Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Referendum. Show all posts

Thursday, February 25, 2016

EU justice & protection



In out shake it all about ....                              To go to the INDEX click here
An article from a correspondent on EU protection for British expatriates in the EU

June 23rd is now the date all eyes are focused upon according to the media in the UK.  A second, (or perhaps a third), 'D' day is fast approaching for Britain and whether the opposing camps are 'in' or 'out' the biggest arguments seem twofold, sovereignty and trade.  The 'outers' claim that the UK is losing too much control and all sovereignty should be repatriated to prevent further 'interference' from Brussels.

So what is Sovereignty?  It is understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.  So is that a good thing I ask myself and is that really the issue?

Much informed comment will say the EU was not set up as a trade association and the aims and objectives of the EU seem to support the view.  The founding principles of the Union start by saying: 'The Preamble to the draft Constitutional Treaty is preceded by a quotation from Thucydides: "Our Constitution (...) is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number".
 
The Union is founded, according to the Convention's proposal, on the values of respect for human dignity, liberty, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These values, which are set out in Article I-2, are common to the Member States. Moreover, the societies of the Member States are characterised by pluralism, tolerance, justice, solidarity and non-discrimination. These values play an important role, especially in two specific cases. Firstly, under the procedure for accession set out in Article I-57 any European State wishing to become a member of the Union must respect these values in order to be considered eligible for admission. Secondly, failure by a Member State to respect these values may lead to the suspension of that Member State's rights deriving from membership of the Union (Article I-58).

So what, you might say, we live in a democracy and we can vote for people who support our views so why do we need more bureaucracy?  For those of us who live in Europe the answer to that is clear.  We moved according to other reciprocal treaties that allowed free movement together with the right to port benefits gained whilst in employment, (if retired), or other in work benefits.  Without those treaties in place many of us would not have taken the step to live in Europe.  Those rights are now at risk because the checks and balances imposed on the UK by being a member of the EU would be removed and there would be no redress for the Brit abroad in Europe.

If you think that is not the case then take a look at what has happened in relation to the winter fuel payments for pensioners in areas of Europe that the DWP has suddenly decided are too warm in the winter for pensioners to receive that to which they are entitled.  Leaving aside the issue of whether or not WFP should or should not be paid, the fact is the entitlement is there and it has been erroneously removed for many in Europe.  

This decision has been made by the DWP contrary to the treaties signed by the UK and is currently the subject of a complaint to the EU.  Whilst we still await a ruling on the matter without this safeguard there would be nowhere for such complaints to be made and the UK government would have cart blanche to rescind or reduce such benefits that are critical to the well being of the Brit abroad and to which they are entitled.

The UK government has already indicated that it is looking to rescind the Human Rights Act and uses spurious arguments that it allows criminals to shelter behind its protection.  However, what it fails to make clear is that all citizens are protected by the Human Rights Act and watering it down would be a retrograde step for all EU citizens.
Likewise the UK government promised in its manifesto that it would change the fifteen year rule for those of us that are likely to most affected by a leave vote.  As yet there is no sign of that promise being fulfilled and every likelihood that the proposal will run out of parliamentary time.

This demonstrates that to put all our eggs into one Westminster basket leaves us very vulnerable and that we should all be fighting for Britain to remain part of Europe to enable us to remain protected by the existing treaties that allow us to live peacefully in Europe, (it will also retain those treaties that protect citizens living in the UK.)
The fundamental rights are:
As regards the protection of fundamental rights, the Convention makes significant advances. Article I-7 of the draft Constitution reproduces the guarantee of fundamental rights provided in the EU Treaty and refers to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. This Article also opens the way for the Union to seek formal accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In addition, the Convention reached a consensus enabling the Charter of Fundamental Rights, solemnly proclaimed at the Nice European Council in December 2000, to be included in Part II of the Convention. The European Union therefore acquires for itself a catalogue of fundamental rights which will be legally binding not only on the Union, its institutions, agencies and organs, but also on the Member States as regards the implementation of Union law. The inclusion of the Charter in the Constitution does not compromise the division of competences between the Union and the Member States.

The Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States. The Convention has slightly amended the presentation of the Charter to adapt it to the changes introduced by the draft Constitution.

The inclusion of the Charter, which contains additional rights not contained in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, such as workers' social rights, data protection, bioethics or the right to good administration, makes it more visible to citizens, who will thus be better informed of their rights.
The foregoing is an extract from the founding principles of the Union and if there is a 'Brexit' it will threaten our very existence in Europe and will have serious repercussions on those of us who have made a life, not on the Isle of Wight, but in mainland Europe thinking that we were safely covered by the blanket that is the EU.

The throw away comments made by those that would have us leave are far too elementary, as they only refer to the basic issues that they want to espouse.  The fundamental issues for us that have made a life in Europe are those rights described above that have been fiercely fought for and will be too easily given away by a 'Brexit'.

