Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) book. Happy reading Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Pocket Guide.

Serial entrepreneur. I love to travel. Authentic Education Consultant, Adjunct M. I would capture the best teaching and learning to share with the world! Digital Marketing Manager for InfiniteEnergy. Thoughts on here are my own. As a behavior technician and filmmaker Glass would help greatly! Academic: Religion, Spirituality, Philosophy.

Gamer: Ingress, Rift, Planetside2. Owner esotech. If I had Glass - I would of course read with it. Look up definitions, post quotes, blog, just share the booklove ifihadglass [link]. Director of Marketing Mogreet. Mobile, startups, branding, community, IR, social media, social crisis. Man, if I had Google Glasses, this world would never be the same! Dog pictures, streets of LA and Venice, maybe some Oklahoma?

Chiptunes, infosec research, static analysis. My very name crashes things. I am the advocate for the machines. I solemnly swear I am up to no good. BA in Journalism fcomnavarra. Blogger 10 minutes a day. Google Glass would help my 4 month old twins learn about the bold new world of tech Along with 1,s of auto dealers ifihadglass [link]. Can it survive 40 countries and 18 months? I would do realtime tweets and hangout on my podcasts and live events ifihadglass [link].

Created apps for Obama, Starbucks, Amazon, etc. Founder of iPhoneDevCamp. I'm a lawyer who helps people with bill problems. Where can I get a decent bagel around here? I'd let my child see himself through my eyes ifIhadglass [link]. Create yourself. If you love life, life will love you back. Love being a Restaurateur eatpuesto and collegeboy Square. ProjectGlass ifihadglass I would show you what throwing a pitch in a major league baseball game feels like! I love the outdoors. Nothing would be off limits.

I would also enjoy life more, have less "stuff" with me, and live a truly singular life. I'm Joe Miragliotta, creator of Joe's Daily and host of 60sr. Saygent maker from SF likes code games negative space squirrels building robots grids indie science snacks designing logos hacking nodejs.

Director of Social DEGdigital, geek, co-founder of kcsweaterparty, tech reporter, web strategist, speaker, YouTube vblogger! Work hard, do good, and have fun.

Lego: You can't kill Chuck Norris!

I'd put it through the ringer to re-imagine my photography. It would scout locations, find details, and share right from there. Games contributor Forbes. Views expressed here are my own. AmazingRace 19 Winner! GlutenFree Vegan but eats meat yet no beans. Ohio Gal. Pro Mess Anti Crap. COO at everpurse. Online marketing veteran, public speaker, entrepreneur, tech enthusiast and sports fan. I tweet about all of the above.

Lover of technology and digital culture. Explorer of cyberspace and virtual worlds. Serial hobbyist. From space. See also: manyareads, pluralsight. A The Suicide King. Information addict. Writer, Speaker, Activist. Engaged to TheNorwegianFox. YRNF Context. Design entrepreneur on a mission to make the world a prettier and happier place through delightful interiors and irresistible design objets. Wow ifihadglass it would be so fun to record "before and after" processes!

President at Click Rain, Inc. Passionate about digital trends, the future of mobile, political marketing, and entrepreneurship. The experience of Glass will give perspective. I want google glass to show my listeners what every day and every radio show is like, meetings laughs and more ifihadglass [link]. Glass Explorer. I love family, friends, wellness! I LOVE taking pictures n the moment, but it stops life. Official Title: Senior Storyteller. I help companies gain global visibility through social media, online community building and relationship development.

Arizona weather is fun and interesting and, from June-Sept, mostly hot. Then blog, tweet and microblog about them! My name is Mike Brady, I am a storm chaser based in southwest Iowa. I am also a Android app developer and tech guru who loves to skydive and chase tornadoes. I'd use them to share what it feels like to be at the starting line of the iditarod. IT Executive looking to professional network. Founder and Editor in Chief, coolhunting; ECD, largetail; Inventor, freehands; interaction designer; photographer; tattoo collector. Oh and I'm a geek [link]. I have a healthy disregard for the impossible.

JBMthe2nd Maybe projectglass need adventurous testers? IfIHadGlass I'd stream my expeditions live and get lost less. Why do I only follow simple. I would document my bold adventures from Estonia to Hollywood as the aspiring broke filmmaker that I am, making videos online.

Subtle as a Supernova. The Universe is ours to share. PensTV Host. Still hopeful I'll grow out of my awkward stage someday. Let's keep it clean, eh? I'm building the best mobile companies. I love seeing the local church thrive! I help churches implement strategy and pursue vision through my work with churchsimple. IfIHadGlass projectglass I would take viewers closer to the news than ever before, rather than setup a laptop, We'd integrate it with Framebase. Member of the GlassExplorers program by Google. I'm also a photographer and a random person always looking for new adventure.

I was on Endurance 2. Award-Winning Wedding and Portrait Photographer. I would document and show the world what it means to be homeless ifihadglass [link]. I'm a comedian. Worked building teacher network for Discovery DEN. Now Global ed. Hopeless ed tech geek since ' I feed off the energy of the crowd I cater to… the art of mixing speaks to me like nothing else - DJ Rich. Spanish, Business Angel. Quirky 'General of the Nidalian legions'. IfIhadGlass I'd work all day with them, walking with my pajama, kayaking and would be an opportunity to collaborate on their development [link].

I would remind you what it's like 2 be a kid. We'll both wear the glass! Imagine images filing directly to EMR charts and dictation on the fly all from Glass. Canyons School District Director of Education Technology - Husband, dad, leader, teacher, learner, presenter, tech-lover, tech-hater. Pedagogy first! I do business or something like it. Boston Sports. From Los Angeles. Use them to take pics while I bike as well.

Take action pics in series. Add sensors to jacket for more safety. Recently married, avid hiker, explorer in AZ. Tennis, snowboarding, gym time. If I had glass, I'd use it my personal and business life [marketing], to discover new ways to share with friends and colleagues ifihadglass [link]. Geek, entrepreneur and yogi. Then I'd go to bed. Orientation Leader for the University of Minnesota.

I make music and I'm kinda into being in front of large crowds. The Basic Life of George Anthony. Now I'm like, a rapper. Hundo Entrepreneur. For booking please contact shooK shooKon3. Started our Innovations Class where we don't talk about educational change, we do it! Alex Patton is a Rep.


I would adopt them to neighborhood walking. I also make videos on YouTube! It's truly harmony we want, but we struggle to be famous. Journalism professor at the University of Texas. Used to be statesman. More importantly, I'm a Dad. Yes, stuffvladsays is my kid. Which mostly involves microprocessors, fiber optics and elves.

Managing Partner tagstrategic Connecting people and ideas in an ever-connected world of music media social mobile disruption. Creative Director, NYC. Explorer on the internet. Dude that some people listen to, but many others ignore. And share it all. CMO, Mize Inc. Mize puts your brand in the consumer's hand! Avid gamer. Voracious reader. Eater of food. Also I would be able to give more hands on nutrition tips. Internet Raconteur. Old guard hard core politics, media, technology and social networks geek.

Once I speed dated at a Star Wars convention. Connoisseur of foreign films, travel, espresso, and iPhoneography.

  • Me and the Big Bang.
  • 10 Ways To Quickly Cure A Hangover.
  • PDF Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici).

