Freenations is pleased to present here an article by and an interview with Annemarie Engel on the subjects of the destruction of the Danish constitution by the European Union and on the threat (especially to small nations like Denmark) from mass immigration into the EU on the back of so called "Human Rights" – which as the Soviet Communist regime clearly demonstrated - are the shortest route to tyranny! There is no democracy without the nation state and in the resistance to tyranny there is no substitute for individual freedom.

The EU Constitution is in conflict with the Danish Constitution.
The so called Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (published on 28. September 2000 the day of the Danish referendum on the euro) which forms an integral part of the coming EU Constitution, is in clear conflict with "Grundloven", the Danish Constitution.

As my solicitor’s office in Svendborg is professionally concerned with EU legislation, I have devoted myself to a close study of the contents of the charter and its 54 articles. I wished to find out whether they were an expression of any form of new thinking. Was it really imperative to have such a Charter? What purpose was it meant to serve?

A thorough perusal of the charter soon made it clear that I was up against something entirely different from what I had been accustomed to understand by the Danish Constitution Grundlov and the established interpretation of constitutional law. Any general regulation or concrete resolution must be compatible with our Danish Constitution. No legislature can alter the Constitution. I soon realized that the Charter creates serious problems.

The new EU values.

Thus the Charter had a preface and a preamble stating the values that will make up the foundation of the EU. In that it clearly differs from the Danish Grundlov, which is basically apolitical and only lays down the framework within which politics is to work – this is indeed an essential difference which worried me.

The aims of the Charter are liberty, equality and solidarity, which there is nothing wrong with, as such, so long as we are not moving on a constitutional level, but on a general level. The problem is that these three EU values, basic and constitutional, are to be realized by binding us to pursue a particular policy. And as the Charter cannot be altered, we just have to think like the others. We can withdraw, but we cannot in any way alter the charter once it has been adopted. National differences are certainly respected - so long as they go in the same direction.

The tripartite division of power.

Far too much power is conferred on the EU courts of justice as compared with our tripartite division of power under article 3 of Grundloven, where the legislature, the executive and the judiciary constitute a check on one another. Problems are particularly likely to arise as a result of the dynamic interpretation in the EU, where the judges are entrusted with political power to interpret the laws in the way they see as proper updating. That is bound to leave traces in the legal EU usage, which in reality confers sovereign power on the EU’s "Court of Justice". Danish legal interpretation is not political; that is left to the legislature. Danish judges have an entirely different instrument: Their interpretation is based on the wording and the intention of the law at the moment it was passed. If it is to be altered, it is a matter for the "folketing", our parliament.

Can the Danish Grundlov be fitted into that system? My answer is NO, it cannot. The Danish Grundlov was created in 1848 and 1849 – 60 years after the outbreak of the French revolution with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as its declaration of intent. But the creators of the Grundlov dissociated themselves from the Revolution and instead made liberty the essential point. They created a Grundlov or constitution which allowed all later generations to do what they wished.

In a way Danish identity and particularity are laid down directly in article 4 of the Grundlov, which says that the Lutheran Church is the Danish National Church and is as such subsidized by the state. We separate State and Church by keeping them together.

The Church is for religious functions, but the further implication of the provision is that it is an expression of our culture and common Danish view of life. The Danish State is committed to respect that it is a human right for Danes to enjoy the liberty to be the persons they are, which the views and thoughts we have and give expression to them. That is expressed, inter alia, in article 77 of the Grundlov, under which we have freedom of expression, and where it is stated that it is forbidden ever to reintroduce censorship. And in article 71, which ensures the liberty of the individual. We possess a number of constitutional rights and lay exclusive emphasis on freedom with responsibility for the individual and for the community.

We can learn.

We in Denmark have a structure which allows us to change our opinion every four years by electing a new Parliament. We may regret, we may learn, or we may realize that we chose the wrong people. That freedom and that pattern we have always stuck to in Denmark. Now a number of things are to be made binding for the member states, things that cannot be changed unless we leave the EU. Instead of course we can work for freedom under individual responsibility to become a joint European characteristic. We can still do so. Eastern Europe expects us to, for they demand the value of freedom with individual responsibility as an exclusive value. Despite the total absence of debate on the subject I was recently asked by two German foreign envoys, "We did not know that you had any problems with your Grundlov; why haven’t you just said so?"