The divisions are right across the political divide and even the government of the day is split on the issue but those of us down the pecking order will have much more of a voice by remaining in Europe than we will have if Britain leaves.  That much is very clear.
--------------------------------------------------------------

(Notes:  The author has no political affiliations and is therefore not a member of any political party.  I have lived in France for almost 12 years with my wife, over ten years of which was in the Tarn in the Midi-Pyrénées.  A move north to the Manche eighteen months ago was after much soul searching as to whether or not we should return to the UK because of the gathering storm.  We decided to stay in France because we love 'la vie en France' and because we can enjoy a less stressful lifestyle.  I left school in Dorset whilst still fourteen years of age and went straight into heavy employment as a fireman on steam engines with British Rail.  I later moved to Surrey with the railways but eventually left to join the police service where I worked until I retired just before reaching sixty years of age.  Never out of work and never claimed any benefits until I received my old age pension at the age of sixty five years of age.  We were refused the winter fuel allowance at age sixty until the EU directive that the UK was acting unlawfully.  We battled hard unsuccessfully for the back payments that had been withheld but once again the UK unlawfully refused those payments.  This winter we again find ourselves without the winter fuel payments because of the spurious and unlawful temperature test imposed by the DWP.  I still pay tax to the UK on my police pension and, just about, retain my vote.  My wife worked as a solicitor as well as raising our four sons.  We have never wished to be a burden on France and have never expected nor claimed any benefits from our host country.  As you would expect, having worked in the law for a joint total of almost sixty years we ensured that our position was sound legally before moving to Europe.  That legal status is now being threatened and it threatens our very existence here in France.  Experience has shown us that the UK government is not to be trusted and that we need the protections afforded by being part of the EU.)

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Reasons for the European Union



Reasons for the EU by Carol Lavinia Fraser (<link) 
Carol Fraser wrote the following on the Forum  site Survive France Network
  She is stating why the EU is important to Britain and thereby the citizens of Britain.  I have added some comments in purple.
The first two items are so frequently indicated as reasons why Britain should leave the EU.  But they are on a continental scale what every honourable governing body does from countries to communes.  It is a matter of supporting the less economically developed regions, districts and individuals for the good of all.
 1.  The UK puts in £12 billion into the EU.  It gets back £6 billion.
2.  Each person pays €195.82 in and receives €108.75
From the developing economic strength of the less economic areas one gets trade.  That is what items 3 and 4 are about.
 3.  The free market is worth £227 million in exports to the UK - walk away from that?
4.  The new digital market which is in the process of being set up is estimated to be worth €451 billion and millions of new jobs - walk away from that?
5.  One of the biggest receivers of EU funding is agriculture.  Would our farmers get any funding from a UK government? Risky. Probably a hike in food prices, we all know they do not need much excuse to do that. 
The beauty of the landscape and the intimacy of food producers with the consumers (e.g. such as farmers' markets) depend on subsidies.
6.  Britain together with the EU is a world leader in the field of science and technology.  This is funded by the EU and includes Europeans in the university faculties.  This would go!  The EU is encouraging training of British (and other) students across Europe via the Erasmus programme (which see) - Brexit would probably cut it dead.
7.  Free trade into one of the biggest markets in the world.  America and China want the UK to stay leaders in the market and both have specified they would not be interested in the UK if it is out.  The car industry has warned Cameron to stay in Europe.  What are the implications of that?  The EU has over 50 trade deals globally which we have access to because we are in.  Estimate in lost jobs 2 million.
8.  London and the city are the world leaders in finance.  Implications of an out? Nobody knows!
9.  Security.  Loss of the European arrest warrant and cooperation between police and intelligence sources.  Police chiefs are worried about this one.  Turn the clock back to 1939 and Britain stands alone?  In the event of an 'out' a border would have to erected in Ireland with possible repercussions of kicking off the troubles again.  On the home front the Scots are very unhappy with the possibility of any out and are threatening another referendum to allow them to stay in the EU.  The world is currently in turmoil and we have the strength of a united Europe to take comfort from.  Winston Churchill said after the war the only way for there to be lasting peace in Europe was to be united.  How right he was.
10.  Each British subject has the protection of the European Bill of Human Rights.  Cameron said he will rewrite this into a British constitution.  Wow I for one do not TRUST him to do that.
11.  We each have freedom of movement in the EU and many of the low paid jobs are being done by Europeans, including Portuguese nurses in the health service.  The NHS is graunching (grinding/creaking) now, what would happen if they had to go home?
You might be interested in a conversation on Facebook I had with UKIP Bury.  I put six of the above points and expected an intelligent reasoned response.  What did I get? "Oh Carol you have been reading propaganda".  Right, I thought to ask where he gets his info, the response "The Daily Express".  This being run by a media billionaire baron who no doubt has his own hidden agenda.  I can report on that it was like talking to cotton wool.
In conclusion I would recommend you all sign up to British Influence and get their newsletter.  The reports are written by university professors and political grandees with much knowledge.  I would further recommend you demand answers from UKIP because so far they have none.  To vote 'out' would be to take a giant leap into the unknown.  They glibly state that we can have our own trade deals.  Estimated time to set these up? Years.
I could go on and I expect you will have guessed by now I am an ardent european.  I live in France and love it here having been here for 10 years.  I do not wish to go home and I furthermore do not want to see the land of my birth go to the wall.
****
The European endeavour is in its infancy. It is not perfect as no new venture is perfect.  Europe has had two millennia of changes, most of them traumatic.  We need now to guide the future, and not stand aside. Britain is one of three great economic powers of Europe along with Germany and France and we three should work together so that the whole does not founder.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