Soccer Player. Aussie Rules Football Player. Wolf Owner. MTV Alumni. Lover Not A Fighter. Mamas Boy. Livin Life : TeamBrownHyde. Director of Marketing WeWork. Enthusiast of everything; especially technology, startups, music, food, and craft beer. Tech enthusiast Social media connoisseur Swing trader Fitness devotee Fan of forward-thought Aiming to inspire and engage others.

VP Mktg ExactTarget. Hubby of crafttestdummy. Recovering Attorney. Bacon fan. Diet Coke addict. CLE sports victim. EPL fan. Nothing beats one-on-one, face-to-face conversation. Isn't that the point? I'd explore its emergent, unintentional interfaces. Speaker on all things Social Media. Angel Investor. Some of you may know me as PerverseImp. In a brand new way. Building cool shit with awesome people. Entrepreneur, marketing, SEO, dreamer , art, realestate, webdesign , yogi, poet, artist, socialmedia , dreamer, philosopher, business.

Generalist, human rights advocate. Loves books, writing, science, medicine, technology. IfIHadGlass I'd share the view from the other side of the lens. My Vegas job: I interview famous stars; jet-setting producer-DJs and porn stars. I review video games.

And I cover strip clubs. I planned ahead for this career. Oh come on ifihadglass pretty please? Trivia night would be mine. Skydive RollerCoaster Surf [link]. Blink to take a picture? I'm a musician, author, marketing guy, antiracist, foodie, philosopher, and geek. It's amazing [link]. Runner and Web Designer. Allow me to search and comb through code a lot faster.

Social Media Manager at DegreeSearch. Excited for SMMW Slightly inappropriate, never dull! Google Glass: ifihadglass I'd give a fun look of the world around me, particularly when I travel, play, and be social with social media. Human Media trumps Texty Tweets. If I had glass, I'd Hangout with Heroes. You may think I'm just a typical suburban dad with a long, boring commute Creating interfaces between people and things I care about.

Interactive Art Director mckinney. IfIHadGlass I would transform the classroom experience and make amazing learning happen. Professionally rambunctious, but only mildly offensive. I might climb your curtains. Rahman RankAbove. Former PM and internet marketer on user growth and engagement at Facebook and Twitter. Now the PM on user growth at Quora.

Passionate about things Social media, entrepreneurship John from Nikki and John Pranks. I would use Google glass to document a day in life of a my dog Kenobi. Politico, entrepreneur, jazz enthusiast and cigar aficionado. Founder of MDW Communications mdwcomm. Language barriers would no longer stop me from traveling the world ifihadglass [link]. If I had Glass, I would write an on-going online journal of my experience composed of experiences with Glass.

It's risk taking time. An adventure a day. Every day. ProducersGuild New Media Council. Heavy Metal Journalist I'd use the glasses to answer my questions without having to ask.. Using tools to guide data-driven decisions, explore the creative side of mapping, and the future of learning. The georevolution will be tweeted.

Digital Strategist. I'm taking a Twitter break for Holy Week. See ya April 1, Twitter! Cruises, NYC, Disney, etc.! Education Content Specialist at Promethean. Royal Reports Blogger RoyalReports. ActivEdSharing [link]. God speed. Emergency Response Director - NetHope. Only ifihadglass I would figure out ways to provide augmented reality information to disaster responders worldwide cc: projectglass [link].

BD at Unified.

Manual Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)

What would you do if you had glass? East Village, NYC, desi. RT, Links not endorsement. Transform my life. Founder of Lemon. Working at making the world an easier place to understand. Trying to master focus. Loving SoDak and the Minnesota Twins. I've been pulling the wagon you just jumped on for over a decade.

Official Twitter of Emcee N. Journalist and writer at ZDNet and Forbes. All opinions are mine and mine alone. SVP of Amazing. Part-time Evil Overlord. Clan Brujah. All nerdy opinions are my own. Founder GuideNetworking. Charitable, curious, caffeinated single dad. Talking to interesting community members in intellectually stimulating environs. Aspiring cyborg. Bird nerd. Fear is the mind-killer. I would create an augmented reality display of when the next bus will arrive at all nearby stops. Doctor by day, blogger by night! Rants about Y Yemen so complicated? Medicine Politics Sarcasm Technology..

Born in Syria. Hey ProjectGlass ifihadglass I would create software to explore audible augmentation, instead of visible, to enhance user's lives. My life would be a window for u to look through. Favorite quote explains myself pretty well: Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it-Ferris Bueller. COO Shetakesontheworld. Someone has to. Web entrepreneur since Mostly optimistic for the exponential wiring up of humanity. Dj Geezzy element fridays resident Dj Dj promoter partyanimal weekendwarrior goodfriend drinkingbuddy?

Addictions: Cars, travel, good times. A restless wanderer on my way home, only by Christ's grace. I write. Yes, I know you do too. It's a commonality, don't you love those? Traveler, student, singer, writer, vocal arranger, camera man. Anything is possible! I love reading paranormal romance, and urban fantasy. And I have a terrible need to discuss them on my blog ;. I run a wildly popular burger joint named PYT. Follow us at pytphilly and stop in for the craziest burgers in America. And we love telling wedding st.

I would film my movie 10 to where it would be a day in a life of a 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 year old person ifihadglass [link]. For DJ bookings, email bookdjgd yahoo. Ride BMX, travel the world, explore new places, and enjoy life! I'm Who I Be?

Advertising: therealrarepost gmail. Increasingly opinionated. Maker of and writer about analog electronics. Hobbyist machinist. Co-host of The Amp Hour. I think ifihadglass I would develop a whole new interface for it using other wearable electronics. GPS 2 Next Call. Want a follow back? Tweet me!!! Researcher of the internets. I'm an entrepreneur, attorney, digital strategy consultant and speaker.

I build teams, solve problems and have fun doing it. I travel 48 weeks a year all over the US and Canada. The reason you can't hold all those limes. Baby, I'm Bad News. Geeky Since Dialup Days. Life is not about finding yourself, it's about creating yourself. You should follow me and my life, my everything, the future Mrs. IfIhadglass I would show how technology benefits school life. Entrepreneur, designer, writer, speaker, philosopher. Co-Founder of visioniz qrlicious BootstrappedNet thcuniversity. Love BIG ideas and smart convos! Past PR Dir. PR, social media. MY opinions. I would always be on time.

I would always capture life's greatest moments! VC investor at Commerce Ventures. Free thinking Bostonion. Interested in the internet, sailing, Jiu-Jitsu and tattoos. I'm Kasey - a wife, mom, daycare provider and blogger all wrapped up into one. I share my daily life, family, recipes, reviews on my blog, All Things Mamma! A day in the life of Mom would be eye opening! Copper is a leading project management software tool used around the world to solve collaboration issues. Manage your Projects, People, and Profits with Copper. Boom, instantly connected Project Managers and Clients. I am still too human but ifihadglass I Followback.

Don't give people what they want, give them something that don't know that that want yet. Also to make my friends jealous [link]. I'm an Atlanta based drummer who specializes in youtube videos, studio recording, live gigs, and lessons. Check out my work! Google ifihadglass I'd take them on my next trek through the Andes in Columbia [link]. I would travel through the backroads of Japan, meeting rice farmers, in search of the perfect glass of sake ifihadglass tellastory [link]. Enjoy a espresso from time to time, Ha! CEO DigitalSurgeons, tweets incl.

