 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
[Index] [About] [Participants] [Forum] [Vote] [Letters] [Disclaimer] [Archive]
|
 |
 |
The European Movement on greater EU transparency and “anti-European myth-making” The European Movement proclaimed support, at the beginning of May 2001, for greater transparency within the European Union (EU). Their regular e-newsletter followed a report in the Daily Telegraph entitled: “EU will allow public access to documents.” Eurosceptics have often accused the EU of not being open and lacking democratic accountability. The European Parliament, the EU’s only directly elected institution, backed the proposals. This “greater transparency” means:
The European Movement hopes that it will dispel what it calls the anti-European myths and “misinformation that too often categorises the debate on Europe in this country.” It adds: “Pro-Europeans have long argued that the European Union should be more democratic, that it is why this move should be welcomed.” The e-newsletter suggested that the European Movement has won “a great victory,” because it claims to have campaigned for greater transparency in how the EU operates. It also presents, according the e-mail, "one less issue for our opponents to bash us over the head with.” Claims by eurosceptics that the EU is developing a superstate were rejected. The German chancellor Gerhard Schröder had produced a draft Social Democrat Party policy document, which looks at the future shape of the European Union. It was jumped on by eurosceptics as further evidence of the development of a European superstate. Citing the German President, Johannes Tau, the European Movement argues that: "No-one wants to do away with the nation-states and their sovereignty.” Instead of the development of a superstate the German president suggested that nation states are vital for their “their distinctness, and as guardians of diversity in Europe". It is argued that eurosceptics should get a “reality check,” because there will be another inter-governmental conference (IGC) in 2004. The European Movement believes the IGC will limit the moves towards integration of the European Union. It is hoped that this will “prevent unnecessary centralisation and to consider the role of national parliaments in EU decision-making.” The European Movement therefore insists that the EU has always been about allowing politicians across the European Union to debate and exchange ideas. To back its belief that the European Union is democratically accountable, the European Movement suggests: “The Council of Ministers has played an important part in this process, principally as the highest body within the EU and it is fully representative of the democratically elected governments of the nation states.” In the past few weeks the European Movement has also produced comment on: - The Sun's article entitled, 'Branded' of 27th April 2001, claims that British shoppers pay 40% more than their EU counterparts on high street goods. For back issues of The Sun contact remember.when@virgin.net. (27/04/01) - The European Movement's e-mail of 27th April 2001 looks at figures from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which, the European Movement claims, show that the UK is dependent on the EU for trade. It also dismisses a campaign by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), against the metrication of road signs. In fact the UKIP were campaigning, according to the European Movement, against a breach of European Union and UK law by Northampton Council. It had installed some metric road signs in kilometres, instead of miles (27/04/01). - The Times reported on the European rapid reaction force on 12th April 2001. The article, 'EU force 'will not bow to NATO', reveals that the force which is dubbed by eurosceptics as a "euro-army" will be independent of NATO. Yet the European Union argues that the rapid reaction force will not replace NATO as "the cornerstone" of European defence (12/04/01), - The Daily Express writes about "metrication-martyr" Steve Thoburn, a Sunderland greengrocer, who was found guilty under the Weights and Measures Act 1985 for selling his produce in imperial measures. Article: "The martyr burning for an ounce of common sense." The European Movement claims that Steve Thorbun's protest against metrication, by which he blames EU legislation, is midirected because the process began in 1963 - 9 years before the Treaty of Accession to the European Economic Community was signed by the UK (12/04/01). - The European Movement's e-Newsletter, Euromove Weekly, of 6th April 2001 discussed:
On 30th March 2001 the European Movement backed the actions taken by the EU and the supporting decision of the European Court of Justice over the sacking of Bernard Connolly by his former empoyer, the European Commission. Mr. Connolly had written a book without the permission of the Commission, expressing his concerns about Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Mr. Connolly argued that EMU is a " threat...ultimately to peace". You might like to read about it in the Western Morning News, which wrote about Mr. Connolly's case, asking "Should telling the truth be a crime?" (23/03/01). That aside, the European Movement's e-mail talks about the issues surrounding the Stockholm and Lisbon summits. Other issues - Euromove Weekly reports dated 23rd and 16th March 2001:
For
more information e-mail Chris Bradley.
