REFERENDUM: MANDY GETS WINDY
A new EU Constitution should not be put to the people, EU Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson has insisted.

He told E!Sharp magazine
"Anything that crosses the threshold of requiring a referendum will immediately run into difficulties... We have to come to terms with the fact that getting any constitutional treaty past a referendum in our member states will be an uphill struggle."

Yet Mandy was gung-ho that the British people would back the EU Constitution in January 2005. (Irish news archive TCM, 26.1.05).That was before the resounding Dutch and French 'No' votes, though.

It has been said that New Labour only supports democratic referendums if they are calculated to give the desired result.

As a MP, Mandy backed people being given a choice on Welsh devolution and an elected assembly in the North-East. He even called for a referendum on Proportional Representation.

When trumpeting his democratic credentials at Charter 88's Make Votes Count lecture (28.6.00), he even admitted that devolution outside England was "a radical constitutional innovation"... "the key measures were endorsed by referendum, to ensure the widest and most enduring support for the changes."

However after the weight of concerned public opinion made Blair offer a referendum on the EU Constitution in 2004, Mandy joined forces with MPs Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers to whinge:
"...there is nothing to be gained by giving ground to these people.... defeat in the referendum would be disastrous for Labour" (Guardian, 27.4.04).

At least he got the last bit right!

Implementing the Constitution by stealth

TORIES' BLIND SPOT OVER ENGLISH VOTES
A Daily Mail website article on 2.7.06 reported that the Tories launched a new campaign to prevent Scottish MPs voting on legislation that applies only to England and Wales. Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Duncan said that it was 'absolutely right' to stop Scottish MPs voting on issues that did not affect their constituents - noting that the former "are not in any way accountable for the effects their actions have in England".

Duncan has yet to twig that his party's support for EU membership means that our laws across the UK are determined by European Commissioners and a European Court that "are not in any way accountable". Perversely, they are happy to have MEPs of at least 25 nationalities voting on our laws.

Putting aside the case for 'English devolution', the Tory approach is 'penny wise, Euro foolish' as it ignores the fact that most of our laws are 'Made in Europe'.

If senior Tories indulge in petty party-tribalism at the expense of the bigger picture, they have only themselves to blame if they lack voter credibility.

EU legal order

MORE TORY INCONSISTENCY
On 15.5.06, many Tory MPs backed a largely symbolic Bill over the Disapplication of European Communities Act 1972 (No 2).

However, the Daily Telegraph, 8.6.06, reported that the Tories had dropped their commitment to pull Britain out of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) that has decimated our fishing industry. Apparently, David Cameron had just been warned by "colleagues and experts" that CFP withdrawal would have been unachievable without provoking a legal crisis within the EU.

The paper observed that Cameron was "trying to tone down his party's hostility to the EU while retaining a strong euro-sceptic edge".

On 7.6.06, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague told an OpenEurope conference that with the "right priorities", the EU could open up freedom and opportunity for our citizens...". Apparently, the Tories would like to see EU members finding their own level of integration and "Britain has the opportunity to drive a new agenda for the future of Europe".

There is nothing new about the 'new agenda', as the Tories (at the highest level) have long been talking up 'reform' while accepting greater integration - either through swallowing new Treaties or by refusing to pull out of a 'European Union' deepened by New Labour.

On 25.4.06, David Cameron announced that anyone who advocated EU withdrawal would not serve on his front bench.

There was one clear promise in Cameron's leadership campaign - the early removal of his MEPs from the federalist EPP-ED group. As-yet unfulfilled, the situation is being watched with interest. It allegedly threatens to split his party, but the party has long been a broad church and hardly united on the issue. In any case it's a distraction from a far more important issue.

THE BIGGER ISSUE

If he ever becomes PM, Cameron will find it difficult to deliver against Hague's insistance that EU integration had gone far enough, and that there would be no Treaty changes transfering more competences to the EU without a referendum.

Because a past Tory government gave the European Court (ECJ) free rein to interpret Treaty obligations - it has come up with innovative means of extending the EU's powers through the back door.

Taxation is one area where sovereignty has been compromised - also where an 'internal' (EU-wide) policy has been agreed, the EU must have an 'external' (foreign) policy to go with it (ref: ECJ, Case 22/70).

As power has been transferred in virtually every other area, and our veto discarded, European integration would not stop - the ECJ has ruled that accepting this goal is a binding commitment of membership. (remember the "Ever closer union" in the Maastricht Treaty that Hague supported?).