Ex Disney character. Tweets represent my personal opinions. I'd use Glass as I develop my 1st glutenfreecajun cookbook! Pictures, videos, recipe development, hangout cooking classes! GM USV network. Founder of InclineHQ - helping military vets join tech. Co-founder of gtrot. What does life in NYC look like? IfIhadglass I'd lend in out to build perspective of how everyone lives differently.

Orthopedic Surgeon. Record and research at the same time. Hope I did it right. I would show the beginning stages of my photography and videography business grow into a multi-million dollar revenue stream ifihadglass [link]. I could catch each moment organically. Producer of GT. Prepping my body for a cyborg eye. I love connecting, creating, curating, collaborating, experimenting, and learning. I am inspired by you. VP EdelmanDigital. Jack of many trades. Lover of social justice, music, sports, parties, tech.

My thoughts only. IT Director - Technology geek, love traveling to different countries, reading books and drinking wine. So ifIhadglass I'd be showing my augmented reality encounters in the print world; showing off my giant digital press sitting in my hand! Social Media Pro. Theatre Nerd. Annie Danger Scott Riley works at Fallon and the opinions here are her own.

And always right. Full-time Interventional Gastroenterologist, part-time swing trader. Technology, Biotech, Social media! Follow trades at your own risk. All opinions imo. MY polyp was Cutting edge-technology driven-historical project documentation. The last missing piece of the puzzle is complete ifihadglass projectglass [link]. I want to be one of the pioneers! Brilliant concept. Can't wait for it to become available to us all [link]. Digital Nerd. My tweets are my own and don't represent views of my employer.

Want to be a Google Glasshole? Google Glass. Editor-in-Chief of MotorTrend. Cars, food, judo, airplanes, and pictures. Lots of pictures. These tweets are my own. NYIAS [link]. Drummer for Oh, sleeper. Lover of all things nerdy. Catch me on Warped tour : Instagram: zacharymayfield. I would make live videos from behind my drum set all summer long on warped tour ifihadglass [link]. Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined!!! ACT is a leading high performance clutch and flywheel manufacturer for the sport compact, domestic, and truck markets. Your Source For Everything Flyers!

Adventuring Thoughtsmith. I have an insatiable thirst for everything. So grateful for this experience. I love meeting people, adventures, diy, paintball, gmo free food, raw food, juicing, hiking, laughing and sharing info. Portland bike rider guy. I'm riding my bike across the US in to help fight colon caner. I'm in education. Performing, learning, and recording music on the iPhone and iPad Online Marketing Consultant. Current client activityrez. I love traveling, blogging, and of course Stay tuned.

I think, I express and create. With or without the comma. Sci, phil, art, opera Cogn. Father, husband, son. Startup guy, father, soccer player, coach. As a chef, I could completely engage in my kitchen, write recipes, record dish evolution and gain real time feedback. Trust me, you're in good hands.

Hello Again google! Militant redhead. Rogue cellist. Intrepid traveler. Fencing nut. Everybody else, just avoid people wearing glasses to be on the safe side. Crossmedia strategist. Up early for cmto Tech prof, Comm Ph. I tweet on my own, not representing my employer Purdue U. Views are my own. Technology Director, Internet Aficionado, improving experiences is my passion. Avid runner who is allergic to shirts.

Married to acicc. Ok Glass, time to change the world. Maker, Collector, Breaker and Connector of things. I would record how beautiful the game is through the eyes of a player! Co-founder of Humanity. French-born composer living in NY. Global Partner Manager for Imaging at Nokia.

Say hello if you follow. I work for Salesforce marketingcloud If you have questions feel free to ask! Thoughts and Opinons are my own. Interest in marketing strategy, pop culture and taquerias. Also use it to perform interviews at my show ifihadglass [link]. There are a lot of spots in Boston cars can't get in. Transform into findability. Or, you know, a truck. Search strategist at a Fortune by day, inbound marketing consultant by night.

Energy drink connoisseur. I would take first-person pictures of cats and every meal I ever have. Writer, Speaker, Saved Bad Girl. God is great! Yes it happened to me. An inspired entrepreneur and media specialist focusing on video development for print publications. It is my mission to bring the worlds print to video. Daily video, in your face. Publishing the Chronicle is fun, but GGN, so epic [link]. Translate what you think objects mean to people with me! I would record myself petting animals ifIhadglass [link].

IfIHadGlass I'd see how I could incorporate the technology in the glasses to bring real time examples of pictures and concepts in textbooks [link]. Tell us about your product, or what should we review. Co-founder of MuyLatinas. Growing entrepreneurship globally- U. No Plan B. Food and wine enthusiast. I get dressed in the morning. I don't sugar coat. Or actually just make one when I feel like it! Blog Empress. When they watch it, they will "walk a mile in my shoes" [link].

I got it! Let's take education to the next level! Valuable instructional time is lost with our faces in screens rather than with students ifihadglass [link]. It's today squeaked Piglet. My favorite day said Pooh. Better than a projector, better than tracing from a screen. An absolute art reference. If I had Glass, I'd turn Walmart's 'scan and go' mobile self checkout into 'blink and buy'. If I had glass- I would build apps for people who shop. Ask me anything. I would capture my new fitness adventure ifihadglass [link]. We have been practicing for over 15 years and continue to offer the most comprehensive care in the areas of family dentistry, cosmetic and restorative dentistry.

I would wear my glasses, and head down to Guatemala with my adopted son, show him around his beautiful country ifihadglass [link]. Near Yosemite! If I Had Glass El Negrande of The Groove. Submit music bobbyphats. And glass. Right Place, Right Time! A writerly person living in Roanoke, VA. Student of media psychology Walden University ' SBUX alum. My neighborhood would look like the blue hour l'heure bleue all the time.

Follow me on Sulia. IfIHadGlass I would be the coolest football mom ever! And I could keep my head up to actually watch the game ; [link]. Video game designer, otaku, gamer,model, voice actor, BusinessWeek guest columnist. How would I use Google Glass? These views are my own! BBM : EA7. Severe weather, hurricane and broadcast media updates. Excellent tool for local TV broadcasting business Crash the party. Writer, editor by trade.

RRCA Coach. Sponsors: Brooksrunning nuunhydration GUEnergylabs. FitFluential Ambassador. Some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, feared that we would be sucked into making immediate concessions or into postponed commitments to a centralised system. Others feared that, if we stuck to what we had said, we would not get an agreement.

Certainly there were doubtful moments. I was not at all sure until late last Tuesday evening, on the second day of the Maastricht conference, that we would get an agreement. I paid tribute in his absence to the negotiating skills of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer , but our success at Maastricht was due principally to the patient and courteous strength of my right hon.

Friend the Prime Minister in his dealings with the House and our partners in Europe. We have to make the agreement work; we have the will to make it work; we have the wherewithal to make it work. British interests lie in the success of Europe. We want it to be enlarged, as the Prime Minister set out yesterday. Our commitment is to the success of Europe.

