this is largely ignored by the Europhobes who go on banging their xenophobic drums in an infantile manner. It’s all the fault of “Europe”, that’s who threatens the free-born Englishman. So let’s project our terminal state of extreme denial onto this scape-goat. They are the threat, not us!

The Australian idea of the whingeing Brit came about by no accident. It really happened in Australia in the early ‘fifties when there was an awful lot of complaining by British immigrants that Oz wasn’t after all the Land of Milk and Honey they’d been told about when they bought their £10 tickets at Australia House in London. Whingeing is a national past-time.

But it’s not just whingeing, it’s scape-goating. And that’s what’s really frightening. British public opinion –quite often reflected in this Forum in all its bigotry– has been manipulated by the Murdochracies in a cold and calculated way into seeing “Europe” as its enemy. The purpose is very clear: to use the emotional, blood-tie and language connection to draw the Brits away from Europe and into the arms of the global imperialists in Washington DC in an infernal Anglo-Saxon Alliance where pan-Atlantic capital can fight out its last stand against a changing world where Anglo-American imperialism is in its death throes. That is what the Washington quislings mean when they say that we live in a very dangerous world. What they omit to mention is that when their system of global domination is under threat the danger comes from them. “Shared values” indeed.

The Anglo-Saxon Alliance has little place for a European Union which is seen as a potential threat to it. Consequently, US policy is to divide and rule the EU by splitting it into a “new” and “old” Europe where hard-line capitalist East Europeans like the Czech, Vaclav Klaus, and his Polish counterparts can be used to undermine the social-democrats of the “old” Europe in the west. This is happening as I write and it is very disturbing to see that the British Europhobes on this forum seem quite happy to go to bed with these reactionaries in their war against Brussels.

See:

Czech President Warns Against “Europeanism”
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=112575#112575

Former Soviet Dissident Warns For EU Dictatorship
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=112578#112578

Ill-informed as they are, the Europhobes just haven’t thought things out. They haven’t done their homework. Among the general public this wouldn’t at all surprise me but on a 911 Truth Forum it becomes a cause for deep concern.

There is a frightening paradox here that whilst on the one hand these champions of British freedom are quite happy to ally themselves with the xenophobes and racists of the extreme right they are hugely undermining their own purported hostility to USUK intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan and the belligerent imperialism of NATO.

By the way, I am here making an assumption that most 911 Truthers are aware of the connection between the events of 911 and USUK globalist militarism and that the heart of the problem they face lies with US imperialism and the neo-fascism of the Bushco/Brown ’special relationship’.

This is basic stuff that any 911 Truther would be expected to understand. But how many of them -especially the Europhobic variety- realise that by continuing, as they do, to oppose a confederated United States of Europe and a common European Defence Force, they are actually aligning themselves with the extremist hawks of US imperialism?

Don’t believe me? Then read this article by a virulently anti-EU writer from the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, an extreme-right hawkish foundation which, alongside the now-defunct Congress for Cultural Freedom, has for decades acted as a think-tank for US hard-liners.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm1789.cfm

These people can see the danger posed to US imperialism by the growth of a unified Europe and its Defence Force. The article also recognises the divisive role that up until now Britain has played in preventing that unification from happening. It recognizes the ’special’ bilateral interests between US and UK capitalism and observes how important it is that US relations with European member states should remain bilateral rather than having to deal with a less-friendly Brussels.

“Britain has found its strongest, most enduring alliance in its Special Relationship with the United States. The common political, diplomatic, historical, and cultural values shared between Americans and Britons are deep and strong. Further still, Britain and America are prepared to defend these values–with military force if necessary. Common values are meaningful only if both parties are ready to defend them.”

Well, we’ve seen what the USUK Alliance has done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, are the Europhobes for or against the continuance of this murderous alliance? If they are, as I would hope, against it then are they prepared to leave their prejudices aside and see that the only way Britain’s dirty game with Washington can be put at an end is by its being superseded by a European Defence Policy which has nothing or little to do with US interests?

The Europhobes should read the abovementioned document carefully before asking themselves how possibly they could have been so seriously misled by those who while spouting empty talk of freedoms were actually grooming them to join a campaign to divide Europe against itself so that USUK imperialism could remain the bully on the block?

UKIP and the oft-quoted Brussels Journal are just two of the reactionary organisations to be found in this meeting-ground of right-wingers, racists, Islamophobes & their ilk. Consciously or unconsciously our Europhobic friends end up promoting their poisonous views and helping to perpetuate US imperialism.

