Further thoughts on Protection of Critical infrastructure and National Security
strategy. March 2009. xxxxxxxxxxxxx ap
I have written on this subject previously and have shown concern at our Government’s involvement in the EU’s Protection of Critical Infrastructure and the EU’s Security Strategy, both of which involve our own National Security Strategy and our own UK Protection of Critical Infrastructure which although separate at the moment, should Lisbon become active, the EU would take precedence over National Security Strategy and Critical Infrastructure. .
Having gone through a war and, to put it politely, been bombed to Hell, I am aware of the signs around in those days, and remember the slogan, “Careless talk costs lives”. For it really does cost lives. Yet here is EU legislation, the EU’s Critical Infrastructure that wanted to know everything about our own National Critical Infrastructure and the whereabouts, quantity, amounts etc, all of which, if such information as is proposed had been given away to strangers in war time, it may have been a hanging offence, at least, if that person had not been nabbed by the people first. It was regarded as an act of a traitor for such information to be given away. Even “today” when friends might appear to be friends, they can soon turn into enemies, in fact people pretend to be friends until they have got what they wanted.
As we are STILL at this moment in time, a separate Nation, and as long as the English Channel remains as it is now, we always will be. If, however as time passes and our friend “Global Warming” dries that Channel all up and we too can stand with one foot in one Country and the other foot in another Country, we will always remain a separate Nation State, even if the EU does want to govern this Country from Brussels. Such is the anger at the moment, the people might lawfully obey only their own Common Law Constitution. I say lawfully, because the people have never agreed to what their Government is doing in their name and neither have they been given the promised referendum on the constitutional Treaty of Lisbon. They agreed to remain in a Common Market in which there would be “no loss of essential sovereignty”. Here we are talking of the most important of all, OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.
At the moment the Protection of Critical Infrastructure comes in under Article 308 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. I point you in the direction of the European Scrutiny Committee, 29th Report, session 2006-07 on Article 308 of the EC Treaty for guidance. Here for you is a little:
3. But there is not a specific legal base for some of the Community’s objectives. In such case, Article 308 of the EC Treaty may fill the gap. It provides: “If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market [our emphasis], one of the objectives of the Community, and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures.”
4. Whenever Article 308 is cited as the legal base for a proposal, it is our practice (and was that of previous Committees) to check that the proposal:
is necessary to attain one of the Treaty’s objectives in the course of the operation of the common market and the Treaty has not provided the necessary power elsewhere.
Is this subject really to do with the Common Market? No doubt the ECJ would think so. Here explained for you though in the Civil Protection and Crisis Management :Evidence 14th January 2009. page 16. Mr Has Das: As you know today, European civil protection coordination is based on Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. This is a very general Article which makes it possible for the Council to take action where this is necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and where the Treaty has not provided the necessary powers to do so. In using Article 308, the Council acts unanimously, based on a proposal from the Commission and only after consultation with the European Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty will change that legal situation and it will create a specific legal basis for civil protection. (Surely if article 308 was the correct article to use there is no need to change it-the ECJ would rule that is was the correct article for use-my comment) That legal basis will make it possible to carry out actions to support, to coordinate and to supplement the actions of the Member States in the field of civil protection. It is Article 196 of the new Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which deals with civil protection. I can only note that this Article has a very wide scope. It refers to prevention, preparedness and response to all types of disasters. As such, it seems to allow the Commission and the Member States to continue all the actions that are currently carried out in the framework of the Community Civil Protection Mechanism and also to further develop this Mechanism in the future. We do not believe that the Lisbon Treaty would be an obstacle. Quite to the contrary. It would allow us to further develop the Mechanism and the type of work we are doing through the Mechanism. It will change the decision making procedures in that it makes civil protection one of the fields where decisions will be taken by qualified majority and in co-decision with the European Parliament. End of Quote.
Our Prime Minister’s statement on National Security is that, “The primary duty of government-our abiding obligation-is, and will always be, the safety of all British people and the protection of the British national interest. So following approval by the national Security Committee and the Cabinet, the Government is today publishing the first national security strategy”. It is a rather long speech. I seem to remember also that Government has a Ministerial Code in which for our present Prime Minister it brings with it “serious responsibility and duty to the nation”, I guess that is ‘us’, however, Ministers have an “overarching duty to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations”. I have a feeling that the latter two come before ‘us’, as far as the PM is concerned.
I remember there is also a full commitment to our Troops in a Military Covenant and then I remember the “snatch” vehicles too, I am not on my own in that belief, for here is the same from others. “The Royal British Legion is a charity that provides support to members of the armed forces and their families and organises the annual Remembrance Day. In 2007 the Legion complained that the British government was not honouring the military covenant, and that troops were not being supported after returning from conflict”. Our Government by comparison seems to jump for EU Legislation.
We are still involved with the USA, whether that will change with the new President remains to be seen. But we still have sites here in the UK that are important to the USA and should not be put in danger through information being “shared” with the EU or other organizations. The intention is that people will come here in the UK (and ours will go to the Continent in exchange) for training and sharing.
Then there is the question, especially when two Countries are involved such as France and the UK both in NATO and the EU. Will NATO survive?
In the event of a major emergency, Member States of both NATO and the EU would have to choose very largely who they went to for assistance if they were sufficiently stricken that they had to do that. Who indeed would they choose?
Preserving the safety and security of its citizens is indeed the first duty of every state. There is absolutely no doubt about that. We, as a country, have always gone to help, (providing the Country in trouble has given its permission), any country that has been in trouble through a man made disaster or natural disaster. That can happen without putting our own Country and its people in danger by the sharing of sensitive information to strangers. Sharing of secret sensitive information is putting the entire present population of our Country at risk. Haven’t we trusted people before and haven’t they abused their position of trust? Haven’t the lied to us? I am very sad to ask this, but this is how it is now, do the people even trust our own Politicians?
After all the interviews, the soul searching, one last question was asked of the Mr Johnny Engell-Hansen, who had introduced himself as a Danish Citizen, having worked for the European Union, the General Secretariat of the Council since 1994, and he became Head of the Operations Unit in the EU SitCen in 2004, the United can be traced back to the creation of the Office of the EU High Representative, etc, etc.
Lord Mawson asked “How many Staff have you? What is the mixture of people that you have with practical and theoretical experience”. To which Mr Engell-Hansen replied, “I am afraid that is classified information which I cannot reveal in an open hearing”. To which the Chairman questioned, “You cannot reveal how many staff you have? Mr Engell-Hansen “No”. No wonder the Chairman exclaimed “Extraordinary!”
I hope that makes you think as much as it did ME!
BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/overview/covenant.shtml
Ministerial Code http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/propriety_and_ethics/assets/ministerial_code_current.pdf
Article 308 of Treaty of EC
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmeuleg/41-xxix/41-xxix.pdf
Civil Protection and Crisis Management
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldeucom/43/43.pdf
Posts