It is as strong as the commitment of anyone else in the Community. I hope that the House will sustain and reinforce the Government in that commitment. I commend the motion to the House. The Foreign Secretary referred to the situation in the Soviet Union. I put it to him that in the discussions as to who should take over the seat of the declining and departing Soviet Union in the Security Council, the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman drew an analogy with the position in India in , but it was not an exact analogy because India is not a permanent member of the Security Council. We are dealing with the question of accepting into the Security Council a permanent member with the right to veto. Again I put it to the right hon.

Gentleman that hasty and precipitate action will not favour peace in the world and that we should take our time and consult our allies and partners. The Foreign Secretary seemed to be a great deal more comfortable when dealing with the broader theme of the situation in the Soviet Union than he was when dealing with the precise subject of Maastricht. We always enjoy it when the Foreign Secretary makes one of his rare ventures into party politics.

However, having taken into account the nature, quality and substance of what he said. I would recommend him to return to the soporific tone that has made the House so fond of him. The Foreign Secretary began by saying that the aim of the Labour party is to prevent the Liberal party from being portrayed as the real Opposition. However, the Labour party's intention is that within a matter of months the Opposition shall be the Conservative party.

In a little while. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my theme. Then I shall give way to him. The Foreign Secretary dealt with narrow points in those parts of his speech which he devoted to Maastricht, to which I shall return, but he did not deal with how we test the Government's success, or otherwise, at Maastricht. There are two tests by which to judge whether the outcome at Maastricht was a success. First, was the Maastricht agreement good for the European Community and, secondly, was the Maastricht agreement good for the United Kingdom?

One could go further and say that the Maastricht agreement is good for Britain only if it is also good for Europe. The United Kingdom is a country with many strengths, resources and talents.

The Baobabs: Pachycauls of Africa, Madagascar and Australia

During the nearly 19 years that we have been a member of the European Community, our future has become indissolubly linked with that a the Community. We, the United Kingdom, cannot be strong if the Community is weak. We cannot claim to have achieved strength if our actions have weakened the Community or made the Community weaker than it might otherwise be.

There may have been many worthwhile achievements at Maastricht, but the summit cannot be counted an unqualified success for the Community. Agreements were made, often by compromise, as is the custom of the Community, but on some issues the Community did not reach what I would regard as completely desirable agreements—for example, on the Commission. It is a pity that full accountability of the Commission was neither proposed nor agreed at Maastricht. On two issues, one of the most important countries—the United Kingdom—opted out of the Maastricht outcome.

The Prime Minister came back claiming that he had won everything that he went to Maastricht to get. In his speech yesterday he said that he had achieved his goals in every respect. Game, set and match was his claim. In his speech today the Foreign Secretary said of what took place at Maastricht that we gained what we set out to gain.

If one examines the Government's negotiating objectives, it is clear that, on issue after issue, the Government did not achieve what they went to Maastricht to achieve. Ministers—including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—have been incautious enough to set out criteria, conditions and even ultimata about what they wanted from Maastricht, yet on issue after issue what they wanted they did not get and what they got they did not want.

Gentleman criticises the Government for what he calls opting out of two areas of policy. Gentleman is aware of the fact that under the health and safety competence we are going to be foisted with a hour week, which has got nothing to do with health and safety. On that basis, the right hon.

Gentleman will be aware that the social charter could make a snack of our industrial relations legislation. Is he naive, or does he want to see Arthur Scargill 's tanks in Parliament square again? I shall deal with those matters in the precise order that I believe it to be sensible to take them. In our debate on the Community on 26 June this year, the Foreign Secretary expressed his opposition to new Community competencies. He said that he was against them, yet last week both he and the Prime Minister agreed to a treaty that includes numerous new competencies for the Community.

They include education, public health, culture and something that the right hon. Member for Chingford Mr. Tebbit referred to yesterday as trans-European networks. That was a violation of what the Foreign Secretary told the House that he wanted in June. The Prime Minister expressed his distaste for another item. In the debate on 20 November he said that immigration matters should be decided on an intergovernmental basis and should be outside the treaty, yet at Maastricht the Prime Minister agreed to a treaty article which includes conditions about visa qualifications and requirements.

What is more, he agreed that some of those items should be decided by qualified majority voting. Game, set and match? In that same speech the Prime Minister said that any blocking power for the European Parliamen must cover a far narrower range than that set out in the present Presidency text. Ministers have a long record of rejecting extensions to qualified majority voting. In November last year the Foreign Secretary, speaking to the Confederation of British Industry , said that the Government were opposed to what he called significantly extended qualified majority voting.

The Minister of State , the hon. Member for Watford Mr. Garel-Jones , who was bobbing up and down like a yo-yo yesterday but is absent today, repeated that objection when he told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 19 November that the Government opposed qualified majority voting on the environment. On 3 December this year the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth Mr. Enright that he had "great difficulty" with co-operation being replaced by majority voting. Yet the Government have not only accepted majority voting on visa matters, but in the Maastricht agreement they accepted a treaty which includes qualified majority voting on the environment, to which the Minister of State said that the Government were opposed.

They also accepted qualified majority voting on all the new competencies included in the treaty—those which the Prime Minister said that he did not want in the treaty. On no issue have the Government been firmer in rejecting qualified majority voting than on foreign policy. In the debate on 26 June the Foreign Secretary rejected what he called. Gentleman has enumerated various so-called concessions by the Government.

Has it ever occurred to him that, when one is conducting international negotiations and one wants some concessions from the other side, it is a good idea to play hard ball on some matters on which one is happy to give ground in order to gain the real concessions that one wants? If it had not occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that that is how one conducts international negotiations, he would not be a suitable person to conduct them.

Apart from the last comment, which I reject for personal reasons, I accept what the hon. Gentleman said. However, he did not explain why the Prime Minister said that he had achieved his goals in every respect and why the Foreign Secretary , a few minutes ago, said that the Government had gained what they set out to gain.

It is one thing to be flexible in negotiations, but it is another, having given way on issue after issue, to claim that the Government have gained everything that they wanted to gain. In our debate last month the right hon. Member for Finchley Mrs. Thatcher —I am sorry that she is not in her place today—devoted special attention to majority voting on foreign policy. She expressed her fears that the Foreign Secretary might be "going a bit wobbly" on the subject. Now, the Foreign Secretary has done a definite wobble. He has agreed to what the right hon.

Lady feared that he might agree to, but was beginning to hope that he might not. Is the right hon. Lady still concerned? For a time it seemed that she was not. When the Prime Minister returned from Maastricht last week the right hon. Lady said that she was "absolutely thrilled" with the agreement—majority voting on foreign policy and all. I did not know that the right hon. Lady thrilled so easily. I thought that she was made of sterner stuff. I am sure that by now the right hon. Lady has become unthrilled again. When the right hon. Member for Chingford was speaking about foreign policy in yesterday's debate she was nodding her head like one of those dogs that people put on the ledge in the back of their car.

Friend the Member for Finchley Mrs. Thatcher might have studied the provisions of the treaty more carefully than the right hon. Gentleman, who has just given a misleading account of the matter to the House. He will know, and if he had listened to my speech he would have heard again, that qualified majority voting on foreign policy would be permitted only if all member states agreed by unanimity in advance.