If the Tories want to be taken seriously over 'consistency' or 'intellectual renewal', they must start by taking due responsibility for the current mess and stop trying to kid themselves and the public.

Cameron's dilemma...       Renegotiation - can it be done?

Why we don't need a new Bill of Rights

INVESTING IN DEMOCRACY?
NO, PRIME MINISTER
The Labour Party has launched a consultation on state funding of political parties. It appears to be aimed at members of the public as well as the party.

Their document, The future of party funding, notes that the Labour Party believes that political parties play an essential role in sustaining our political institutions, without which we cannot have a healthy, participatory democracy.

It feels that the new institutions being created at local, regional and European levels 'need relationships with politicians' and 'there has to be investment at all these levels' to ensure healthy democracy.

Just who are they trying to kid? Unelected regional government continues in defiance of public rejection, and planning powers have been taken away from local councils. Regionalisation of Fire, Police and Ambulance services speeds ahead, regardless of well-voiced concerns over the potential cost and loss of life.

THE DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT

The promised referendum on the EU Constitution has not materialised, and the government is introducing parts of the latter by stealth.

The Labour Government is also under fire over the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which set out to let government ministers rule by diktat without consulting elected MPs.

The document admits that, over the past three years, the main parties (Lab/Con/LibDem) have already taken around £20 million of our hard-earned money. At the highest level, all of them dogmatically support membership of the EU. Unaccountable European institutions not only make over half of our laws, but can actually over-rule a democratically-elected government.

Perversely, the Government has increased funding for the same EU institutions despite rising job losses of health services workers at home. Public service funding after 2007 will come under pressure.

Party funding already exists indirectly - if someone leaves, say, a £300,000+house to their children, the children must pay inheritance tax. However leaving the same house to the governing political party does not give that party any tax liability.

The law requires trade unionists to freely decide to pay any political levy. Why should taxpayers not receive the same courtesy and protection?

HAVE YOUR SAY...

You may send your thoughts on state funding for political parties to the Labour NEC, 39 Victoria St, London SW1H 0HA by 31 July.

There is also a national website on the subject; a consultation has been launched under onetime senior civil servant and European Commission employee, Sir Hayden Phillips. The response deadline is also 31 July.

Footnote: Tory policy again continues to baffle - on 31.3.06, Party Chairman Francis Maude called for an 'extension of state funding'. This in spite of a report he mentions ('Clean Politics') by his colleague, Andrew Tyrie MP, that noted:
"the public strongly supports parties being financed by their own fundraising rather than being supported by the taxpayer".

POWER TO THE PEOPLE?
WELL, NOT QUITE...
In March, a study known as the Power Inquiry released a report on public disillusionment with politics, much to the excitement of The Independent.

Although it made several very interesting observations, the document, Power to the People, was constrained by a block on considering whether Britain should be a member of the EU. This is of far more strategic importance than whether Parliament should sit for a longer term (e.g.) - contrast this with a BBC study in 2002.

The report (second version, May 2006) did reproduce some damning comments,

"...whatever we might say, we know that the idea of democratic Europe is not one that we can sustain"
(Tony Wright MP, Chair of Public Administration Select Committee).

"Supranational bodies and processes... such as the EU have gained extra powers at the expense of nationally and locally elected representatives..."

Although the report fudged the issue of EU powers by talking of greater 'scrutiny', the website concluded:
"It is clear that there is a huge appetite across the country for democratic power to be returned to the people."

How it can be done

HOME OFFICE HYPOCRISY
In March 2006, the Home Office launched two high-profile advertising campaigns. One concerned forced marriages, the other concerned statutory rape.

That the Home Office is indulging in two campaigns to indicate the drastic consequences of compulsion seems rather hypocritical, as it wants to compel us to have EU-inspired smart/ID cards through the back door.

At the highest level, the Government is implementing the European Constitution piecemeal without the 'consent' implicit in the referendum commitment. Given that the Constitution would allow the EU-state to take away our 'human rights' makes it doubly wrong - just read their campaign Press Releases.

Another area where 'consent' has not been given is regional government (at least in the English regions outside London - and in the case of the North-East, it continues in defiance of voters' heavy rejection).

Does 'No' really mean no, Messrs Blair, Clarke and Prescott?

More EU connections

Footnote: In an article for the Sunday Telegraph, 11.6.06, 'This is a betrayal of Asian women', Ross Clark notes that the Home Office has decided not to legislate against forced marriages - despite its press release describing this as 'a clear abuse of human rights'.