Friday, 13 July 2007

EU admits UK’s so-called treaty red lines are worthless

On Wednesday Margot Wallström, the European Commission Vice-President, insisted that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights will apply to three quarters or more of British law because it is derived from EU legislation and Britain's "red line" opt-outs are worthless.

She said: "Citizens will be able to claim before the courts the rights enshrined in the Charter," "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."

The commission's legal service describe British opt-outs as "limited" as German studies indicate up top to 80%of national law now originates in Brussels.

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.

A legal source described the opt-out as “potentially very thin."

If Gordon Brown is foolish enough to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty signed up to by Tony Blair he will soon discover the charter, including a "right to strike", will be enforceable in the European courts if trade unions seek to challenge the UK’s reforms of the 1980s.

According to the Daily Telegraph, a senior European Parliament source revealed 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,"

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


The think-tank Open Europe has research that indicates EU judges are not likely to be backward in applying the charter. Their Director Neil O'Brien said:

"The Court of Justice will decide for itself whether member states are implementing European law and interpret their national laws for them,"

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


If Gordon Brown is getting a bit fed up by now, with always playing second fiddle to someone, or something else, then he would be wise to agree to a referendum on the constitutional 'Treaty' sooner rather than later. He did say he would if the red lines were threatened.

4 comments:

Scott C. Haley said...

It's really too bad that more Americans are not paying attention to the potential loss of sovereignty facing the UK, vis-a-vis the EU. If they did, then perhaps they would be more concerned with the proposed North American Union (NAU), the first step of which is already being implemented---the Security & Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

Of course, the Globalists deny that any such loss of sovereignty will occur, and here across the pond, they even deny that there are any plans for the NAU. If one digs deep enough, the truth is evident. The Globalist Corporatocracy seeks seamless, worldwide business (to benefit billionaires) without the hindrance of national sovereignty. They can't do away with nations outright, so instead they pursue these "Union" agreements. Separate countries will appear to still exist, but in fact they will be subordinate to unelected (at least, unelected within each country) Globalist central planners.

David Rockefeller is a prime mover of this insane concept over on our side. I don't know the players on your side of the water.

Boycott the Corporatocracy!

Sincerely,
Scott

http://individualsovereignty.blogspot.com/

Phil A said...

Scott, US citizens do seem largely unaware of exactly what the EU is and what it is leading to. I think to some extent they equate it with the US without really looking too deeply at it and so see it as something vaguely OK that keeps the Europeans occupied and out of trouble.

I think they should be concerned.

What they - and many UK citizens, don’t look at is that much of Europe runs based around the Napoleonic code. There is a strong element of guilty until proven innocent in the law and a tendency with legislation to say if the law does not specifically allow something then it is illegal.

Also there is to me a disturbing ambivalence towards the democratic process. It’s fine if it goes the way they want, but a case of “not give up to some of the populisms we have in our member states” or even "ugly nationalism" when it is not to their liking.

This sits very uncomfortably with the basis of UK/US law and legislation. In fact with the general zeitgeist of the Anglosphere.

The European political elite are all for it and I include many UK politicians here. They behave as if they had some divine right to rule. The seem to see themselves as superior to and apart from their populations as a whole. They don’t think like the average European citizen and certainly not like the average UK citizen.

Something else the average US citizen should keep in mind the European Political elite does not like the US, often viewing it as too powerful, crass, uncultured and having many of the less desirable characteristics still displayed by the UK.

The NAU is more likely to be shaped by the US way of doing things, simply because of the ‘gravitational pull’ of the US economy and power. So may end up being more similar to many aspects of the US than not.

It does look like things are heading towards maybe 5 or 6 global empires of varying power that will eventually, one way or another, merge.

Scott C. Haley said...

Very well put.

A related concern of mine is that the Common Law is all but gone in the U.S. Instead, we have Civil or Equity Law reigning supreme. Juries are no longer told that they have every right (under Common Law) to INTERPRET the law, rather than merely accepting the Judge's version of Stautory Law.

We now have so many unconstitutional laws in the U.S. that the Constitution has become an anachronism...and very few people either are aware, or care.

Phil A said...

There are certain similarities here. English Common Law is not what it was either. It applies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not in Scotland. Scottish Law is largely separate.

Much of our Common law is being eaten away or superceded gradually, here and there, especially by legislation and legal decisions made in Europe. It would be interesting to see a case or two challenged but I suspect our ancient rights would come off worse.

For instance we now appear no longer to have an absolute right of silence thanks to a lost appeal decision in the European court. Also the principal of Innocent until proven guilty is being eroded in certain respects, for instance certain legislation concerning Vehicle Taxation. Always taxation.

Again, as with you, it does seem so very few are actually aware, or care if they are.