That is a double lock that is entirely consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have told the House. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman studies a little more carefully the treaty to which he has put the country's name. I am referring to article c of Provisions on a common foreign and security policy", particularly to the declaration on page , which says: Member states will, with regard to Council decisions requiring unanimity, to the extent possible avoid to prevent a unanimous decision where a qualified majority exists in favour of that decision.

That is what the right hon. Gentleman has put his name to. If the right hon. Member for Finchley was concerned about Community competence on foreign policy, she was perhaps even more concerned about defence. On that subject she had the right to hope that the Government would not disappoint her. After all, in June the Foreign Secretary said: Defence should not be embraced by the European Community …any European defence identity must he distinct from the Community".

Yet, article d of the Maastricht treaty says: The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the European union. Gentleman signed after having told the House that Defence should not be embraced by the European Community. That is what the Prime Minister signed and it is one of the objectives that he said he had achieved in every respect. On one of the subjects on which the Government opted out, or, in the Chancellor 's new phraseology, did not opt in or have not opted in so far, the Prime Minister caved in.

Last month the Government made it clear that on the single currency they wanted at Maastricht a general opt-out clause for all 12 Community countries. That is what the Prime Minister wanted from Maastricht, and what he did not get. Yesterday, the Prime Minister described that defeat in a peculiar way. He said that Britain had won a "unique right" not to join the single currency. The problem was that the right hon. Gentleman had set out for Maastricht determined not to have a "unique right" to opt out of the single currency.

It is as though, at the declaration of the poll, the Tory candidate in Langbaurgh had said that his objective had been a "unique right" to come second. I do not know how much success of this kind any man can stand! On Wednesday last week, after the conclusion of the Maastricht summit, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry declared: The Foreign Secretary 's job this week has been to sell his grandmother—for the best possible price.

It is true that the Foregin Secretary set out to sell, if not his grandmother, then another lady—much younger, of course. He sold her, but the price was not very good. Yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted that he did not change his position. He said that we did not change our position at the very end of the negotiations. On all these issues, the Community survived the negative attitudes of the Government. It has emerged stronger from Maastricht.

On economic and monetary union, it is Britain that has emerged vulnerable. On the social chapter, the Government have damaged the Community because, although the other 11 will proceed without us, a single market of 12 is inevitably flawed if only 11 agree to the protections for employed people that are required in all 12 countries. Those protections are certainly needed. A European Community report published this week shows that Britain has the highest proportion of low-paid workers in the whole Community. Although low pay itself may not be part of the social chapter, low standards are inevitable companions of low pay.

Sheer dogma drove the Prime Minister to opt out of the social chapter. Already, the Government have had to begin paying the price for that opt-out. The Prime Minister got the opt-out because of the grace and favour of Chancellor Kohl. On Monday this week, the German Government began cashing the cheques that the British Government owed them for that favour.

That is why the Foreign Secretary—against his will and against his wiser instincts—was dragged along behind the German Government in agreeing a date for recognition of the Yugoslav republics. In doing so, the right hon. Gentleman defied not only his own wiser instincts but the advice of the United Nations. As he reminded us today, we hold a permanent place on the Security Council. In the run-up to Maastricht, the Foreign Secretary said that he was against qualified majority voting on foreign policy, although he has now accepted qualified majority voting on foreign policy.

On Yugoslavia, there was no vote—qualified majority or otherwise. On Yugoslavia, the Foreign Secretary gave in to a minority view—the German view—in the ministerial council. That was his unwise pay-out in foreign policy for an unjustified opt-out on social policy. The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues were aware that they could suffer serious political damage from their refusal to extend the protections of the social chapter to employed people.

That is why the Government, including the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, have resorted to imaginative fiction in their efforts to avert political damage. First, they claimed that Britain's adherence to the social chapter would place jobs at risk. It is touching to find the Chancellor worried about losing jobs in Britain. He was the man who said that unemployment was a price well worth paying. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said: The Government will not support proposals that would destroy jobs".

On unemployment, the tears shed by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a crocodile seem sincere. Then, last week, came the next excuse. Yesterday, under pressure, the Prime Minister admitted that the right to strike was excluded from the provisions of the social chapter. That of course is true. It was equally true last week. Why, then, did the Prime Minister last week quote the number of days lost in strikes in and compare that figure with the number lost last year—a recession year, a John Major recession year—and why did he go on to say after Maastricht: I was not prepared to see that record"— the record on strikes— put in jeopardy"?

Even by the Prime Minister's standards, the argument is totally illogical. That is why the Government have been retreating on this issue, abandoning their claim that the social chapter would affect trade union legislation here while trying to leave an impression that it would.

The latest form of words was provided in an address to Tory candidates last week by the Foreign Secretary—a master of obfuscation if ever there was one.

  1. Chuck Norris can speak braile. by AA. VV. - Book - Read Online.
  2. Transforming the Quality of Life for People with Dementia through Contact with the Natural World: Fresh Air on My Face.
  3. More titles to consider.
  4. Vol. 3, Issue 14 May 25, by Knoxville Mercury - Issuu.
  5. Lame action.
  6. Gentleman told the Tory candidates: The trouble about the social chapter is not that it tells us to repeal our industrial relations legislation but that it once again edges industrial relations into that field. It's the way he tells 'em, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether just Conservative Members have been wondering vainly whether the right hon. Gentleman will say something about his party's policy, or whether he will continue doing that at which he is best—waspish criticism of everything that the Government do. A few days ago, I contemplated asking the right hon.

    Gentleman to give me a photograph of him to include in my election address, on the basis that it might help me. Having listened to his speech, I am sure that it would. Gentleman be so kind as to let me have a photograph so that I can put it in my election address and so that the people of my constituency can see that the choice that they have to make at the next election is between the right hon.

    Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary? I have been in the House of Commons with the hon. Gentleman since we were elected on the same day and I must resist making the right response to what he said. The Tories want to join up with the Euro Christian Democrat group—the European People's party—but Karl Von Wogau, the economic spokesman for that party, said of social policy this week: We believe very strongly in a model that leads to consensus. A social consensus is economically advantageous, as well. The Foreign Secretary said today that the social charter may suit others, but not this Government.

    The others whom the social charter suits include those Tories in Europe with whom the Government's MEPs are vainly trying to join. The Government have lost all hope of running a competitive economy on the base of good working conditions and good pay. They do not seem to understand that the most successful industrial economies—Germany and Japan—thrive precisely because they provide their workers with good conditions and good pay, but Britain's economic success and prosperity are the last considerations in the Government's mind.

    The Government are ready to sacrifice the country's best interests inside the Community to buy off a few right-wing Tory Back Benchers. In our last debate before Maastricht the Foreign Secretary perorated about our constituents—"Our constituents want this" and "Our constituents want that".

    It is time that the Government enabled our constituents to say for themselves what they want in Europe and enabled them to vote in a general election for a Labour Government so that Britain can go forward in Europe and can get a new start. The kindest thing that I can say about the speech that the House has just heard from the spokesman for the official Opposition on an occasion of such importance is that it filled me with disgust. At the beginning of his speech the right hon.

    Kaufman referred to a rare venture by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary into party politics. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman was going to venture out of party politics, but, once more, we found that that is the only subject on which he can speak. It was perfectly clear to the House that the right hon. Gentleman had never gone through serious international negotiations.

