Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Hannan in the Telegraph

The EU's four-stage strategy to reduce Britons to servitude
By Daniel Hannan
(Filed: 26/01/2005)

The penny is finally dropping. Thirty-two years after we joined, we are at last waking up to the nature of our subjection before Brussels. It was always going to take a big issue to jolt us from our narcolepsy, and immigration is that issue.

On Monday, Michael Howard promised that a future Conservative government would introduce an upper limit to the number of immigrants, and set a separate quota for asylum seekers. Insofar as one can sense these things, the voters heartily approved. People of impeccably liberal views went along with the contention that we could not open our borders to the entire world.
Passionate Labour supporters could be heard admitting that, on this one, the Tories had got it right.

Then, from Brussels, came the noise of a mighty collective snort. You are too late, said our masters in the Commission. We have been putting together an EU asylum policy over the past eight years, and your signatures - Jack Straw's and David Blunkett's, at any rate - are on all the documents. You want to withdraw now? Tant pis!

It comes as a bit of a shock to find out that the common immigration policy already exists. After all, wasn't this one of those "red lines" that Tony Blair kept swanking about? Haven't the home affairs spokesmen of all parties - even the Lib Dems - made a big issue of keeping our border controls? Yet it now turns out that, although we may indeed keep our physical frontier checks, we have ceded the right to decide who is entitled to cross them.

This is a pattern that one sees again and again in the EU. New initiatives go from being unthinkable to being inevitable without any intervening stage. It happened with the euro and the social chapter. It is happening again with the European army.

You hadn't heard about the European army? It is small, to be sure, but it certainly exists. Uniformed EU troops have been deployed in Macedonia, the Congo and, most recently, Bosnia. They are answerable, not to any national capital or combination of national capitals, but to the EU's own politico-military structures. Yet politicians continue to speak, rather touchingly, of "the need to oppose a common EU defence policy".

So it goes on. We are making a big fuss about the EU proposal to have its own diplomatic service, but it's already up and running. I recently visited the EU embassy in Lima (or the "European Delegation" as it is still coyly known). It employed many more staff than any of the member state embassies, and with good reason: it has assumed almost all their functions.

When I asked the Euro-diplomats what was left for the national missions to do, they grinned at each other and mumbled something about promoting tourism. Yet I'll bet that, when the EU formally calls its delegations embassies, there will be howls of outrage.

The same goes for the European police force ("Europol"), the EU prosecuting magistracy ("Eurojust"), tax harmonisation, human rights questions. In each case, Euro-integrationists pursue a well-tried four-stage strategy. Stage One is mock-incredulity: "No one is proposing any such thing. It just shows what loons these sceptics are that they could even imagine it." Stage Two is bravado: "Well all right, it's being proposed, but don't worry: we have a veto and we'll use it." Stage Three is denial: "Look, we may have signed this, but it doesn't really mean what the critics are claiming." Stage Four is resignation: "No point complaining now, old man: it's all been agreed."

Part of the problem is that, 32 years on, we still have not grasped the nature of EU power. Because the Treaty of Rome is called a treaty, we imagine that it simply binds its signatory states under international law.

In reality, though, the Treaty of Rome created a new legal order, directly applicable within the jurisdictions of the member nations.

So, to return to the case in point, let us ponder what would happen if a future Tory government implemented the policy that Mr Howard adumbrated on Monday. Let us imagine that someone entered the country illegally and that, several months later, he was discovered by the immigration service and ordered to leave. Let us further conjecture that he, like many sans papiers in this situation, suddenly claimed to be the victim of political persecution in his home country.

David Davis, as home secretary, would order his repatriation on the ground that we accepted as refugees only those who had been so identified by the UNHCR. The illicit entrant would at this stage take his case to judicial review and the judge, as things stand, would uphold EU law and order that he remain in Britain pending the assessment of his case.

