Sleepwalking into the European Nightmare

The EU treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the EU Constitution thrown out by Dutch and French voters in 2005, UK MPs have said.

The committee criticised the "essentially secret" drafting of the document, which is due to be signed by EU heads of government in Portugal after an Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) later this month (October 07). Indeed, their report on the European Reform Treaty questions, perhaps even undermines, just about all the government’s main claims for that controversial text.

At any rate, it’s rare for a Labour-dominated committee (nine out of 16 members) to produce a report quite so unhelpful to the government.

The headline is that the MPs of the European Scrutiny Committee find that the European Treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the constitution.

They say they understand why the government wants to distance itself from the old constitution but add, "We would wish to explore the reality and significance," of this approach, adding that it could be "misleading". They say it is up to the government to prove that the new treaty is "significantly different" from the old constitution, adding that despite the British opt-outs "we are not convinced". They demand that the government spells out what battles it has won to make the treaty so different for the UK.

It doesn’t stop there. They question the worth of Britain’s opt-outs and clarifications. They say they are “concerned” that the treaty will mean changes that will increase the EU’s powers over national law and so national governments. They want our government to state what safeguards it has against this.

They then go on to be "concerned" that European courts will gain greater rights over UK law. They pick two examples and suggest that Britain might face tougher laws on the length of the working week and on discrimination (they seem to assume that this would be a bad thing) and want “concrete evidence” that this won’t happen

All this is quite remarkable in a week when the Prime Minister is trying to regain some sort of credibility. It seems that New Labour will happily spin an election promise when it suits them; they break it when it suits them.

If a cross party parliamentary committee says it’s the same, does this mean Brown can’t see the truth? Quite possibly.

In his Statement on Iraq in the Commons earlier this week Brown seemed to be assuming the mantle of Gladstone. An amazing thought. But is the Prime Minister aware that it was said of Mr. Gladstone that he could convince most people of most things and himself of almost anything? It seems Brown can convince himself that the EU constitution is not a Constitution when any sane person says it is virtually the same document. Don’t believe me?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6914468.stm It’s interesting to note both the people in this link are in virtual agreement as to what will happen if the treaty is signed. They just take different stances as to whether it’s good for the UK. Me? Sorry, the Constitution is not for me.

When the people of Europe realise what their leaders have done it will all end in tears. Or war.

One rule for you, one rule for me

It seems that you can accuse others of hate crimes these days but happily go about them yourself. You may not speak ill of anyone who may be of a different religious, sexual, political or any other persuasion. But when it comes to race, well, the USA administration clearly puts that in another category all together.

So it was perhaps no surprise what some British MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq told they heard one of the USA’s most powerful women say. Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates told the group: "I hate all Iranians."

The six MPs were taken aback by the hard-line approach of the Pentagon and in particular Ms Cagan, one of Mr Bush's foreign policy advisers.

Tory Stuart Graham, who was on the ten-day trip, would not discuss Ms Cagan but said: "It was very sobering to hear from the horse's mouth how the US sees the situation."

Of course the Pentagon subsequently denied Ms Cagan said she "hated" Iranians.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=554201962695917482&q=rageh+in+iran gives a balanced view Ms Cagan should have a look at.

So, again its one rule for you, one rule for me.