Europhobia, as we find it, is therefore not just a reactionary thing in itself with its roots in bigotry and a post-imperialist sense of false superiority. It is a major factor in fuelling, and a symptom of, the conditions which are helping to bring about a 21st Century fascist, police state in Britain. A fascist state imported from Washington DC. Instead of thinking to join forces with progressives throughout Europe and elsewhere, Europhobia is an entirely negative poison which is crippling and killing the British psyche.

It has to be challenged and dealt with now. We make our own destiny. Now it is up to us to choose what that destiny is to be.

[Rory Winter]

The EU Reform Treaty: Why Washington Should Be Concerned
by Sally McNamara
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm1789.cfm

HERITAGE FOUNDATION WebMemo #1789

With warmer relations with Paris and Berlin, Washington might be forgiven for thinking that its strategic interests are now protected in continental Europe. However, this discounts the threat posed by the European Reform Treaty, signed by all 27 European Union (EU) member states on December 13 in Lisbon. The Reform Treaty, which is substantially the same as the failed European Constitution of 2004, must now be ratified by all member states before its planned introduction on January 1, 2009.

Under the personal leadership of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the EU breathed life into the rejected constitution, which contained the building blocks of a United States of Europe. The new treaty will shift power from nation-states to Brussels in critical areas of policymaking--such as defense, security, and energy--where the United States finds more traction on a bilateral basis. It will restrict the sovereign right of EU member states to determine foreign policy and poses a unique threat to the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Above all, it is a treaty that underscores the EU's ambition to become a global power and challenge American leadership on the world stage.

Substantially the Same

The Reform Treaty retains all the essential components of an EU superstate that were included in the 2004 constitution, including a single legal personality, a permanent EU presidency, an EU-wide public prosecutor, and the position of foreign minister in all but name.[1] It extends qualified majority voting to 40 new matters, in areas such as foreign policy, energy, transport, space, commercial policy, humanitarian aid, sport, tourism, and investment. In a stunning indictment of British government policy, the Labour-dominated House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee reported in October 2007 that, "Taken as a whole, the Reform Treaty produces a general framework which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty."[2] The Committee's report makes clear that the British government has not carefully considered the Reform Treaty and that few, if any, exemptions from the Constitution's excesses have been secured in a way that will be unchallengeable by the European Union.

Foreign Policy Implications

Before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity.[3] (Treaty of Lisbon)

EU-integrationist Richard Laming argues that, as the Single European Act brought about the Single Market and the Maastricht Treaty instituted the euro, the major success of the Reform Treaty will be the EU's beefed-up role in foreign affairs. He states: "Henry Kissinger's famous request for a phone number to call will now have an answer."[4]

The EU boasts that the Reform Treaty compels member states to speak with a single voice on external relations. With a single legal personality, Brussels will now sign international agreements on behalf of all member states. The European Commission arrogantly claims that with the Reform Treaty in place, "the European Union is uniquely well placed to find the answers to today's most pressing questions... and to see European values promoted effectively in the global community."[5] However, the EU already has an extensive sanctions arsenal through the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) but more often than not, chooses not to use it. The EU has refused to use sanctions to fight the broader war on terrorism and continues to drag its feet over implementing tougher sanctions against Iran.

The Reform Treaty formally abolishes the EU's pillar structure that provided for nation states to maintain the lead role in foreign affairs, and America must recognize the dangers.[6] In the few areas where the EU does speak with one voice--at the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), for example--the United States has lost traction in dealing with its European allies on anything resembling a bilateral basis. Frequently, it has found itself pitted against an institution whose position has been pre-determined and which is intent on morally prosecuting American policy. This sets a dangerous precedent. If the EU's ability to supersede the autonomy of its member states is replicated in wider areas of foreign policy--such as the decision to join the United States in military action--America will find itself isolated and facing hostility from an organization that has been endemically anti-American in recent years.

A Threat to the Special Relationship

The institutional and political constraints of further European integration will severely limit Britain's ability to build international alliances and make foreign policy. The biggest damage would be done to Britain's enduring alliance with the United States.

Britain has found its strongest, most enduring alliance in its Special Relationship with the United States. The common political, diplomatic, historical, and cultural values shared between Americans and Britons are deep and strong. Further still, Britain and America are prepared to defend these values--with military force if necessary. Common values are meaningful only if both parties are ready to defend them.

