To
understand what a National Ass. for Wales, a Pretend Parliament for Scotland or
any other of the 11 silly little Regional Assemblies, will really mean requires
reading the relevant Articles [263 - 265] of:
THE CONSOLIDATED TREATY ESTABLISHING
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY,
TITLE II, THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, PART FIVE,
TITLE I, PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS, CHAPTER 4, THE COMMITTEE
OF THE REGIONS:
ARTICLE 263 (ex Article 198 a)
A Committee consisting of representatives of regional and local bodies,
hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee of the Regions', is hereby established
with advisory status.
The number of members of the Committee of the Regions shall be as follows:
Belgium 12; Denmark 9; Germany 24; Greece 12; Spain 21; France 24; Ireland 9;
Italy 24; Luxembourg 6; Netherlands 12; Austria 12; Portugal 12; Finland 9;
Sweden 12; United Kingdom 24.
The members of the Committee and an equal number of alternate members shall be
appointed for four years by the Council acting unanimously on proposals from the
respective Member States. Their term of office shall
be renewable. No member of the Committee shall at the same time be a Member of
the European Parliament.
The members of the Committee may not be bound by any mandatory instructions.
They shall be completely independent in the performance of their duties, in the
general interest of the Community.
ARTICLE 264 (ex Article 198 b)
The Committee of the Regions shall elect its chairman and officers from among its members for a term of two years.
It shall adopt its Rules of Procedure.
The Committee shall be convened by its chairman at the request of the Council or
of the Commission. It may also meet on its own initiative,
ARTICLE 265 (ex Article 198 c)
The Committee of the Regions shall be consulted by the Council or by the
Commission where this Treaty so provides and in all other cases, in particular
those which concern cross-border co-operation, in which one
of these two institutions considers it appropriate.
The Council or the Commission shall, if it considers it necessary, set the
Committee, for the submission of its opinion, a time-limit which may not be less
than one month from the date on which the chairman receives
notification to this effect. Upon expiry of the time-limit, absence of an
opinion shall not prevent further action.
Where the Economic and Social Committee is consulted pursuant to Article 262,
the Committee of the Regions shall be informed by the Council or the Commission
of the request for an opinion. Where it considers that
specific regional interests are involved, the Committee of the Regions may issue
an opinion on the matter.
The Committee of the Regions may be consulted by the European Parliament.
It may issue an opinion on its own initiative in cases in which it considers such action appropriate.
The opinion of the Committee, together with a record of the proceedings, shall be forwarded to the Council and to the Commission.
In
short that pretentious load of Eurospeak boils down to Wales will have no
authority, no say, no representation & there will be 444 extra representatives
to pay for in Europe. Plus, of course, all their staff
and all their expenses - but no more democracy and no more control over the un
elected dictator committee - the European Commissioners.
Let us look at what it means point by point:
1.
The United Kingdom will have 24 members with 24 alternates on a Committee with
222 members and 444 members and alternates in total.
2.
The Member State [in our case the United Kingdom] shall propose members, thus
Wales has no representation enshrined in European law. These proposals must be
unanimously approved by the Council (of Europe).
Thus every United Kingdom member could be proposed from one region.
3.
If the Council approves the proposal, the Council can renew their term of
office.
4. Nowhere herein does it say that members represent a region [viz. Wales], in fact it expressly states that they shall not have a mandate or be bound by instruction.
5. Members are not elected, they are proposed by Westminster and appointed by the Council & their loyalty must be to Europe '..performance of their duties, in the general interest of the Community'.
6. 'It shall adopt its own Rules of Procedure.' = It shall become a law unto itself?
7. The entirety of Article 265 says nothing other than the Committee shall have freedom of speech. The implication being that citizens of the new State of Europe do not have freedom of speech.
8. There is no undertaking that the Committee has to be consulted, nor that anything it says has to be listened to.
Therefore since it has no authority, no area of jurisdiction and no
responsibility it has no reason to exist. Just another costly waffle shop!
Let us assume that what was the United Kingdom decides to give two memberships
on this new Committee and two alternates to each of the twelve economic regions,
in the British economic subsidiary region of Europe. Wales would then have two
votes, in isolation, out of 222 votes on the Committee of the Regions, less than
1% influence. To add insult to injury MEPs representing Wales are outnumbered
100 to 1 in the European Parliament, less than 1% influence again. This is what
being master of ones own destiny and having an Assembly for Wales means for the
people of Wales and every other, of the 12, economic regions in Britain.
There are some, I am sure, who honestly believe that an Assembly for Wales is a
good idea for Wales. Some will welcome the removal of benevolent control, albeit
sometimes misguided, from Westminster - surely they can not welcome direct rule
by the un elected dictator committee that rules Europe, the European
Commissioners. Some may feel that two more tiers of Government will help Wales,
I cannot for the life of me see how - the more tiers of Government the further
from the electorate decision. GLW
Here is a written question that has been placed before Mr. Barroso the proven
corrupt leading Civil Serrvant in the EU Soviet on Thursday 2006.03.16
The question has been laid by the Independent MEP Ashley Mote.
Metrication and the Bill of Rights, 1689
Since the European Union claims its laws as above those of member states, would
the Commission care to comment on the following situation which has arisen in
the UK?
Lord Justice Laws ruled in the High Court in February 2002 that the appeal of
the "metric martyrs" must fail because there was a hierarchy of laws in which
constitutional laws took precedence over other statute laws. Such a concept was
previously unknown in English law. LJ Laws said that the Bill of Rights 1689
was just such a constitutional law.
But clause 12 of the Bill of Rights says that :
...that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons
before conviction are illegal and void.
In other words, all fixed penalties imposed by the government and their agencies
are illegal - and always have been. Anyone being threatened with a fixed
penalty must be convicted of an offence in a court of law first. Millions of
pounds-worth of fixed penalties for minor motoring and other offences are now in
dispute.
Given that the EU claims supremacy of law over the UK, what is its position on
this direct conflict between the need to uphold the rule of law and the
practical financial consequences on government agencies in the UK?
Here is a follow up question from Ashley Mote to Barroso:
Following my previous questions (E-4112/05, E-3386/05 and now E-0264/06EN) and
the succession of increasingly inadequate and evasive answers from Mr Verheugen
on enforced metrication in the UK, may I now ask the Commissioner where he found
the evidence for his claim that "it has become declared US policy to
progressively adopt the metric system"? Chapter and verse, please.
As a businessman with over 20 years experience working in the
US
with American companies I can categorically say that I have never heard of any
such proposal. Neither has any American business contact of mine. Quite the
contrary. Most regard the very idea as absurd.
Why would the
UK
- or any country in its right mind - choose to distance itself from the biggest
economic power on earth, and its biggest trading partner, by switching to a
system of measurement not used by them? And even if there were such a need, why
should not children be taught both systems, as they are taught different
languages, so that they become "bi-measuremental" as well as bi-lingual?
Isn't the truth much simpler? Isn't enforced metrication further evidence of
the EU's obsession with undermining the USA and its two most powerful global
trading partners - Japan and the United Kingdom?
They all use imperial measurements, as do many global enterprises, not least in
the electronics and computer industries.
Isn't metrication just about unadulterated envy?