    The way in which the Government have conducted the negotiations is as successful as any international negotiations that I have seen in nearly 40 years of experience of international affairs. I shall refer in particular to three British initiatives, which have not been much discussed by the House, but which were all successful—and they are just three of a number of successful British initiatives. I have supported closer European unity for most of my life, but I wish to say something critical about the Commission.

    I believe that its actions over the years have been responsible, perhaps more than anything else, for the suspicions in the minds of many of our compatriots about the European Community. I believe that one of the Government's achievements has been to get an agreement which holds out the prospect of reducing the power of the Commission. The Commission has demonstrated an insatiable appetite for expanding its power. I will give the House some examples. Why should the Commission think it right to legislate as to when British farmers may shoot pigeons which might ravage their crops?

    The Commission would allow them to shoot pigeons for only two months in the year—and the wrong two months. Why should the Commission wish to legislate to limit the amount of water in our lavatory cisterns? Why should it wish to legislate on the flavour of the potato crisps that we produce? Why should it wish to legislate about which side of one of our country towns a bypass should go—north or south?

    Such matters have absolutely no relevance for other countries in the European Community. That is not federalism , but something much worse—it is centralism. In the United States, those matters would be subjects not for Washington, but for Wisconsin, Massachusetts or California. Here, however, in a Europe of 12 separate countries, the Commission is trying to legislate in a centralised fashion.

    If it were a question of migratory birds which visit many countries in Europe, or acid rain spreading from one country to another, that would be a proper case for Commission action. The Government are to be congratulated on the successful insertion into the agreement of the reference to decisions being taken as close as possible to the citizen, and on the inclusion of article 3B which spells out the principle of subsidiarity.

    I also congratulate the Government on establishing the concept of the three pillars in relation to action on foreign policy: crime, immigration and home affairs. I hate to think what would be the prospect if we had Community action on those subjects. There was at one time a proposal that that should be the case, but the Government succeeded in having it removed. In general, as my right hon.

    Friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House, unanimity will be required in relation to foreign policy. Member for Gorton clearly misunderstood the arrangements that have been made. I believe that the agreement is better than the former proposal under which, in foreign affairs, decisions on policy would require unanimity but implementation would be subject to a qualified majority vote. I believe that that arrangement would have led to complete confusion. I draw the analogy with the understanding that has existed between my wife and me during 37 years of marriage as to who takes the decisions.

    I take the big decisions and she takes the little decisions, but we have still not decided after 37 years how we decide which are the big decisions and which are the little decisions. We are still working on that. On foreign policy we would have faced a similar situation under the original proposals in the earlier Dutch draft. I believe that we have a satisfactory arrangement as a result of the Government's initiative. It is likely to be more effective in practice because in matters of foreign policy the major European countries would not have accepted foreign policy decided by majority voting if they had been in a minority.

    In addition, the agreement is more suitable if we wish in future years to see the accession of European Free Trade Association countries and the countries of eastern Europe. The Government's third success deals with another factor which causes annoyance to an increasing number of our citizens, as they realise that while we obey the rules laid down by the European Community other member countries do not. It is significant that, at the end of , only one out of 80 cases before the European Court of Justice affected this country. I refer to the agreement reached, on a British initiative, that in future the European Court will be able to levy fines on countries which fail to carry out their obligations.

    Her Majesty's Government have been right on monetary union and the social chapter. They also deserve credit for the three achievements that I have mentioned—limiting the power of the Commission, the arrangements for foreign policy and Home Office affairs, and the European Court's ability to levy fines on errant member states. Those were all British initiatives, and I congratulate the Government on them.

    Member for Blackpool, South Sir P. Blaker gave us a touching example of partnership in his account of his relationship with his wife, but he may not have realized that in so doing he touched on one of the fundamentals of another matter that he mentioned—the question of subsidiarity. I was privileged to be present at the congress—the so-called assize—in Rome a year ago and I related a well-known story about the very effective partnership between Mr.

    A friend asked them, "How is it that you get on so well? What happens if you disagree? If we do, we have a good rule: I decide on matters of principle and my wife decides on matters of execution. How do you decide then? Member for Blackpool, South rightly raised the subject of subsidiarity. My charge is that the Prime Minister and the Government have, either advertently or inadvertently, misled themselves or misled the nation on the nature of article 3b of the treaty that we are being asked to approve.

    I raised the matter yesterday with the Prime Minister , because in his carefully prepared speech he referred to an article that specifically enshrines the crucial concept that the Community should undertake only those measures that could not be achieved at a national level". Then, in response to my intervention , he said: If it can better be done at national level, it ought not to he done at Community level.

    I believe that the CBI and others interpret the whole concept of subsidiarity in the nutshell of the phrase that the Prime Minister used. Indeed, there has been a successful campaign—I shall not say a sales campaign, although it has been something of the—sort all round the world. It has gone so far that the right hon. Member for Selby Mr. Alison said last night: The ready and instinctive way in which our constituents reach out for rulings from the European Court illustrates the way in which the man in the street benefits from the principle of the separation of powers, of which the Community treaties are a manifestation.

    Gentleman declined to give way to me at that point—understandably, in view of the minute limit on speeches—and continued: The principle of the separation of powers, which is enshrined in what we are currently negotiating, gives real scope for not less but greater freedom.

    Gentleman claimed that there was a principle of the separation of powers. I think that he was wrong, but many people outside the House hold the same view. I shall quote from Mr. Baker—not the right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton Mr. Even the United States Secretary of State has either been misinformed or has not read the treaty. There is no separation of powers in the treaty of Rome, in the Single European Act or in the treaty before us. There are, of course, provisions which permit powers and vires to be exercised, but there is no topic, "separation of powers", as there would be in a true federation.

    Through some process which I cannot define, describe or analyse, many Conservative Members—several of whom have spoken in the debate—and the United States Secretary of State believe that a principle exists in the treaty, although that principle is not there. I quoted from the treaty yesterday, but I shall do it again because this is such a crucial matter. In the words of article 3b, subsidiarity, such as it is, will apply only to areas which do not fall within its"— that is, the Community's— exclusive jurisdiction". When I asked the Minister of State, the hon.

    Garel-Jones , last night if he could define or find out where the exclusive jurisdiction lay, he was unable to do so and quoted a broad part of the article. As the House will hear, he gave an ineffective reply. He quoted this passage: Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty.

    There lies the clue. Article after article of the treaty says what should be decided centrally and that regulations relating to such topics which bypass Parliament entirely should be applied throughout the Community, including this country. I am glad that the right hon. Howe is with us tonight. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup Mr. Heath is not here. When those two were advocating our entry into the Community, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that the Queen would not be affected.

    However, every central power and every regulation issued from Brussels bypasses Parliament. It does not go with the advice and consent of the Commons and the Lords Temporal ; it does not go to the Crown for an initial. It is as though this place did not exist. In , the right hon. We heard yesterday from the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East Mr.

    Paice , who had been involved with the common agricultural policy. I wonder whether he realised that from the moment the treaty came into effect on 1 January there was no longer a British agricultural policy. The drab uniformity and detailed regulations which he rightly criticised in his interesting speech last night applied from that moment on to the United Kingdom in the realm of agriculture—to the way in which man relates to the soil. That could hardly he more fundamental to our basic existence.

