Posted 7:59 AM by Dil
Straw, Powell had serious doubts over their Iraqi weapons claims

Secret transcript revealed

Dan Plesch and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday May 31, 2003
The Guardian

Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.
Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.

The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation.


He angered critics of the war this week in a Vanity Fair magazine interview in which he cited "bureaucratic reasons" for the White House focusing on Iraq's alleged arsenal as the reason for the war. In reality, a "huge" reason for the conflict was to enable the US to withdraw its troops from Saudi Arabia, he said.

Earlier in the week, Mr Rumsfeld suggested that Saddam might have destroyed such weapons before the war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html

Posted 12:08 PM by Dil
May 27, 2003

Making the case for a referendum
From the Chairman of The Referendum Party



Sir, Peter Riddell (Comment, May 22) states:

The real case for a referendum is less to do with any likely treaty to create an overdue EU constitution, than to confront the Europhobes — and to resolve the endless, often unbalanced debate about Britain’s membership of the EU.
Of course, in practice, proposers of closer European integration will not only have to confront the abnormal fears of the phobics he refers to but also the views of those opposed to abandoning our right to accountable independent democratic self-governance, a position which can be held with at least as strong a rational conviction as can his own stance on the matter.

However, let me make clear that the Referendum Party is still open, as it always has been, to support for its aims from integrationists, just as much as from those in favour of continued independence. Consequently Peter Riddell’s analysis of the case for resolving the dispute by means of a full and fair referendum on Europe is most welcome.

Yours sincerely,
PHILIP SLATER,
Chairman,
The Referendum Party,
44 Kingston Street,
Cambridge CB1 2NU.
May 22.




From the Director of the European Movement

Sir, Peter Riddell’s article on the possibility of a European constitution being recommended by the Convention on the Future of Europe is the first serious and credible article I have read on this subject in the British press. As momentum gathers in some quarters for a referendum on any possible European constitution with false claims that this would lead to the end of life as we know it, we need a proper debate in the UK press.

Those who have consistently attacked Britain’s membership of the European Union and the euro have now turned their attention to the convention, claiming it wants to shut down the nation state, sovereignty of Parliament and the rights of the individual in a free society. Peter Riddell is absolutely right to denounce these false claims and add that any findings of the convention (a body made up of people holding elected office) are purely advisory and are principally designed to make the EU work more effectively, especially as it grows in size.

Furthermore, any decision on whether a constitution should come into force and what it should contain will fall on our own Government and the Prime Minister, who will meet other European leaders in a summit.

Over to you, Mr Blair.

Yours sincerely,
JUSTIN POWELL-TUCK,
Director,
European Movement,
85 Frampton Street, NW8 8NQ.
jpt@euromove.org.uk
May 22.

Posted 12:03 PM by Dil
From Mr Tom Benyon

Sir, In 1975 I campaigned as a Conservative parliamentary candidate for a “yes” vote in the referendum that kept us in the EC.

In retrospect it is abundantly clear that I campaigned on a prospectus that was sufficiently false to ensure that, if the issue had been a public offer in securities, I would face prosecution under the provisions of the Companies Act and I would lose.

In 1975, we told voters that we were joining a vigorous free-trade association and a modest degree of political integration was necessary.

We said nothing about the subordination of, inter alia, law, foreign affairs, immigration, crime, health, education, environment, pensions, our currency and our economy to a “European government”, as we were not told the truth. The only major Conservative figure who attacked the concept of our joining because it would prove to be a constitutional abomination was the late Enoch Powell. He courageously resigned his parliamentary seat on the issue amidst a great deal of abuse.

That was then: this is now. Government apologists for the draft treaty to the Thessaloniki summit next month must tell us what is the problem in us running our own affairs to which the permanent subordination to a European government could possibly be the solution.

Yours faithfully,
TOM BENYON
(MP for Abingdon, 1979-83),
Old Rectory, Adstock,
Buckinghamshire MK18 2HY.
tom.benyon@btopenworld.com
May 27.