The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy has always intended to assert the EU as a supranational actor on the world stage in place of nation states. The Reform Treaty gives great momentum to the CFSP and its defense arm, the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The imposition of qualified majority voting in major foreign policy areas represents a significant loss of sovereignty for member states, especially the appointment of the EU Foreign Minister.[7]

The fact that its main European ally, the U.K., will not be able to veto the appointment of the EU's primary foreign policy actor should be enough to make Washington nervous. But the enhanced role for this unelected minister should be an even greater cause for concern. Under the treaty, the EU foreign minister will have the power to appoint EU envoys; a larger profile, budget, and diplomatic corps; the right to speak on member states' behalf in multilateral institutions (including the U.N. Security Council upon request); and the right to propose EU military missions on behalf of the European Commission.[8] Brussels clearly seeks to become the U.S. Administration's first port of call to conduct its European foreign policy. The Administration should not, however, expect the warm response that it gets in London and other national capitals.

It is vital that the United States recognize the value in dealing with its enduring allies on a bilateral level. In its desire to create "One Europe," the European Security and Defense Policy has already duplicated NATO's role and structures and significantly downgraded the possibility of traditional alliance-building by the United States. Replacing individual European allies with a single EU Foreign Minister means inevitably, even if unintentionally, American interests will lose in the discussions that matter most.

Conclusion

A demonstrably political document, the Lisbon Reform Treaty was only made available in English on July 30, 2007. The British government is effectively being asked to sign away its independence and self-determination after less than five months of deliberation. If there were ever a time for the White House to become unnerved about further European integration, then this is it. The Reform Treaty moves forward elite-driven plans for ever-closer union and will ultimately distance London from Washington. Britain remains in a unique position to fashion a European Union that better serves its interests as well as the transatlantic alliance. Its reluctant signature of the Reform Treaty can certainly be reversed during this ratification process. Washington must send its closest ally the message that it would have U.S. support in doing so.

Sally McNamara is Senior Policy Analyst in European Affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation.
________________________________________

[1]Under the Reform Treaty, the existing post of High Representative will combine with that of the European Commissioner for External Relations under a new title of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Under the rejected European Constitution, it would have been named the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.

[2]House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, "European Union Intergovernmental Conference," Thirty-fifth Report of Session 2006-07, p. 16, October 9, 2007, at
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeuleg/1014/1014. pdf.

[3]Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, "Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community," Article 16b, December 3, 2007, at www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf.

[4]Richard Laming, "A treaty for Foreign Policy," EUobserver.com, June 28, 2007, at www.federalunion.org.uk/news/2007/070628euobserver.pdf.
[5]Council of the European Union, COM(2007) 412 final, "Reforming Europe for the 21st Century," at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/07/st11/st11625.en07.pdf.

[6]Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, "Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community," December 3, 2007, Article 1b, at www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf.

[7]Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community," December 3, 2007, Article 9e(1), at www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf.

[8]The High Representative has the right to propose EU military missions on behalf of the EU Commission. Unanimity voting will, however, remain in the European Council.

[Rory Winter]

[Rory Winter]

We need proportional representation. But what's on offer will just make matters worse

Jack Straw's electoral reform proposals will mean minority parties still taking power

Our recent history would look very different. In one of his last articles for this newspaper, Robin Cook said that “if we had a House of Commons elected by PR, we would never have had the war on Iraq in the first place” because the governing coalition would have fallen apart. There certainly would have been a much swifter shift to green policies, since Labour could only rule with the Lib Dems or Greens.

But incredibly, the government appears to be considering changing to the one electoral system that is less proportional than FPTP. The man in charge of the review is Justice Secretary Jack Straw, who has loathed and opposed proportional representation since he was a political advisor to Barbra Castle in the 1970s. In 2005, he called the advocates of PR “bad losers”, and mocked them for claiming there “is some fundamental flaw in the voting system.” PR would only produce “mush” and “damage our democracy,” he said with a wave of his hand ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-h ari-we-need-proportional-representation-but-whats-on-offer-will-just-m ake-matters-worse-802741.html

[Rory Winter]

(Abridged from a longer article on this thread-page http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13852&postdays=0&pos torder=asc&start=90)

Posted by Xmasdale: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:03 am, Re: The European Left's Athens Declaration, 2005

Federalism properly understood incorporates the principle of "subsidiarity" defined by Wikipedia as follows:

Subsidiarity is the principle which states that matters ought to be handled by the smallest (or, the lowest) competent authority. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. The concept is applicable in the fields of government, political science, cybernetics and management. Subsidiarity is, ideally or in principle, one of the features of federalism.