    It was as if a rural byway had been constructed round the House which was not noticed. Nor was it noticed that the control had gone, because after that qualified majority voting applied to all agricultural matters. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not come back and say, "I am sorry, I was outvoted", but we are getting to that stage now. That is what happened in agriculture and fisheries negotiations from onwards.

    The Single European Act continued the trend because the scope of central decision making was widened still further. In the debate on 21 November , I charged the right hon. Thatcher with misunderstanding the Act. I said that she may have misunderstood it, or she may have been misinformed, or she understood it and did not tell the House about it. Perhaps we shall have some enlightenment from the right hon. He introduced the Single European Act at the Dispatch Box and spoke about streamlining and getting things through quicker. He knows that the criterion for the single market was the elimination of frontiers.

    If frontiers are eliminated in relation to any commercial matter, to any matter of specification or to any matter concerning markets, adjudication and the source of law are transferred from 12 centres to one. I think that the right hon.

    Navigazione articoli

    Member for Finchley did not understand the importance and power of articles 8A and A. I must confess that, despite being a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation which studied the Act, I did not spot the explosive mixture of article 8A and article A. I charge the right hon.

    Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in saying that the Queen was not affected when in fact the Queen in Parliament was eliminated, and, secondly, with coming before the House with the Single European Act without either fully explaining it to us or, if he did, not knowing the effect of it. We now come to the third instalment in the dismemberment of the United Kingdom Parliament and the power of its people—the so-called "treaty of union".

    The treaty of union may be called the Maastricht treaty, but, as the House may know, it should really be called the treaty of Rome-Maastricht because in the two green volumes containing the treaty of union and the treaty on economic and monetary union, almost all the articles relate to amendments to the treaty of Rome. We shall have one small treaty of Maastricht and one much enlarged, beefed-up and fundamental treaty of Rome which will really be a union treaty. It will be the treaty of the constitution of the European union which is why it refers to European union.

    I come back to my earlier point about Sidney Webb. The treaty will have almost entire power over almost everything that we can think of which has been so far the ultimate responsibility of the House. One day we shall ask the Attorney-General where the scope of the treaty does not run. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton Mr. Kaufman efficiently gave us the list of areas affected which included culture, education and health. One can have reports on health and desirable standards, but how far does that go when it comes to voting money? In the Select Committee, we have seen what happens. We receive a report about the topic, then we get a programme of research, then a programme of co-operation and then legislation.

    We see the assumption of powers to an unprecedented and unforeseen degree. Just as I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup misled us about the powers of the Crown and the constitution, and just as I think that the right hon. When people come to us in our surgeries to ask about prospective legislation about which they have read in the newspapers, they will say, "What can you do about it?

    We will tell the Minister what we want, but there is qualified majority voting. We cannot stop it. Members will have to tell them to go to their MEP because in the new treaty there is a long-stop in co-decision. How many people will come to us when they have heard that? We all know that people will go where decisions are made. We have here a treaty whose consequences I have tried to paint in a fair and objective way. However, just as in the past we have had two versions and the results have been unexpected, even by those who promoted the treaties, so it will be with this treaty, if it is endorsed.

    The House will lose its powers and so will the voters who sent us here. It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newham, South Mr. Spearing in a European debate. As a member of European Standing Committee B, the material for which is supplied by the Select Committee on European Legislation of which he is Chairman, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to his tremendous work for us and for the House as a whole in that context.

    I add my most sincere and warmest congratulations to the Prime Minister and to the Government on the extraordinary and remarkable treaty which they brought home from Maastricht. I cannot recall any major international negotiation on which one party came away with per cent. That appears to have happened on this occasion—. That great achievement is clearly the result of two factors. The first is the remarkable negotiating skill of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    The second, which is no less important, is the willingness of our European partners to go a long way to accommodate us. That in itself is a reflection of the tremendous success of the personal diplomacy in which the Prime Minister has been engaged in Europe since he took office a year ago. As a result of those two factors, we have not only a treaty which allows us the two major derogations that have played such a major part in our debate so far, but a treaty whose architecture and contents have British fingerprints all over them.

    The architecture is the intergovernmental structure on which I know that the Government set so much store. Let me take three important elements from the contents. The first is the convergence criteria for economic and monetary union, which is an extremely well worked out British proposal which has been accepted by our partners. The second is the proposal that, for the first time, non-compliers with Community directives should be fined for their non-compliance. That has also been accepted. That, incidentally, gives the lie to the suggestion that British proposals are always of a centrifugal nature when they are not deliberately obstructive.

    This is a very integrationist proposal, but one which, I am glad to say, is also characteristically pragmatic and sensible. The third is the concept of subsidiarity which we, as the whole world knows, were instrumental, together with the Germans, in bringing into the treaty. I should like to highlight four aspects of the treaty, of which the first is subsidiarity. The subsidiarity clause establishes a new and promising basis for the evolution of the Community. One thing that will flow from that is that the institutions of the Community will he able to concentrate on their own extremely important jobs instead of feeling that they have to justify their existence by continuing to extend indefinitely the periphery of their activities and interfering in the competence of individual member states.

    I hope that we shall shortly see an end to the kind of nonsense with which European Standing Committee B had to cope yesterday morning when we were discussing draft resolutions and recommendations on sexual harassment. I cannot think of a less justifiable waste of the Commission's bureaucratic resources than that, or of a more inappropriate interference in the area of proper competence of nation states.

    I hope that from now on we shall begin to get from the European Court of Justice what I call "negative jurisprudence" and that the court will feel able, on the basis of the subsidiarity clause, to throw out initiatives which are inappropriate to and inconsistent with subsidiarity. I hope that we shall then not only have the existing positive jurisprudence, but negative jurisprudence also, with clear guidelines to remove the possibilities for mutual suspicion and disagreement between the member states and the European Community and its institutions, from which we have already suffered too much.

    In that context, I hope also that subsidiarity will begin to reduce the suspicion that some hon. Members of all parties continue to have about everything that comes out of Brussels. I hope especially that that will help people to see that there is no fundamental conflict between our role and our constitutional importance and those of the European Parliament.

    Shopping Cart

    Under subsidiarity, it is clear that we, the individual member states, decide what functions should be devolved to the Community and what functions should be properly exercised by it because they can be exercised more effectively at Community level. Once the essential decision on giving a certain function to the Community has been made, the question of the weightings between the different institutions of the Community in the way in which they take decisions and carry out responsibilities within their area of competence is not a matter involving any further loss of competence or sovereignty of this House.

    We and the European Parliament exist on separate planes. We each have our own roles. It is fundamental nonsense to believe that there is some kind of zero sum game between ourselves and the European Parliament and that an increase in its powers is made necessarily at the expense of ours, and vice versa. I hope that we shall be able to discard that illusion.

    The second aspect that I should like to highlight is foreign policy. That must be the pre-eminent area in which we can be most effective as a Community. As an individual country, our scope for bringing our influence to bear and affecting the future course of events in different parts of the world is minimal and, in many cases, non-existent.

