Shropshire Star: Debunking the myths peddled about EU

! This post hasn't been updated in over a year. A lot can change in a year including my opinion and the amount of naughty words I use. There's a good chance that there's something in what's written below that someone will find objectionable. That's fine, if I tried to please everybody all of the time then I'd be a Lib Dem (remember them?) and I'm certainly not one of those. The point is, I'm not the kind of person to try and alter history in case I said something in the past that someone can use against me in the future but just remember that the person I was then isn't the person I am now nor the person I'll be in a year's time.

It seems that I’ve upset one of my MEP’s.  Conservative MEP, Phillip Bushill-Matthews, is a rampant eurofederalist who seems to have taken exception to my accusing anyone who supports the Europen Federation of treachery.

Debunking the myths peddled about EU

Stuart Parr (Star, January 11) claims I “peddle the myth that the EU cannot impose legislation upon us”.

I did not become an elected MEP in order to peddle myths. Neither did I expect to have to spend so much time debunking the myths peddled by others.

The fact is that role of the European Commission is to prepare legislative proposals that would translate into law what member states have signed up to in treaties.

For example, member states asked the Commission for proposals to halve road deaths within the EU.

The directive Stuart Parr refers to, that road vehicles should use dipped head lights at all times, stems directly from this request.

It will only become law if member states and the European Parliament agree it. The Commission has no powers and no votes.

To add that the EU is the cause of the merger of the RSH and PRH by “imposed” regional government on the UK is moving even further into fantasy.

The regional government agenda in the UK has been driven entirely by John Prescott. The test-bed for his theories was the north east, where he confidently expected the locals to vote for it. Happily they had more sense.

Finally, he suggests that those supporting EU ,mem bership are committing treason. The Tower of Lon don would need to be expanded to llt us all in.

Others suggest that the people who should be locked up are those who distort the truth and describe their deceptions as fact through the letters columns of regional newspapers — but I could not possibly comment.

Philip Bushill-Matthews
MEP, Brussels

One comment

  1. Ken Adams (4 comments) says:

    Sir Philip Bushill-Matthews letter has all the hallmarks of the EU spin, we who have taken the time to understand the EU and its workings have come to expect.

    In his letter arguing against Stuart Parr contention that the EU can imposes legislation on us, MEP Bushill-Matthews actually accepts that it can and does, one wonders therefore why he should bother to respond if not to attempt to misdirect the people. The British government have not asked the EU to impose legislation requiring the use of dipped head lights at all times. The Government actually oppose such a law as they belive it would be dangerous to cyclist and motorcyclist.

    The EU treaties are nothing more than vast Enabling Acts which introduce primary legislation whose purpose it is to enable subsequent secondary legislation. According to the European Communities Act Article 2(2), European legislation is superior to British. Therefore, the British Parliament cannot reject or even amend the legislation as it comes.

    When a treaty is ratified it becomes part of the Communities Acquis which states that once power has been transferred to the EU it cannot be reclaimed by the member state.

    The EU then lays down plans for legislation, for the amendment of legislation or, consolidation of legislation for ten, fifteen, twenty years ahead. In that period elections will take place and we will possibly have changed our governments at least twice, but this has no affect on the legislation working its way through the EU.

    EU legislation follows a different pattern from the British one. Instead of moving from the particular to the general, it moves from the general to the particular. Its starting point is the treaties signed at various times. It then moves through Framework Plans that, as one would expect, define the general framework of legislation that intends to achieve certain very general aims.

    Hence a general acceptance that “Transport” is an EU competence leaves us open to EU legislation we do not want, because of QMV voting even if all our ministers and MEPs are against certain legislation they can be outvoted. In this case our government belive that to force us all to drive during daylight hours with headlights will actually be dangerous to cyclist and motorcyclist, but they can do nothing to prevent the imposition of this legislation short of renegotiation the EU treaties.

    Thus the EU is a form of unaccountable governance by management that undermines our rights to have our laws made in our constitutional democracy with legislation conducted in the open and legislators being accountable to the people over whom they legislate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.