Army Rumour Service

Iolis, it has been with some enjoyment that I have followed your exposition on the benefits of Europe to the assembled sceptical members of Arrse.

Would it not be an idea to suggest a proposition by Arrse (or a group of its members) in order to prove the worth(lessness) of the European System t0 those who are sceptical.

For example:- James Shortt ,he of waltyness?

A European directive (law) that prohibits an individual from using false claims of military service in order to procure pecuniary advantage?

Or would our walt hunter friends have better luck luck persuing a Stolen Valour Bill/Act through Europe rather than Westminster?

The report is accurate but the timing is out. Angela Merkel hates Blair's guts and campaigned openly nearly 18 months ago by writing to each of the heads of state lobbying against his selection. Some may recall an internet signature campaign over a year ago against his selection.

I can understand her objection. His post would have been to represent the EU yet, he is from a country that does not enjoy a happy relationship with it, that has refused to join the Euro, does not belong to the Shengen area, has opted out of the charter of fundamental rights and has continually used its veto in the Council of Ministers.

As Henry Kissenger once said: "Who do I telephone when I want to speak to Europe?"

Now he has his answer!

Another one that either cannot or will not read the treaties as amended. When you have actually read what has or has not been ceded to the EU and you understand what terms such as 'subsidiarity', and areas of competence actually mean then you will be in a position to make an assertion supported with authority.

I suggest that you cannot because you simply cannot find the treaty, extract from it or even understand what it says so you will, instead, take the easy route and do your parrot impressions!

I suggest that like a literary critic, you engage in an evaluation of that which you have not read and probably would not understand if you did!

The members of the European Parliament are elected by direct universal suffrage every five years to represent the citizens of the member countries. Parliament's powers have been gradually extended with every new treaty. The Treaty of Lisbon is no exception, giving more powers in relation to lawmaking, budget and international agreements.

Lawmaking: the 'co-decision procedure' (renamed 'ordinary legislative procedure') has been extended to several new fields ... These areas include legal immigration, penal judicial cooperation (Eurojust, crime prevention, alignment of prison standards, offences and penalties), police cooperation (Europol) and some aspects of trade policy and agriculture. From now on, then, Parliament will have a role to play in almost all lawmaking.

European arrest warrants issued in respect of crimes or alleged crimes on this list have to be executed by the arresting state irrespective of whether or not the definition of the offence is the same, providing that the offence is serious enough

....
When Henry Kissenger wanted to know who he could pick up the telephone to when he wanted to 'talk to Europe', there was no coherent response. When trouble flaired up in the Balkans, and relief effort was needed after the Tsunami, there was no Captain at the wheel of the SS Europa directing and coordinating an EU-wide response.
...

For those among you who complain that you are neither informed, consulted nor have any influence over the shaping of EU Law, then perhaps I might draw your attention to the Regular Green Papers published by the Commission inviting you to participate.

Most ten-year olds in the other states in the Union learn about this process in their schools. Unfortunately the 'Sun' and the 'Mail' and your own government think it is rather a step to far as far as you are concerned and besides, it does not sell newspapers does it!

You might, for example like to take part in the public consultation regarding the protection of personal data which closes at the end of December which is a concern at the moment across the Union, albeit not to anyone in our own 'Duckhouse' Parliament whose members are too busy agonising over whether they should have included anything in the Queen's speech regarding their expenses.

“We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe .”

“The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”

"Thankfully they haven't changed the substance – 90 per cent of it is still there."

"Substantially equivalent."

"We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe .”

"Only cosmetic changes have been made and the basic document remains the same."

"It's essentially the same proposal as the old Constitution."

"There's nothing from the original institutional package that has been changed."

"... all the symbolic elements are gone, and that which really matters – the core – is left."

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."

"All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but they will be hidden and disguised in some way... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary."

"The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it."

"The most striking change (between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum."

I've always looked to missives from Iolis to put into simple language matters that seemed incomprehensible.
Does the EU concord now mean that if I can get a couple of million of signatures from across the member states to put forward a proposal that we hold a referendum to disolve said EU and it's constitutions then this will be allowed under Article 11?

. . the Lisbon Treaty so despised by many has provided the Eursceptics with a 'wet dream' exit route under Article 50 TFEU:

"Article 50

1, Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutonal requirements.

2, A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In light of the guidance proided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conlude an agreement with the State, setting out the arangements for its withdrawal, taking acount of the framework for its future relatinship with the Union......etc etc......"

I do not anticipate any LibLabCon government either now or at any time in he future making an application under Article 50.