Cameron caves in on EU demands to surrender UK budget independence

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/ce...uk-budget.html

'Cast-iron' Dave with head of the EU commission the other week, disgraced former portugese PM José Barroso who now earns a living as an unelected law maker for Europe

Has the European Commission been given further powers to control the UK Budget?

After David Cameron’s attendance at his first EU summit, in a statement to the House on the European Council, the Prime Minister said on Monday, “So on budget surveillance let me be clear – the UK Budget will be shown to this House first – and not to the Commission. … Of course we will share projections and forecasts just as we do with the IMF and other international bodies. … Co-ordination and consultation – yes. Clearance – no. Never."

First, I am not clear on the difference between Consultation and Clearance – if one institution co-ordinates or consults with another to such an extent – as UK Government Ministers already do with the European Commission – then surely clearance is no longer needed. Brussels already has what it desires – the laying of the groundwork for the UK Budget. Why clear a Budget with Europe when it is Europe that has provided its basis?

Second, the PM must bear in mind that there is no substantive wording from the European Council that “the UK Budget will be shown to this House first – and not to the Commission.” I produced a report on these concerns at the time.

Third, the European Council Conclusions, which Mr. Cameron agreed to, stated that “from 2011 onwards, in the context of a "European semester", presenting to the Commission in the spring Stability and Convergence Programmes for the upcoming years, taking account of national budgetary procedures” – however, this year, for example, the UK Treasury’s Stability/convergence programme was delivered on 28/01/10, with a final EU Council opinion delivered on 26/04/10 – focusing on immediate deficit reduction, as in the Conservative manifesto – and based on which the UK Emergency Budget consists largely of an economic framework derived from European Commission guidance and advice. How will our situation differ? The European Commission already has a strong say. The thought that the Commission will take account of national budgetary procedures is questionable.

Fourth, the European Council Conclusions, which Mr. Cameron signed, clearly stated “The crisis has revealed clear weaknesses in our economic governance, in particular as regards budgetary and broader macroeconomic surveillance. Reinforcing economic policy coordination therefore constitutes a crucial and urgent priority.” How is this not further power over governing Britain?

Fifth, the European Council Conclusions also stated “Giving, in budgetary surveillance, a much more prominent role to levels and evolutions of debt and overall sustainability, as originally foreseen in the Stability and Growth Pact”. How is this not further European power?

Sixth, in a press conference following the EU Council in Brussels, Cameron said “The Council agreed that European cooperation will, and I quote, 'take account of national budgetary procedures'. I am clear that that means Britain will always present its Budget to Parliament first.” I would like to see what it means to 'take account of national budgetary procedures', as I do not think it is clear at all.

The newspapers the other day hailed this as a victory for David Cameron, but just like his idol Mr Blair (remember the self-proclaimed heir to blair) he is a very good public relations stuntman and as can be seen here, as now sold us out just as Labour sold us out many times before. The question of the European Union having anything to do with our budget is astounding - the European Union was never chosen and nor is it elected or accountable to the people yet now it will have a -growing- part in how the budget of the United Kingdom is put together; in short, how you and your parents are taxed.

Should the EU have anything to do with the budget of the UK?

[Alkaz]

I thought that he was going to try his hardest to get us out of the EU? Sounds like it.

From what I learnt last year doing Law, what ever statutes passed down by the EU, no matter how much we hate them we have to do as they say. So if they wanted to change the traffic lights to purple, pink and white and it would cost £10bn then thats what it would cost. For anything like that I think that we need to be informed but they shouldn't be telling us exactly where everything is going and how we're to spend anything.

[Camy]

a politician whos lied about a fairly important policy, theres a surprise.

i personally don't think the eu should have anything to do with the budget, sure we should contribute some money to them, but they get far too much power over the uk.

[alexxxxx]

it shouldn't dictate what we should or shouldn't spend money on. but i think it should be allowed to ask strongly to cut a budget. fiscal crisis here would spread over the rest of europe.

[MrPinkPanther]

From what I learnt last year doing Law, what ever statutes passed down by the EU, no matter how much we hate them we have to do as they say. So if they wanted to change the traffic lights to purple, pink and white and it would cost £10bn then thats what it would cost. For anything like that I think that we need to be informed but they shouldn't be telling us exactly where everything is going and how we're to spend anything.