|
The Democracy Movement on the Liberal Democrats In comparison to the European Movement, the Democracy Movement has been surprisingly quiet with very few e-mail updates being sent out. Yet they have not died, but have been actively campaigning against "pro-European" MPs before and during the General Election. In an e-mail bulletin of 17th May 2001, the Democracy Movement highlights a Liberal Democrat threat by two of its leading candidates, Mike Hancock and Lib Dem agriculture spokesman David Heath, to take legal action. The two men, according to a report in The Times by Andrew Pierce, are trying "to silence any mention of their support for the single currency." The threat follows the distribution of leaflets by the Democracy Movement to highlight the voting records of MPs on European issues. Mr. Heath and his colleagues are advocates for the abolition of Sterling in favour of the euro subject to a referendum, and for a federal Europe. They voted in favour of a motion in the previous parliament, which called for British entry into the single currency. The leaflet read, “Local MP wants to scrap the pound.” Demanding a retraction Portsmouth solicitors Saulet & Co, who represent Mr. Hancock wrote: “This is completely untrue. Mr Hancock is clearly on record in all his publicity and his correspondence making it clear he will not support the scrapping of the pound or joining the euro unless the British people vote for this in a properly held referendum. Therefore your handout is libellous." As a result of the Democracy Movement's campaign, Mr. Hancock, Mr. Heath and the Lib Dem candidate in Dorset West, Simon Green, sought to distance themselves from their leaderships' stance on the euro. Mr. Green presented the Democracy Movement with an ultimatum, ordering the pressure group not "to publish any more material about his views on Europe," reveals Andrew Pierce. Mr. Green denied in a letter that he is in favour of a "European superstate, or several other matters referred to in your publication.” Mr. Heath also told his local newspaper, the Western Gazette, that he felt upset by the leaflet's comments, "because what it is putting out is an absolute untruth." Rather than retracting its allegations, the Democracy Movement issued a challenge. It said that it would only retract its claims if all three men signed statements dismissing Lib Dem policy in favour of a federal Europe, and pledging support for Britain to keep the pound “in all circumstances and at all times.” The challenge was not taken up. The Times - "Lib Dems make legal threat on euro leaflet", by Andrew Pierce (17/05/01) Questions over Kennedy The Democracy Movement reveals that it was mentioned in a report, again in The Times, by Michael Gove. The article questions the true ambitions of Charles Kennedy, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. It declared: “The only honest thing about Kennedy’s campaign is his ambition for office.” It mocks Charles Kennedy for being, as the article is entitled, “The leader of a far too loyal opposition.” Michael Gove accuses Mr. Kennedy of being happiest when it comes to “mouthing someone else’s banalities,” and therefore siding with New Labour. It is a rather scathing analysis, and suggests that the Lib Dem leader would not even win a bronze medal if he competed against Gerri Halliwell “in a gravitas competition.” Mr. Gove doesn’t feel that Charles Kennedy would offer a credible and genuine Opposition. As evidence of this, Mr. Gove cited a Lib Dem speech to rally his candidates. In this, which he made one Sunday in May, he apparently praised Prime Minister Tony Blair and offered little criticism of him. Instead, according Michael Gove, he presented his audience with “only a feeble whimper of difference which scarcely amounted to dissent.” The Lib Dem leader is mocked, and the article asks why Mr. Kennedy didn’t just reprint New Labour’s manifesto. Michael Gove thinks that only difference between New Labour and Liberal Democrat policies is that Lib Dems always want more money for “their pet causes.” Clearly the high moral ground of “honesty,” that the Lib Dems are taking in the General Election, is being used just to disguise its lack of ideological backbone. At least that’s the impression given by Michael Gove. He accuses the Liberal democrat leader of insulting the intelligence of the electorate, and of hypocrisy with respect to his party’s behaviour. He even went so far as to compare it to falling in love in a brothel. He added: “Indeed, the very special nature of current Lib Dem dishonesty is best exemplified by their position on Europe. While the party invites bien-pensant applause for its bravery in making the case for the single currency which new Labour is too timorous to mount, the reality on the ground is quite different.” In the same breath Michael Gove argues that given power, the Lib Dems would attempt to rapidly advance the escalator of European integration. So what does Michael Gove say about the Lib Dems threat against the Democracy Movement? Well like Labour’s Deputy Prime Minister, his comments don’t hold back any punches against Lib Dem candidates Mike Hancock, David Heath and Simon Green. His comments were as follows: "But when the Democracy Movement chose to draw the pro-European courage of these gentlemen to the attention of their constituents they... protested that they have no desire to scrap the pound, placing them not just at odds with their manifesto but their own voting record.” Some credit is offered to the Liberal Democrats' policy to seek constitutional reform, because it sounds very much like their own policy; particularly when it involves a referendum on electoral reform towards proportional representation. This is where the Lib Dems, unless Tony Blair complies, might present a significant opposition. This is because Charles Kennedy says that if he doesn’t get what he demands then “all bets are off” between New Labour and the Lib Dems. Yet Charles Kennedy didn’t call off the bets with New Labour last year, when Tony Blair only ordered a “review” on the issue, and not Kennedy’s beloved referendum on P.R. Instead of making a noise the Liberal Democrat leader humbly accepted it. Michael Gove argues that Kennedy’s only hope of office is to stay beside Blair. The article concludes: “Why, one has to ask, should anyone vote for an opposition party which provides no opposition? For all his talk of ambition there is nothing in the Lib Dem platform to suggest that Charlie Kennedy wants to be anything more than leader of a ginger group within New Labour.” The Times - "The leader of a far too loyal opposition," by Michael Gove (15/05/01) For more information e-mail Stuart Coster. |
[About
EuroPolls]
[Index] [Participants] [EMU Forum]
[EMU Vote] [Letters] [Legal Disclaimer] [Archive]