• Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook

Search This Blog

Visit our new website.

Thursday, September 05, 2013

Viviane Reding: The EU Commissioner for Mars

Yesterday, Viviane Reding, the EU Commissioner for Justice and vice-President of the Commission, gave a speech saying she wanted to increase the EU's powers to intervene in member states where there is a "rule of law" crisis. Citing the "Roma crisis in France in summer 2010; the Hungarian crisis that started at the end of 2011; and the Romanian rule of law crisis in the summer of 2012", she said she wants to establish a "far-reaching rule of law mechanism, which would include more detailed monitoring and sanctioning powers for the Commission".

Reding also chose to cite in her speech the arrest of David Miranda at Heathrow airport by UK authorities using anti-terrorism legislation.

Reding's big idea is a treaty change to extend the reach of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights into member states' domestic legal systems and therefore the power of the Commission to intervene. She called for:
"A very ambitious Treaty amendment – which I would personally favour for the next round of Treaty change – would be abolishing Article 51 of our Charter of Fundamental Rights, so as to make all fundamental rights directly applicable in the Member States, including the right to effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter). I have raised this idea already in a speech at the FIDE Congress in Tallinn in May 2012. This would open up the possibility for the Commission to bring infringement actions for violations of fundamental rights by Member States even if they are not acting in the implementation of EU law. I admit that this would be a very big federalising step. It took the United States more than 100 years until the first ten amendments started to be applied to the states by the Supreme Court."
Currently, the Charter can only be used to interpret how EU law is implemented in member states - the UK's 'opt-out'/clarification on the Charter was meant to reinforce this point in the Lisbon Treaty negotiations (that clarification hasn't really worked).

Viviane Reding has long been one of the most far-out there EU federalists but this is a fundamental and outright challenge to national governments' authority. This would be a good time for member states to remind Reding, Barroso et al what their mandate is. If member states are ever to rest back control of the EU, this sort of thing should almost become a sackable offence.

As someone put it to us in Brussels recently: every time Reding opens her mouth, Nigel Farage gains another thousand votes.


Rollo said...

Don't gag her for telling the truth. We need all the votes we can get.

Anonymous said...

Unelected commissioner of the corruption ridden democratically deficient eussr in power grab mode, we are surprised because?

christina speight said...

She only says out loud what the rest do all the time without fanfare.

We want lots of national publicity for this latest lunatic remark

Anonymous said...

Reding - why do you want more scope and powers when you cannot manage those that you have already?!

Sort out the Eurozone, CAP, economic restructuring, Syria et all first. And then give us our overdue REFERENDUM (which will end up being a vote of no confidence in the lot of you).

Does this latest loon idea not break the refenendum lock?


Denis Cooper said...

Anonymous -

"Does this latest loon idea not break the refenendum lock?"

Let me guess that if necessary Hague would pretend that the Charter does not "apply" to the UK, and therefore any amendment to the Charter would also not "apply" to the UK, and so there would be need for a UK referendum under Section 4(4)(b) of the European Union Act 2011:


"4) A treaty or Article 48(6) decision does not fall within this section merely because it involves one or more of the following —

(a) the codification of practice under TEU or TFEU in relation to the previous exercise of an existing competence;

(b) the making of any provision that applies only to member States other than the United Kingdom;

(c)in the case of a treaty, the accession of a new member State."

It was Section 4(4)(b)that Hague used to block a referendum on the major EU treaty change agreed through European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of March 25th 2011, so he's already had that practice.

Rik said...

Communication strategy is unbelievably poor. And what makes it worse they donot seem to be able to turn that around.

Basically by incompetence of the daily leadership (Barosso and eg this person) imho. In business this would have been turned around long ago as you would sail directly into bankruptcy otherwise. But the EU organisation is simply because of its set up not able for change/to react properly.

I donot see this fit in with some overall strategy as well btw. Simply the political version of Kindergartenfootball. See a ball (an issue in the media) and all go chase it (make a new law/directive).
Also on that issue there seem to be no ideas.
Again completely the wrong crew. Completely missing the fact that the times have changed. Selling horses in the time of the T-Ford.

Problems can play on more than one level. Like Hague you are often missing that.
This would be a political AND a legal issue. Not only a legal one. And as it involves the EU-referendum issue politics is likely the most important one.
Yes legally he has the right, but politically it would be suicide if it gets enough media attention.