The Referendum Bill




Harry Shindler writes --- If there is an 'out' vote, then it will affect personally every expat and every expat family. It's very serious indeed. LETS GET ALL OUR EX-PATS INVOLVED.  We must win the right to vote in the Referendum - it's up to us all .... as the man* said "Never Tire - Never Weary".             *Winston Churchill
 
 
For those who live far from Europe the vote may yet affect you - Please support.

The Referendum Bill  - Update
   Lobbying has already had an impact: see here ITV's report on the debate during committee stage on 2 Nov:---
 
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-11-02/lords-argue-five-million-brits-living-abroad-should-get-a-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/      and also the report on the debate below this email.  However, we need to keep up the pressure!

1.  The Report Stage takes place in the House of Lords from Wed 18 November.  Baroness Miller (Lib Dem) will introduce an amendment to give all British Citizens in the EU a vote in the Referendum.  Those resident outside the EU will not be included as this is unlikely to be accepted.  When Baroness Miller presents her amendment, it is likely that the Government will tell (whip) its members not to vote for it, and may even urge them to vote against it.  Labour might also whip against it. Baroness Miller's amendment is thus likely to fail unless Labour & Conservative peers are persuaded otherwise by our lobbying. 

2.  Keep Lobbying Peers pleaseAs mentioned previously, peers' email addresses can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/.  They are often given as a general contactholmember@parliament.uk     Individual mail addresses are usually (but not always) the surname with an added initial.  Thus for example, Baroness Altmann is altmannr@parliament.uk  

3.  Which peer should you contact?  Some advice from Baroness Miller follows.
Baroness Miller urges -----
“The essential thing now is to get all your friends and family to lobby members of the House of Lords - either ones they know, or just pick someone, but choose people who didn’t speak, rather than those who are already on board. We suggest especially writing to Baroness Anelay (Con) contactholmember@parliament.uk, or anelayj@parliament.uk who is in charge of this bill in the Lords." 
NB absolutely essential that a mail to Baroness Anelay is of a very personalised nature - if not, the clerks will bin it.  Read more in the article from The Connexion  >>>>  :http://goo.gl/IKPm8y
Lord Faulks (Conservative spokesman) spoke against for the government - a personalised and well argued letter to him would also be useful (note that he is a barrister by training).
Baroness Morgan (Labour spokesperson) clearly needs persuasion. Labour does not support the repeal of the 15 year rule in general but it is worth trying to make the argument that the EU referendum is a distinct case as expats are directly affected.   Labour supports the franchise in the EU referendum for 16-17 year olds and has referred to the impact it will have on their futures.  Her email address is  morganeluned@parliament.uk
Please check Hansard below to see who did speak in favour - so that you can then target those peers who did not speak.
  
4.  How to write?  A personalised letter is preferable but here is an example for inspiration.  
Dear [Lord] [B/ness] xxxxx
I have lived outside the UK in [country or countries] for xx years.  As a result I can no longer vote in British general elections and currently would not be able to vote in the EU referendum, although I will be seriously affected [both] personally [and professionally] by its outcome.  Thus the outcome of the referendum is naturally very important to me.  Please vote in favour of any amendment at the Report Stage of the Referendum Bill tabled by Baroness Miller  to give me the vote. 
********************
Hansard report on the Committee Stage of the Referendum Bill  2nd November 2015

During Committee Stage, two amendments were proposed by Lord Hannay (cross bench)  and B/ness Miller (LD). A good deal of cross-party consensus seemed to be building during the debate.  Only Lord Trenchard spoke against, while Lords Dobbs was ambivalent. He was for the principle but raised the practical difficulties.  It was also not entirely clear whether Lord Grocott was supportive.
Fourteen members of the Lords spoke firmly for the proposals:-
[Cons -Lexden, Spicer, Hamilton, Flight, Bowness, Tugendhat, Garel-Jones; Lab -Royall, Liddle, Anderson; LD - Wallace, Tyler, Shipley;  Cross-Bench - Green
Unfortunately, B/ness Morgan of Ely's statement set out Labour's official view as being against repeal of the 15 year rule, and Lord Faulks [contactholmember@parliament.uk], speaking for the Government was also quite clearly against.  The full debate can be found at:- 
Starting at Column 1409 at 3.09 p.m.
                             Brian Cave                              Jane Golding