Can our Grundlov and our system really accept the new EU coat which is being hung on our shoulders? In the whole of our system and our way of thinking the Grundlov is above anything else, for all our laws and government circulars have to be in accordance with it. That also applies to international conventions, that is to say voluntary agreements we have acceded to – as well as EU legislation. And now the EU is going to bind our view of life in a way that is going to mark future generations as well.

Can we in fact presume to put such fetters on people’s minds at a moment when we are all in need of creating peace and security in Europe? And can we in fact attain that goal by binding cultures together and placing nationality on the sacrificial altar?

The danger of the political application of human rights as a fundamental value in a constitution.

It is further a great problem that the charter includes the human rights of the UN and tries to establish them as fundamental EU rights. At worst it will mean that we shall have to abandon democracy and plurality. It may mean that in our eagerness to be good we come to jeopardize our values. And whereas our adoption of the Human Rights of the UN in principle can be cancelled with a delay of a mere six months, the EU purports to bind us forever. It will take the unanimous agreement of 25 EU countries to change it. As yet we could still back out in 2004 and prevent its adoption.

Since the Reformation in 1536 Denmark has maintained the separation of politics from religion. But in recent years we have had a massive immigration of people from countries where the opposite is considered the natural thing. Where religion – Islam – permeates the political life, simply because it is a religion of law, which lists what is right and what is wrong – according to the Koran.

We must have the right to demand of these new arrivals that they respect our basic value: The liberty of the individual, and that their children are not brought up to believe that religion and politics belong together. Therefore instruction in the basics of our society as an absolute necessity, and it must not be defeated by declarations of human rights which have been turned into an ideology and a fundamental law and thus become as dangerous as the Muslim Sharia.

The Charter should not be a religious law with regimentation and supervision with control of people’s opinions. A society where it does not make sense to have an opinion is in my view a stagnant society! The pivot of Protestant Christians’ thinking is human beings, not –isms, ideologies or rituals and a concept of actions where we all have to be and behave in one particular manner. Lutheran Protestants say, "Everybody is free to be the human being he or she actually is. That is Danish constitutional view of life. We should respect Man but not necessarily the creed he professes. As the Bible says, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s!"

The Charter is in conflict with the Constitution and calls for amendment.

If the project of an EU constitution is carried out, the Danish Constitution has to be amended.

The implication of the Charter clearly is that the people must decide whether they wish it to be amended. I am curious to see whether our parliament, "Folketinget", will allow a referendum on the required amendment. Failure to offer the people the chance to express their view on this matter of vital importance will cause enormous problems for our system of representational government. That cannot be in anybody’s interest. Problems are not solved by being concealed. Light should have been thrown on this long ago. That ought to have happened by the year 2000, which saw the adoption of the charter as regards its contents, in the form of a political declaration. Such a thing also has to respect the constitution of the nation. In my opinion that step was a breach of the Danish Constitution.

We have purely an apolitical structure in our Constitution. To allow the EU to form our thoughts and then find that they pretend there is no longer any such thing as the Danish Folketing is a farce. When Article 54 states that any other way of acting is forbidden, they mean what they say. They want a political union. What worries me most of all is the fact that the politicians do not present these issues to us. Why are we not told what they are?

This is liberty, equality and solidarity, where the equality swallows up the liberty, so that only equality and solidarity are left. Do we want a new Denmark and a new Europe on those terms? I do not think the peoples of Europe do.

EUROPE’S NATIONS AS MULTI-ETHNIC IMMIGRANT STATES

The Nice Treaty mapped out a development which is going to transform the European nation States into immigrant countries of a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural stamp. It is happening without the consent and the peoples and without them realizing it, argues lawyer Annemarie Engel in this interview with Ulrik Høy.