    However, as a Community we are enormously powerful. We are potentially one of the world's superpowers. If anybody came to this globe from Mars to study human affairs, especially in the political area, he would be enormously struck by the contrast between the economic Community which has been an economic superpower for some time, and the fact that, as a political power, the Community remains a minnow. That can and must change. In the next century, I should like to see the European Community or the European Union—as we may come to call it—become one of the world's superpowers.

    Along with the United States and Japan, it should form one of the three essential poles of stability, prosperity and civilisation on this earth. To me, that is a noble and worthwhile goal, but we can achieve it only by developing effective mechanisms for a common foreign policy. I do not pretend that I am totally satisfied with what is in the treaty on that subject or that I regard it as the last word. I am not totally confident that the Presidency acting alone will, in all cases, be able to provide either the resources or the continuity to enable us to develop that effective and coherent foreign policy.

    Although the Commission is not totally excluded from that area of the treaty, its restricted role introduces an element of artificiality. In foreign policy, it is unnatural to distinguish between the political and the diplomatic on the one hand and the economic on the other.

    Given that the Commission has responsibility for economic and trade policy and, if need be, for trade sanctions, it cannot be sensible to keep it out of the formulation of a common foreign policy. However, one must be grateful for the substantial step forward that has been taken, and I am.

    I hope that we can celebrate the introduction of limited qualified majority voting by overriding the unacceptable Danish veto which, at present, is preventing the European Community from lifting its sanctions on South Africa. Through my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary , who is now on the Treasury Bench, I should like to express to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary my hope that we can inaugurate a common foreign policy by bringing our influence to bear on the events in Yugoslavia rather more effectively than we have up to now.

    Serbian aggression against Croatia has, up to now, been unrestrained and unsanctioned. Tens of thousands of people have already been killed. If it continues, the figure may be hundreds of thousands before long. The cities of Croatia have been destroyed, including Split and Dubrovnik, which are among the most historic in Europe. The third aspect that I wish to highlight is the social chapter. I believe that the 11 have scored an own goal and that we have scored a remarkable coup— [Laughter. Member for Durham, North Mr. Radice ; he laughs, but I hope that he will listen to what I am about to say, with which I believe that he will find it difficult to take issue.

    I shall outline three simple propositions and should like to know with which one, in practice, he or any of his right hon. Friends wish to take issue. The first proposition is that one cannot regulate oneself into prosperity. The second is that if one starts to regulate the conditions and the maximum hours of work, one starts to affect the cost of labour, the demand for labour and how competitive one's businesses are.

    By definition, if one reduces working hours, one also reduces productivity, output, the demand for labour and, therefore, the country's level of employment. Those are simple propositions. My third proposition is that if the Community as a whole decides to reduce its average productivity it will be less competitive than not only the other industrialised countries, such as Japan and North America , but the newly industrialised countries, and investment, whether from foreign or Community investors, will tend to go to other places. We shall thus undermine the basis of our future jobs and prosperity.

    Could one not argue that Germany regulated itself into prosperity? By making generous social provisions, Germany created the industrial climate that has enabled it to be highly competitive. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Germany achieved, through free market policies—policies which this country began to implement only in the s—the highest productivity levels in Europe in the s and s. It then decided to appropriate some of those productivity gains by means of social legislation.

    I accept that Germany has the least to fear from the introduction of the social chapter. The Germans, Dutch and other northern European countries are imposing on the rest of the Community the industrial costs which they have already accepted and which they can withstand because of their high productivity. Anyone who seriously wants the Community to move forward to monetary union and a single currency must think seriously about the consequences of the social chapter on the potential viability of a single currency regime. Once a country denies itself the weapon of devaluation to compensate for lower average productivity, it is particularly important that economies within the Community with lower average productivity should be able to compensate by using their natural advantages.

    If those advantages are in the form of cheaper or more flexible labour, they should be allowed to utilise them. An effective integrated economy cannot exist without more flexible prices, markets and labour markets. History will pay great tribute to the judgment and resolution of the Government in fighting the nonsense of the social chapter which, in retrospect, will be considered a mistake.

    I shall not list the potential advantages of a single currency because I spoke in the House three years ago about the advantages for trade and business and, therefore, output and wealth creation, and the advantages in terms of beating inflation. Those are now generally accepted. I had some difficulty following the Government when they said that there were political disadvantages. I see no threat to the sovereignty of the House through having a single currency or common monetary institution—far from it.

    After all, the fight for the sovereignty of the House in the 17th century was about this place being able to determine not monetary policy, but fiscal policy, which I shall continue to defend. Monetary policy was always a matter for the King and the responsibility of the executive branch. I pay tribute to the executive branch in this country because it has already given up the devaluation weapon and said that it is a self-defeating way of compensating for failure in the economy.

    Therefore, we lose nothing by enshrining that policy. My hon. Friend is quite wrong on this. The Government may have decided that membership of the exchange rate mechanism should be managed in such a way that we do not devalue, but if we wish to devalue, we can. Friend's remarks about a single currency alarm me greatly because I much admire his intellect, not to mention the fluency of his speech. But I urge him to accept that a single currency, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby Mr.

    Lawson made clear the other day, means a massive transfer of political and economic power to the centre. Friend and I share many ideas, including, I believe, those on monetary policy. Although the gold standard is no longer practical, it was not a bad thing. It was not a destructive episode in the monetary history of humanity.

    When we adhered to the gold standard, the House had no say in monetary policy because the money supply was dictated arbitrarily and objectively by the volume of gold discovered in the world. I doubt whether our predecessors in this place before thought that the powers of the House were compromised or undermined as a result.

    If we are to adopt a single currency, we must achieve the theoretical advantages which are there to be grasped. If we are to achieve those in practice, we must first prepare the ground carefully. I pay tribute to the convergence criteria, which were largely a British proposal. Secondly, we should consider carefully the statutes of the monetary institution. The document before us goes a long way towards providing for the independence of the monetary institution, which will be a crucial element in the success of a single currency. However, I should like to go further and suggest that the minimum term of appointment of the governors of the institution should be eight rather than five years, to ensure that it goes way beyond the electoral cycle of any member state.

    I should prefer that the appointments are not given to the governors of the banks of individual member states. It would be undesirable if governors from the central banks of member states felt that they had, in some way, to be the advocates of the interests of their own member states.

    If the project is to be successful, it is vital that, as with the Swiss national bank, when the board of that monetary institution meets, it has only one consideration in mind—how to reconcile the requirements of price stability and liquidity in the Community as a whole. Having achieved this excellent treaty of Maastricht and secured the derogation on monetary policy, by which the Government have set so much store, may I make a plea to them? In the morrow of great victory, will they show some equanimity and, above all, not give business in this country or abroad the impression that in practice we are any less committed to a single currency than any of the Twelve or that we are any less likely to be a part of it?

    If that impression were unfortunately given—I am sure that it will not be—investment from both British and international investors, would be deflected from this country and it would go to the continent to other areas likely to adopt the single currency. Moreover, in that event, it might become difficult to manage our parity in the years leading up to — Those currencies which currently belong to the exchange rate mechanism and are not perceived by the markets as likely to join at least the first echelon of a single currency may come under pressure in the market.

    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)
    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)
    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)
    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)
    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)
    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)
    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)
    Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici) Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)

Related Guns dont kill people, Chuck Norris does. (Radici)

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved