Jack Straw lying about proposed EU "constitution"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Feb 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Honest as Mrs Honour McHonorable, the most honest person in Truthtown

    0 vote(s)
  2. Honest as a used snake-oil salesman

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/02/10/dl1002.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/02/10/ixoplead.html

    When the time for the referendum comes around, will the government circulate a copy to every household, as would be required by even the smallest social club proposing a constitutional amendment to its members?

    Will it heck.

    At some point I'll get hold of the text (it's probably easy to find on the Internet), dig out the salient points which are good and bad, and publish them as widely as the Internet will allow...
  2. Lies, damn lies and New Labour lies.....they want to sign away our sovereignty in TBLiars quest to become an EU Presidente. They care not a jot about what WE want, all that concerns them is their own desires and aspirations.

    We, Ladies and gentlemen, are staring at the abyss of EU oblivion. If we vote, we will be sold, lock, stock and barrel to the EU and shafted by the French and Germans at every opportunity. We will have no say in the running of our country, OUR Armed Forces or OUR Foreign policy.

    Old BOneparte and Adolf must be pisshing themselves with how the EU are managing to do something, they could only dream of by force :evil:
  3. Personally i dont think the British people are daft enough to vote yes for the EU constitution, although i dont see that stopping labour. They will just re-word the proposal then re-educate us until we say yes.

    If in the event of us being controlled by europe im off down south to warmer climes.

  4. That document's not a constitution at all (hence my use of quotes) - it's a transfer of power treaty! "You will still have power over all things we don't make a rule about"... well that leaves us with a lot to have power over, eh? 80,000 pages of regulations and growing......
  5. I do hope that the Strawman is right, and that a rejection will question our continued membership.

    It's just a pity that the corrupt-cabal cannot afford to kick us out :evil: :twisted:
  6. Unfortunately, this is yet another exercise in Europhobe lies and deceit.

    The whole principle of the EU (and before it the EEC, ECSC and whathaveyou) is that the community's laws are enforceable on the member states. Article 6 is a statement of current fact. EU law has had this primacy since 1957. It's in the Treaty of Rome. Before that, the European Coal and Steel Community had the same legal authority, beginning in 1951. This has been the case in Britain since 1972, when the European Communities Act (the ratification of EEC membership) was passed.

    There is a very good reason for this principle: simply, if it was not so no-one would obey the law. If you could just say: We want to ban all imports from Germany, and because that is a national law the EU treaties have no effect, there would be no community and indeed no free trade zone.

    Why is the Torygraph trying to present something that has been the law of the land since 1972 as a new and evil imposition? Is it perhaps a degree of bias?

    Moving on, QUOTE
    No mention, of course, that the constitution sets the extent of EU competence. This selective quoting gives the impression that the central institutions, under the constitution, could unilaterally take over any area of policy. In fact, they are explicitly bound in their areas of responsibility by the constitution - no mention of that here.

    Strangely enough, the Tory reading is actually much more like the current situation than the text of the constitution: under Article 308 of the Treaty of Rome the union can add to its areas of competence at will (although the Council of Ministers= the member state governments must agree unanimously). This would cease to exist under the constitution. We have here the bizarre situation of someone arguing against having their complaint resolved, giving their complaint as the reason.

    It squares very nicely, if you look at the rest of the constitution. Among other things, the decision to adopt a common foreign policy on a given subject is subject to unanimity. So if we don't like the suggestion we can pull the plug at stage 1. (Not to speak of the actual process of agreeing on the policy once the decision to have one is taken.) I don't see a problem supporting a policy we by definition agree with.

    The constitution also includes a provision that the foundation of European security is NATO. You won't find that in the Telegraph in a million years. Unfortunately, this all goes only to show that the anti-European lobby is utterly divorced from facts - they just don't care that, for example, they are presenting 33 year old realities as brand new, or that they are deliberately leaving out facts that would otherwise reverse their meaning.
  7. If that is indeed the case then Escape-from-PPRuNe, prey do tell why the beaurocrats are putting in the foundations for a Eurpean army? And yes, it already techically exists, and yes it has troops on the ground at this time.