THE DECEPTION OF THE PEOPLE

"The politically correct argumentation for the influx of foreigners into Denmark has changed character. In the Alien Law of 1983 the grounds advanced were humanitarian whereas the tendency today is to adopt employment-based arguments, where the issue is the "benefit" to Danish society from immigrants. That is an important redefinition, for it means that the immigration created by law is continuing and can be extended. The Law of 1983 could be seen as a pointer to the outside world because the alternative majority incorporated the so-called de facto principle offering asylum for other reasons than those applicable to refugees under the UN Convention, and the impact of that pointer was strengthened by last year’s Integration Law. Under this law refugees are entitled to permanent residence in Denmark after having lived here for three years, at the Nice Charter, as an expected constituent part of the Nice Treaty, is going to cement this development", argues Annemarie Engel, who is a lawyer at Svendborg.

With EU legislation as her special fields and her legal experience in cases involving refugees she has advised political parties in questions concerning refugees and immigrants, and she characterizes herself jokingly as a "holistically minded" lawyer with an interest in Kierkegaard’s philosophy and with a deep concern for finding new ways of conflict solution.

In the Charter are incorporated two decisions concerning so-called Human Rights for third country citizens, though these decisions, in Annemarie Engel’s view, do not belong here, nor have they anything to do with the institutions of the EU. They are articles 18 and 19, which, together with article 54, bind us not to put any future restrictions on the influx of immigrants. "Thus the rights to asylum are made into a human right within the framework of the EU, also including illegal immigrants. In a new directive the EU Parliament proposes that access to family regroupment is to be extended within the EU so as to include grandparents as well. However, we are not subjected to that directive, as a result of our legal exception, which Denmark obtained in Edinburgh in 1993."

In spite of this exception Annemarie Engel resents the course of events. "A stop to immigration has been in force since 1973. Nevertheless the Government agreed to the contents of the Charter on 14 October, backed by a majority of the political parties, which thus prefer to disregard the people’s legal exception instead of maintaining it with regard to the Charter as well. Nor have the local authorities been asked, though they were forced by the Government last year to accept the responsibility for future integration. In time they will be saddled with full economic and cultural responsibility.

In Annemarie Engels’s view our government is pursuing its own political course "by the backdoor", and this kind of politics – without any referendum on such an essential issue as an entirely new charter – may be fatal to the future of our country, and it may damage the advantages Denmark has so far achieved in the EU. Approval of articles 18 and 19 of the Charter further excludes us from a possible later decision to abolish our legal opt out. However, seeing that adoption of the Charter requires unanimity among the fifteen heads of government, Denmark still has a chance of exercising her influence. "As it is we possess the possibility of exercising the greatest Danish influence ever on the development of the EU, in a way that is positive for all parties concerned, seeing that the East European countries are not in favour of the Charter either".

MALADJUSTED DANES.

What is going to happen if the government endorses the charter? "The Danes are going to be "maladjusted" if their national specificity is trampled under foot and the dialogue is ignored", says Annemarie Engel, "for Charter means Constitution, and the introduction into the framework of the EU of the Charter is planned as a three-stage rocket: First as political endorsement, next as legally binding incorporation in the Treaty, and eventually as part of the future Constitution of the EU. When the intent is clear, the content is essential, as it cannot be expected that even a comma will be changed. At most there may be an extension of the so-called Fundamental Rights, so far listed to the amount of fifty, of political, social and economic character. The Danish constitution, "Grundloven", is apolitical and contains 88 clauses, of which 12 are constitutional liberties.

What are the facts concerning the relation of the Nice Charter to the "Grundloven", the Danish Constitution? "In reality the text of the Nice Charter empties the Grundloven of both sense and contents. It erodes our democracy and the diversity of opinion such as we in our country desire it in the many-sidedness and the comprehensiveness of parties and the media. In future there will be only one set of opinions, those which are politically correct. Historically, the new values are based on the French revolutionary values from 1789, and they have already been under consideration by the Danes – and in fact rejected by the Constitution (Grundloven) of 1849! As the Nice Charter differs from our Grundloven on essential points, it is simply in conflict with the contents of Grundloven! The Charter has as a necessary prerequisite a change of our Grundloven, seeing that even political declarations have to be in conformity with the wording and the spirit of it. So we have a problem now."