The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching. The concept or principle is found in several constitutions around the world (see for example the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution).

It is presently best known as a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where member states agree that action of individual countries is insufficient. The principle was established in the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht, and is contained within the proposed new Treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. However, at the local level it was already a key element of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, an instrument of the Council of Europe promulgated in 1985 (see Article 4, Paragraph 3 of the Charter) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity

I suspect that despite the various statutes incorporating this principle into EU law, the principle is often ignored or overlooked within Europe due to pressure from the transnational corporations. For example, the EU has banned alternative remedies from being sold to the public due to pressure from the drug companies. I don't think such decisions should be taken at continental level at all. This is the sort of issue which should be dealt with locally if at all. But much of what is happening in the EU is dictated by the liberal economic philosophy that there must be a level playing-field in which firms can compete with each other on equal terms. That is inherent in the capitalist system under which, like it or not (and I don't like it) we live.

The answer to my mind is for the Queen's subjects and all European citizens to campaign for fully accountable federal democracy, including the principle of subsidiarity, throughout Europe, rather than an attempt to divide Europe again into mutually hostile states.

What solution do those who regard the EU as nothing but a fascist NWO plot propose to tackle these real problems? That is what I am failing to hear on this forum.

[Stefan]

Rory,
You forgot this mail -

Hi Rory,
Some comments below in blue:

Hi again: (1) We won't effect change through the Ministers. No chance.

The point is it's not "No Chance" it's "Low Chance" - the potential for change is present within the current system, but such a statistical improbability within a federal EU that it could be claimed not to exist - hence "destruction of democracy". Let's say that in the country our dream came true - through our continued efforts a critical mass of the UK realised 9/11 Truth - launched from this into understanding the agenda - rejected the current political system and voted in independent MPs for Change across the country.

I'm sure it wont be lost on you just how flimsy a chance of this happening is - but consider it did happen - we would have won the first battle in the long war against the old order.

Now let's say this happens when the UK are a part of a federal EU - the voting and vetoing system is actually set up to mean it would take TWO of the big three to make that same change at that same time in order for our wishes to have any effect on our lives.

If all three of the big powers vote against something (with a fourth minnow state to meet the 4 states requirement) it is vetoed automatically. Because of the 35% (or is it 30%? Don't quote me) two of the big three can do the same with two minnow states. Because of that same rule - a consortium of 10 small nations cannot veto anything.

So the UK, in full revolution swing - could not veto a law without the help of the other two - and anything they managed to get considered could be vetoed.

The system of the EU is dramatically against the revolutionary change we all want to see in the world - as it dilutes our power and means that revolution would have to happen simultaneously across several big EU states - a near impossibility.

(2) If implemented fully the Treaty would have afforded us more protection in areas such as Human and Workers rights. These would have been clearly to our advantage. Who stopped that? The UK Government. So much for a threat to our freedom & democracy from outwith!

I'm not particularly interested in looking at individual laws of the EU in terms of making a decision about whether or not it is good for us - anything that seems appealing can be described as "bait" once signed in these laws can be amended, scraped, new laws can usurp them - it is the level of power people have and the level of power corporations have I am interested in.

(3) Yes, what we have is very far from real democracy. So why do the anti-EUers claim that our freedom and democracy is "under threat" from Brussels?!

Because, as I explained above, what we have now is the potential for change, however gruelling the task of effecting it may be I would say we are all committed to it. With the EU hope is lost.

(4) Actually we have gained various protection from EU legislation (eg environmental protection, sewage clean-up directives etc) which has been of a social-democratic nature up until now. And more democracy through the use of PR in European and assembly electionsd is just one major gain. If we hadn't been forced into having to use PR for Europe it is highly unlikely that we would have got it for the assemblies. We in Scotland prefer to deal directly with Brussels than to have our relationship interefered with in London. The question of the Europarliament lackink democratic power is a different matter concerning an institution which was set up badly.

See answer to question 2.

(5) The growth any new nation entails the rearrangement of power. That is what is happening in the EU. It is up to the people of Europe to launch popular campaigns demanding more democracy in the key institution of the Europarliament. Only through struggle will real gains be made. It has always been so.

Rory, you seem to be asking me to allow the lion to eat me, and then campaign for it to become vegetarian from it's belly.

The struggle for those who wish to see greater co-operation and unity between European nations is to reject the Corporatocracy proposed in the Lisbon Treaty, campaign for a new treaty which we would accept and then implement it.

I would be all for the "right" EU - but not for giving away the scraps of democracy we have left in the hope that we may be able to convince those we gave them to to return them with interest - based wholly on an assessment of their good nature which does not comply with the facts as we know them.

[xmasdale]

You've put up so much stuff here, Rory, that it's difficult to know where to begin.

One thing I will say, though, is that, given the British opt-out from the human rights provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, I would be voting against the Treaty if we had a referendum on it like the Irish which we should. The fact that the coroporate governance of the EU is determined to get this treaty onto the statute books, regardless of the wishes of the people, is a good reason for saying to Brown and co:

"We don't like the way you are trying to steamroller us into acceptance of this treaty, particularly not since you have removed all its human rights provisions from application in Britain. What you have done is taken out the best parts of the treaty and left us with the worst parts. Go back to the drawing board and give us a treaty which gives our elected representatives power to over-ride the Commission and which guarantees our human rights. You are undermining our democratic rights and freedoms in the name of your desire to pursue illegal mass-slaughter of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan on the back of false-flag terrorism in which you must to some degree have been complicit."

All we can do is hope that the Irish will say "no" to this treaty which will effectively veto it. This will give a chance for people to campaign for a replacement which is democratic and just.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[xmasdale]

[Rory Winter]

Remember that Olympic slogan?



Now this official Whitehall logo!



Not only are they War Criminals,



but the observation has often been made that when social-democrats lurch to the Right, as Nu Labor has, they fall into the Fascist camp of corporate capitalism.

(Oswald Mosley was a Labour MP before his fascist adventure)



The Nu Labor Nazi traitors crept in when we weren't looking!

Let's kick them out!



Sign & circulate this Petition Now!

Petition against the nomination of Tony Blair as "President of the European Union"

[Rory Winter]

European Citizens' Initiative
http://tinyurl.com/5vtgon



SIGN THE INITIATIVE

Welcome

Time has come for citizens to play a genuine and meaningful role in the European project. The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) is a democratic movement demanding the legal introduction of the right of initiative. Once introduced into European law, ECI will require EU institutions to respond to every new proposal signed by at least one million EU citizens, if it takes into account democratic and human rights values. This will enable us to directly influence the political agenda of the European Union for the first time in history. Make your voice heard in Brussels !

"We, the undersigned, want the European Union to give legal force to the European Citizens' Initiative, where one million European citizens can call on the European Commission to propose a change to European law."

Sign the European Citizens' Initiative in English

Background to ECI

The campaign, after its public launch on the 9th of November, is now in its decisive phase: widespread publicity and signature gathering all over Europe. The initiative is based on an ever broadening alliance of individuals and civil society organizations. With this successful start, there is still need for more supporters to join. What about you…?

Why the right of Initiative?

Being issue-focused, the right of initiative will contribute to shaping an open European public space around key debates that reflect citizens’ real concerns. In other words, the ECI will help to close the gap between citizens and institutions, and foster the development of European civil society.

Why a large-scale campaign?

To open the door for other campaigns using ECI, the right of initiative must be introduced as a legally binding instrument. The institutions are unlikely to introduce a strong regulation without further public pressure, so it is up to the citizens to demand its introduction. A huge number of signatures, gathered all across Europe, will prove that European initiatives can work, and put the EU institutions under considerable pressure to respond positively. This campaign will show that citizens have the will and capacity to take the European project into their own hands.

Sounds great. How can I help?

This is a campaign made by European citizens. Therefore it can only work if it has the support of both active citizens and organisations from the civil society. There are many ways to get involved. Contact us and let's change Europe together.

Contact us!

SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS

* ACEP (Alliance avec les Chrétiens en Politique)
* ADERF (Association des Etudiants et Doctorants Roumains en France)
* AEGEE-Europe (European Students Forum)
* AEUYCO (Azerbaijan - European Union Youth Cooperation Organisation)
* Asociatia Pro Democratia (APD)
* Association of Accredited Lobbyists
* Atelier pour la Démocratie Directe
* Balkan Assist Association
* Blowing Bubbles
* Bulgarian Association for the Promotion of Citizens Initiative (BSNGI)
* Cúram
* CaféBabel
* CAFECS
* Centre of Ecological Education
* Centrum Edukacji Obywatelskiej (Centre For Citizenship Education)
* Charter88
* Children of the Earth
* Citizens of Europe
* Civic Alliance Latvia
* clean air nederland (can)
* Confrontations Europe
* Cypriot Young Scientists Organisation ISCHYS
* Democracy International
* Democratici Diretti
* Democratie.nu
* Dialog’09
* DIUC (Society of Democratic Reforms)
* DWARS - GroenLinkse Jongerenorganisatie (The Dutch GreenLeft Youth Organisation)
* Ecoloj (Les Jeunes Ecolo)
* Eiropas Kustība Latvijā (European Movement Latvia)
* EUROP Agora
* Európai Értékekért Alapítvány (Foundation for European Values, Hungary)
* Europanova
* Europe Maintenant
* Europe of Cultures Forum
* Europe United
* European Civic Forum
* European Civil Society Platform on Lifelong Learning (EUCIS-LLL)
* European Debating Club
* European Emergency Number Association
* European Federation of Christian Student Associations EKV (Europäischer Kartellverband christlicher Studierendenverbände)
* European Federation of Unpaid Parents and Carers at Home (F.E.F.A.F.)
* European Forum for Freedom in Education
* European Liberal Youth (LYMEC)
* European Movement International
* Europeans Throughout the World
* European Union Federation of Youth Hostel Associations (EUFED)
* European Volunteer Centre
* European Youth Forum
* Europeum Hungary
* Euros du Village
* EUX.TV - the Europe channel
* Federaciò d'Ateneus de Catalunya
* Fédération des Etudiants Libéraux
* Federation of Young European Greens (FYEG)
* Forum voor Democratische Ontwikkeling (Forum for Democratic Development)
* Fundacja Rozwoju Społeczeństwa Obywatelskiego
* Générations Europe
* Generation Europe Czech Republic
* Greek Youthnet
* Heinrich Boell Foundation, EU Regional Office
* ID's - Information Diffusion Europe Associations
* Initiatif fir Demokratie-Erweiderung Lëtzebuerg
* Initiative & Referendum Institute Europe
* Initiative Européenne et Sociale
* Instituut voor Maatschappelijke Innovatie
* International Falcon Movement - Socialist Educational International
* International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY)
* International Movement of Catholic Agricultural and Rural Youth (MIJARC)
* Irish Youth Council
* JEF-Malta
* JEF-Slovenia
* Jeunes Européens France (JEF France)
* Jeunes MR
* Jong Groen!
* Jong Spirit
* Jonge Democraten (JD)
* Jongeren Milieu Aktief (JMA)
* Jonge Socialisten (JS)
* Junge Europäische Bewegung Berlin Brandenburg e.V. (Young European Movement Berlin-Brandenburg)
* Junge Europäische Föderalisten Deutschland e.V. (JEF Germany)
* Kids Globe
* La Vie Nouvelle
* League of Ecological Alternatives Sever
* Liberális Fiatalok Egyesülete (LiFE)
* Mas Democracia
* Mehr Demokratie
* Merlin Európai Tájékoztató és Kulturális Központ (Merlin European Information and Cultural Centre)
* Mladi Liberali
* Movimento di Partecipazione
* National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux
* New Europe
* New Politics Network
* NZS AP w Krakowie (Independent Student Association of Pedagogical University Cracow)
* OBESSU
* Our Say
* Permanent Forum of European Civil Society
* PerspectieF (ChristenUnie-jongeren)
* Planta Humanis
* Polish Schuman Foundation
* Polish Youth Council
* Promeuro
* Red Ciudadanas de Europa (Women Citizens of Europe Network, RCE)
* Referendum Platform
* Robin Good's Media Network
* Sarthe
* Sauvons l’Europe
* Stichting Agora Europa (Agora Europe Foundation)
* Stichting Socires (Socires Foundation)
* Transnational Institute
* UEF-Belgium (Union of European Federalists)
* Védegylet (Protect the Future! Society)
* Vereniging voor Natuur- en Milieueducatie (IVN)
* VITA Europe
* York European Society
* Young European Socialists (ECOSY)
* Young European Swiss

Total: 119 – and growing!