    I will endeavour to find the info i quote or else will retract my statement (what with me being a man of honour :twisted: )


    Sorry :oops:
  8. Interesting facts Escape,

    Can anyone explain why this was dressed up as a Referendum on membership of a Trading Alliance?

    I voted "yes" in the Common Market referendum, based upon what I was told under the leadership of the fat traitor. :twisted:

    If I had known the true agenda I would have voted against it.

    Perhaps I was just a gullible youth?

  9. I'm not PTP.

    As frequently said before, EUFOR (indeed ERRF) in the Balkans is not a "European army" in any sense of the word: it's a force drawn from several European armies. There is no mixed manning (except multinational HQ staffs), there is no EU defence budget and no EU defence commissioner or indeed defence council of ministers, and usual alliance rules apply.

    Why have I never heard anyone moaning about British soldiers serving in NATO task forces? After all, a Nato force incorporates troops from several different member-states serving in their own units, under command of a multinational HQ and with the usual get-out clause about appealing to national authority if the continued existence of the component or supreme national interest is endangered.

    The only difference is no spams or cannucks. Or Norwegians.

    And it was all our idea, too. (St. Malo declaration 1998) It's just struck me that in fact, Nato is more supranational than this: there *are* mixed manned NATO AWACSs, we lent them to the spams after 11/9. Frankly, it's high time the EU members got their act together on defence - with the exception of the UK and Frogistan, everyone else still maintains undeployable conscript hordes. The Germans have 375,000 men under arms but not a single deployable brigade, unless you count deploying to the old inter-German border in which case they're pretty well off!

    Also, I think there's scope for some of the little'uns to share resources. Do Austria, Czechland, Slovakia and Slovenia all need separate air forces with roughly 20 jets each? Bollocks do they. They already share air traffic control (Central Europe ATCC in Vienna), so air defence wouldn't be that big a step. The savings could be used for their contribution to EUFOR - either to fund some more useful units that they supply or perhaps as a cash contribution to others' costs.
  10. One of the original founding members of the EC is supposed to have said words to the effect of:

    "Every step towards European federation must be hidden from the populations under the guise of economic necessity, so that by the time that they realise what the end result will be, it will be too late"

    If I can find the citation for this and the correct text, I will provide it.
  11. You all (less PPR etc) submit posts that feign surprise and even horror at the governemnts stance. Why?

    We have known for years what a bunch of lying w@nkers this govt is. We all know that Pres B wants to be Pres of EU. The true irony of the whole thing is that the arch socialist, better known as Gordon Brown, might be the one to help prevent it, based solely on his own self interest. Which is that it will be no fun being Primeminister if he gets told what to do by the EU! Now if a socialist like Old Grumpy Brown doesn't think it is a smart move, it can't be too clever!

    As for the rest, well, if the govt keep up, we won't have to even sign the constitution! They've given control of Immigration to EU, only Defence and Foreign Policy left to worry about really. They already control Fishing, H&S, Law and Order and have no interest in getting bogged down in the jokes that are our Education and Health systems. So, vote Labour - you know it makes sense! :twisted:
  12. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Don't be so sure of Foreign Policy. EU Delegations are already planning to take over the role of Embassies in most of the world. This would entail the removal of UK Ambassadors and High Commisioners, and their replacement with an EU Ambassador. This has already started in some regions (large areas of South America, for example). According to the EU 'Ambassador' already there, all that is left for National embassies at the moment, not in the future is to act as 'Tourist Offices'.

    It would also, of course, mean the end of the Commonwealth.
  13. Appologies for the name mix up, original post has been sorted.

    Yes there is evidence on the contrary that it actually does exist (maybe in a shadowy hidden agenda way) but it does exist. It is taking over the roles of certain member states armed forces slowly but surely.

    I knew i had read it somewhere. I believe it was in south america where there are a number of deployments under the guise of the European army that are already taking over roles that were once reserved for member states. I will try and find the details, but as i am at work, thei may take some time. :roll:

  14. "[Why have I never heard anyone moaning about British soldiers serving in NATO task forces? After all, a Nato force incorporates troops from several different member-states serving in their own units, under command of a multinational HQ and with the usual get-out clause about"

    There is one major difference though. At no time has NATO ever been an organisation that aims to become a country and thus subvert the armed forces of its members into a single force answerable only to itself and no longer having allegiance to it own country.