Like with the Syria file. Yes the government can start shooting missiles legally, only the population thinks it is a very bad idea. You still do it and there a negatives around election time you are toast.
Yes they can start a new vote as well. However doing a Maastricht would be seen as neglecting the will of the people. And be a very big negative for Cameron. Hague misses the clue often Cameron seems to have had the memo now. He is rebuilding his credibility the last thing he can use is a 'vote till approved image'. It probably would kill it.
What he would need for a new vote is a big gamechanger something that makes the public think this really is a new situation. And I donot see that coming. Assad nuking Aleppo or something.
And the pro-shoot people, especially Heinz-Kurry are messing up the PR around the present file as well. Evidence is very dodgy but is presented as 100% ok. After Iraq this is more than naive. And a lot of things come to the surface now (rebels having had and used chemical weapons). And basically all rebels you see fighting are from the religious nuts sort. Simply not the people you want to support.
In a nutshell before assuming it is a pure legal ballgame determine first if it is not another game as well (usually with different rules). Which one goes first you have to detemine case by case.

And with the legal stuff donot assume that in other countries the way EU law works in the local legal system is similar to the UK.
Not a bad strating point for many countries but not one to base definite decisions upon.
Eg Germany is always pretty strange from that pov.
Even the EU legal text themselves can differ in considerable measures (while it is supposed to be a translation). And there is no rule that English goes first as many seem to presume incorrectly. All languages are equal.

Anonymous said...

Denis - thank you.

It is as suspected, our weasle politicians are completely untrustworthy and do not want the public to see the entirety of the mess that they have left the UK in wrt the EU.


Gosporttory said...

Agree fully with most of the above. We most certainly do NOT want to gag lunatics like this, because it all helps our cause and indeed prove our case for getting out of this EU Gravy Train soonest.

David Horton said...

The point for our friends in Open Europe is not necessarily to leave the EU at all. OE is trying (in vain) to lobby for fundamental change in the EU so Britain doesn't feel quite so antagonistic towards it.

However, as is often the case, the EU rolls out some over-the-top federalist like Reding who traps off some assimilatory nonsense, believing that all people in all member states are as federalist as she is.

Every time someone like Reding speaks, you can almost hear the frustrated sigh of exasperation from the Germans, knowing that Britain edges further towards the exit.

So the OE lobbying is not going to bear fruit. Reding may have said it, but Barroso Shultz and Rumpy also think it. The only way for these federalists is forward - there can be no return of powers to member sovereign states.

This leaves Britain with only one choice. We will be leaving and all Europe knows that when we go:

1. Others will follow.
2. The EU will lose our money
3. The EU will lose our business (fragile recovery?)
4. EU citizens working in Britain will be returning to their country to add to the unemployment figures.
5. Longer term, the EU will simply disintegrate. Four or five years, max.

The fundamental reason that the EU should be left to die a natural death is because when faced with extinction or adaptation, the EU refuses to adapt, opting instead to step over the precipice.

An organisation that stupid doesn't deserve to survive.

What we in Britain need to do is to start work on a new organisation that can be put in place as the EU thrashes round in its death throes. It needs to have no ambitions to micro-manage and dictate law and policy to member states, and just be an Economic Community for Europe. Actually, that would be a pretty good name for it. The European Economic Community. EEC for short.

Anonymous said...

The No1 priority and stated goal of the EPP Parliamentry Group in the EU Parliament (which has the largest collection of national MEP's) of which UK Labour Party is a member of is - "A United Federal EU State".

(The UK Conservatives are not part of this group).

So this sort of stuff shouldn't surprise anyone, it's what the whole EU is about!

theyenguy said...

Inasmuch as the sovereignty of nation states is failing, on the collapse of fiat money, beginning with the Emerging Market Currencies, CEW, and Emerging Market Bonds, EMB, nannycrats will increasingly meet in summits and work groups, to renounce national sovereignty, and to establish regional sovereignty, where monetary, fiscal, and economic policies will be directed by statist public private partnerships of banks, businesses, labor organizations and governments, all for the goal of regional integration.

The IMF is showing the way forward, as the centerpiece statement of its position paper More Fiscal Integration to Boost Euro Area Resilience, dated September 25, 2013, calls for better oversight of national policies and enforcement of rules: “Going forward, reinstating fiscal discipline and reviving market discipline may require stronger involvement of the center in national fiscal decisions.”

A One Euro Government is coming soon, it will be a United States of Europe, with a great democratic deficit. The periphery nations, will exist as hollow moons revolving about planet Brussels and planet Berlin. While Greeks cannot be Germans, all will be living as one, in common debt servitude to centralized task masters, such as Jenz Weidmann, President of the Bundesbank, and Viviane Reding, European Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, as they direct a Eurozone Fiscal Union. Of note The Express UK recently reported Fury Erupted Over A Fresh Brussels Plot To Transform The EU Into A Federal Superstate. Justice commissioner ­Viviane Reding said the EU should have powers to impose human rights rulings. Her masterplan includes a vision of the European Commission as a “quasi-judicial authority” alongside an EU “justice minister” and powers for Europe’s courts to impose rulings, overriding national governments.

Liberalism featured trust in the world central bankers for investment gain. Now in authoritarianism, specifically out of waves of economic and political turmoil in the Mediterranean Sea nation states of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain, people will come to trust in the word, will, and way of sovereign regional leaders, that is statist nannycrats, for regional security, stability, and sustainability, as communicated in bible prophecy of Revelation 13:3-4.

Doug Noland penned that liberalism as the age of wildcat finance; an epoch where bankers of all types fiercely strived to outdo one another to generate the greatest investment results, and where Ben Bernanke fathered credit easing.

But now with Jesus Christ, operating in dispensation, that is the administration of all things economic and political, as presented in Ephesians 1:10, the world has pivoted from liberalism to authoritarianism, where Angela Merkel fathered debt servitude with Greek Bailouts I, and II, and where she in calling for More Europe, laid the groundwork for a soon coming One Euro Government.

Authoritarianism is the age of wildcat governance, where leaders bite, rip and tear one another apart, in their struggle to become top dog leader; these will increasingly rule regionally, in diktat.

Peter Schwarz of WSWS reports on the emergence of wildcat goverance and its diktat in article Italian Government Survives Confidence Vote.


I appeal to the European Commission asking
Subject: The government of England, which introduced and continues to introduce " Limiting Discriminatory Laws " - laws which the Government treats citizens by depriving them of freedom, freedom of movement and rights !

Central London ICE Becket House , 60-68 St Thomas Street London , SE1 3QU

Dear Pavel Petkov-.............................................. ...................................
Intention to deport administratively from the United Kingdom.
In the border service of the United Kingdom (UKBA) we noticed that you are a citizen of the EEA (European economic area), which seems has no right of residence in the Immigration (European economic area) Regulations 2006 (rules).
As the EEA citizen, you have the right to long-term residence beyond the initial three-month period of your stay, if you are:
. Worker / employee (the citizens of the countries of the group, A2 must possess a formal work permit / authorization / Workers)
. A person seeking work
. Self-employed
. Student or
. A person who can live independently.
All these concepts are defined in the rules.
Person who has been admitted or has acquired the right to reside in the United Kingdom in accordance with the rules, may be from the United Kingdom to talk for two minutes, if he / she does not or has ceased to have the right of abode in accordance with the rules.
As it seems at present you do not have the right to reside, UKBA intends to deport You from the United Kingdom.
In order to ensure the possibility to consider in entirety your personal situation and whether you have the right of residence, please come to the meeting of the 24.02.2014 at 11: 30 at Charing cross police station
The meeting will be requested to provide documentary evidence of the following:
1. the identity
2 . nationality
3 . your address in the UK
4 . financial situation
5 . employment / training
6 . marital status
7 . information for family members

With respect,
S. Mitchell.

I received this letter from Immigration
Stupid law on the limitation of the UK, this should not be taken!
Most foreigners like me are poor and homeless, can not meet the stupid law in the UK and will be deprived of liberty, freedom of movement and rights.
Citizens are restricted from social assistance. Citizens, who want social benefits under the law of the rules for the application of the law on social assistance. To want social aid, first required by the Jobcentre to sign a bunch of papers, after which you will be obliged to take the place of habitual residence test, that test you are limited to aid.
In the Jobcentre, I turned to social assistance and was limited bya test that test is: the Habitual Residence Test -

For more information of the system of England please follow any information