What about existing law? "The Government is wrong in asserting that the Nice Charter reflects existing law. No EU legal practice exists concerning articles 18 and 19, and for good reasons, seeing that the clauses are new within the framework of the EU, and besides, it anticipates the common asylum policy, which is not to be adopted until 2005. The Government has to respect that future regulations issued in pursuance of those articles are not going to be binding for Denmark as a consequence of our legal exception. But we have realized the intention and our Government: In spite of that fact it accepts the Nice Charter and approves the two articles, thereby accepting to bind the people and the political parties!"

Annemarie Engel mentions a further example, the new addition to Human Rights, signed by Niels Helveg Petersen, the Danish foreign minister, on November 4th in Rome. "The Radical Foreign Minister has strongly recommended the ratification of the new addition. However, there will not be time for that before the adoption of the Nice Charter, only in a couple of years at the earliest. Article 21 in the Nice Charter about the adoption of a general as well as a specific prohibition against any kind of discrimination is therefore not a reflection of existing law. On the contrary, this article can be seen as an intensification of the demands against Denmark, seeing that article 21 of the Charter is in direct conflict with § 4 of our Grundloven and the privileged position of the Established Church as the foundation of Danish identity and culture. Or, to put it differently: We have a constitutional right to discriminate against other cultures in favour of the national Danish identity!" And the background to the Charter? "The current explanation is the inter-dependence of the development and the globalization, etc, which is declared to be fated, whereas in actual fact it is steered by the political majority in the present EU countries. In future, for EU citizens, Human Rights will consist in adapting their cultures, conform and be obedient to the Nation States, which are told by both the EU and the European Council what it means to be a respectable country and a decent person. In my view, the conception on which the Charter is based contains a good deal of potential poison to our conception of democracy as representative government. That is probably seen most clearly in article 12 of the Charter, which emphasizes that the political parties commit themselves to express the EU citizens’ political will. And in article 22, under which the cultural, religious and linguistic diversity must be respected. In other words, the set of rules in the Charter is to be part and parcel of the daily lives of EU citizens and parties. In short: a controlled ideological equality policy. That, too, is new, and no reflection of existing law."

DENMARK AS AN IMMIGRATION COUNTRY

For the benefit of whom is this policy desired? "For the benefit of those in power", answers Annemarie Engel, "for they want the Nation States to change character and be transformed into immigration countries. The politicians in power believe in the multi-ethnic and the multi-cultural societies, they believe in the present form of immigration as a long-term investment to ensure further welfare distribution, and they allow experimentation with the present form of immigration under a superior uniform EU culture".

She hopes, though, that the politicians will comprehend the problem while it is still time. "The politicians are there for their people’s sake and not for the potential aliens who seek asylum here and claim a legal right to housing, equipment to establish themselves, etc. The politicians at Christiansborg (the seat of the Danish parliament) and in the EU should either limit the access of immigrants or ask the respective populations of the EU countries how they view the extended right to asylum and family re-groupment in relation to international conventions? That is the question, for these conventions have a different legal character, as the expression is, they are voluntary commitments and can be renounced, unlike the Charter. There you have a further example that the Charter is not a reflection of existing law. Nor are the legal effects of adopting the contents. It will no longer be a human right for the population of Denmark or any of the respective EU countries to denounce any part of the international conventions. The EU has laid down the law for ever and ever".

The nasty effects are obvious. "Control is introduced to ensure observation of the Charter. It will now be an explicit part of the adopted EU values of the Amsterdam Treaty of 1998, article 6, and can in future be made an object of surveillance. A majority among EU countries will be empowered to agree to suspend a member country which in their view has violated EU values just one single time. And parties which are found to have offended against these values can have their EU subsidies suspended. That may be of a special importance to the new articles 18 and 19, which are going to be incorporated within the EU framework. And it will be in conflict with our legal exception. The Government must have overlooked this aspect, too, in their hurry and in their political zeal to reach results at the summit conference in a fortnight. EU populations have one thing in common: They are ignored in questions relating to immigration and its form. Everybody – citizens of the EU as well as those who have already immigrated from third countries – is expected to adapt and make room for more from less developed countries, without any restriction, and that does not seem promising for the future EU, which is being launched as the Project of Peace."

Interviewer Ulrik Høy, Weekendavisen, Berlingske, Denmark, the 25. of November, 2000