Not true. Since the UK doesn't have a codified constitution it cannot be written in as supranational. Parliament is always the highest authority and if they wanted to they could withdraw from the EU because no Parliament may bind it's successors.

I think we should have an In/Out referendum and then be done with this argument about whether or not we should give power away to the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

it shouldn't dictate what we should or shouldn't spend money on. but i think it should be allowed to ask strongly to cut a budget. fiscal crisis here would spread over the rest of europe.

The EU is not elected, its appointed. We elect politicians to decide our budget and carry out their economic plans which are linked in with social issues - why should the European Union (not accountable) have any input into our budget. The whole point of an election is for us, the public, to put input into how our country is ran. Why should unelected foreign organisations have any input when they dont pay taxes/dont have electoral rights here and are more importntly - unelected.

Why is the EU so afraid to ask us whether or not we approve?

Not true. Since the UK doesn't have a codified constitution it cannot be written in as supranational. Parliament is always the highest authority and if they wanted to they could withdraw from the EU because no Parliament may bind it's successors.

I think we should have an In/Out referendum and then be done with this argument about whether or not we should give power away to the EU.

It is actually true, EU law and EU courts have supremacy over UK law and legal systems. A parliament traditionally did not bind its successors, but the European Union cares little for democratic votes unless in its favour (see Republic of Ireland, France and the Netherlands referendums). If we joined the euro for example, a parliament would have binded its successors to a monetary system thus losing sovereign control over our monetary and economic systems.

Whoever controls the money controls the country.

[MrPinkPanther]

EU courts have supremacy over UK law and legal systems. A parliament traditionally did not bind its successors, but the European Union cares little for democratic votes unless in its favour (see Republic of Ireland, France and the Netherlands referendums). If we joined the euro for example, a parliament would have binded its successors to a monetary system thus losing sovereign control over our monetary and economic systems.

No it's not true. They are supranational in terms of the fact that whilst a member of the EU we have to adhere to their rules. The highest rule of British law is that no parliament may bind it's successors, this may not be changed, its the foundation stone of parliament. You do politics right? Ask your teacher, they will tay you the same.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it's not true. They are supranational in terms of the fact that whilst a member of the EU we have to adhere to their rules. The highest rule of British law is that no parliament may bind it's successors, this may not be changed, its the foundation stone of parliament. You do politics right? Ask your teacher, they will tay you the same.

We can withdraw yes, but we cannot overturn those laws and legal obligations (without leaving). If something can bypass parliament/parliament cannot overturn it without leaving then EU law takes place over British law and is thus supreme. To pretend otherwise is hiding the truth from the public about what this is all about. It has been about federalism from the very start.

Infact talking about the point on teachers, my friend who takes law actually told me his law teacher admitted that EU law takes supremacy over British law - and she also thinks its stupid and wrong like the vast majority who have never been given a say.

[MrPinkPanther]

We can withdraw yes, but we cannot overturn those laws and legal obligations (without leaving). If something can bypass parliament/parliament cannot overturn it without leaving then EU law takes place over British law and is thus supreme. To pretend otherwise is hiding the truth from the public about what this is all about. It has been about federalism from the very start.

Infact talking about the point on teachers, my friend who takes law actually told me his law teacher admitted that EU law takes supremacy over British law - and she also thinks its stupid and wrong like the vast majority who have never been given a say.

As I have said, they are only supranational whilst we are in the EU which is exactly why its not a super state. Whilst they are above UK law they are only above for as long as we allow them to be above so they are never truly above. I repeat. The foundation stone of British law is that Parliament cannot bind its successors. Parliament could repeal any law, EU or otherwise by withdrawing from the union.

[-:Undertaker:-]

As I have said, they are only supranational whilst we are in the EU which is exactly why its not a super state. Whilst they are above UK law they are only above for as long as we allow them to be above so they are never truly above. I repeat. The foundation stone of British law is that Parliament cannot bind its successors. Parliament could repeal any law, EU or otherwise by withdrawing from the union.

Parliament still retains the power to withdraw yes, but as I said before - it does not have supremacy over EU law and legal systems meaning that parliament can no longer be considered sovereign whilst the country remains a member of the European Union. A sovereign state cannot be overruled via laws and regulations as thats the whole meaning of sovereignty and independence.