The judge would act in this way, not simply because judges enjoy overturning deportation orders (although they do), but because he would be obliged, under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 European Communities Act, to give precedent to EU rules over our own parliamentary statutes. That is why, for example, the Metric Martyrs lost their case. Although a 1985 Act of Parliament explicitly allowed traders to use either metric or imperial units, an EU directive said otherwise, and our appeal court was obliged to give precedence to the latter.
Mr Howard understands this very well. Not only is he a lawyer himself but, as home secretary, he clashed almost weekly with our judges - not least on immigration cases. He must have known that the EU would react as it did to his proposals: indeed, I suspect he was banking on it. He has said before that he wants to take powers back from Brussels but, until now, the issue on which he was planning to go into battle - the recovery of our fishing grounds - seemed rather marginal to most inland voters. Now he has found a casus belli where the country will be behind him.
It has been a besetting British vice that we ignore what is happening on the Continent until almost too late. But, when we finally rouse ourselves, our resolve can be an awesome thing. I sense that this may be such a moment.
Daniel Hannan is a Tory MEP

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Public debates haha like prezzas soundings for regional assemblies, the big conversation, a NO vote against regional assemblies but we still get one. The tories sit on them but they're against them .All these political parties are now at odds with the people.
Roll on the vote

Anonymous said...

Hold on a mo! Wasn't it the Tories who got us into this mess in the first place? First Heath, then Thatcher with the Single European Act, followed by Major. That Howard has just woken up to all this beggars belief. With UKIP on the verge of self-destruction, the only radical alternative is the BNP. Any takers? Surely you won't let the limp wristed hacks in the media and 'small c' conservative snobs frighten you off.More info on; www.bnp.org.uk

Serf said...

Sure the Tories did get us into this mess. But they have seen the error of their ways. It will not be long before they come out of the closet. Besides BNP is a socialist party that share many of the wrong headed policies that I dislike about the EU.

Anonymous said...

As a working class (most are!) small "c" conservative, Heath may be blamed for starting all this, although the initial plan of a "common market" is certainly not how it panned out, surely Thatcher could never be considered by anyone as pro-EU, without her we'd have no rebate. The Tories have planned to strip Regional Assemblies of their powers during last weeks announcement regarding tax and waste.

The Tories have messed up on some EU policy, but people are allowed (in a tolerant society) to see the error of their ways and attempt to recover a better position for all Britons.

Although I'd love to put two fingers up and walk away from what is now a deceitful organisation, our only real chance is gradual pulling out, just like the stealthy tactics used to draw us further in.

As was seen with Neil's campaign (and the so-called official campaign) a simple message will win the day over the constitution vote.

As an ex-serviceman what sickens me is people like Jack Straw, a known concientious objector, and Mandleson, the man who when Northern Ireland Minister called the Guards "chinless wonders", talking of patriots and fighting for the Union Flag. The Chancellor makes no secret of his dislike in funding the military, and in general the Labour Party has a discraceful record of serving in the Armed Forces.

God forbid, and we have to hope it never happens, that this great nation ever had to endure the horrors of another world ward, you'd certainly not want patriots like Blair, Straw and Mandleson covering your flank.

Patriots...now that's a laugh.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't want Mandelson protecting me rear that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

So we should stick with the Tories? No thanks! I would rather hold my nose and back Kilroy.
As for Thatcher - she claimed to support capital punishment,but did nothing to restore it. The EU would have stopped her. She famously said the UK was being "swamped", but did nothing to reverse the process. Now we find out immigration control is another thing signed over to Brussels. Oh, and the Tories didn't know. The whole process was started by them and, despite the rhetoric by Thatcher, aided and abetted by them.
The Tories are untrustworthy and treacherous and deserve nothing but contempt. The sooner they are replaced by the Lib Dems as the Official Opposition and consigned to oblivion the better. Then those who recognise the need for a radical nationalist alternative, not a tepid Tory one like UKIP, can get on with the job!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info, I added you to my favorites.
If you are interested in home business software
, I have a home business software
site.
Feel free to drop by and tell me what you think.

Blog Archive


only search Neil Herron Blog