2nd APRIL 2010: These are the contributions that were made by Andrew Brons to the 11th EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee Meeting held in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia on 29th and 30th March 2010.

Meeting on 'Economic Policy in the Light of the Crisis', held in the Croatian Parliament, Zagreb on Monday 29th March 2010.

"MEPs will know that there are some critics of the European Union who believe that their cause is advanced by abusing personally EU officials. I hope that I ( criticise ideas and policies and not personalities.

However, I do think that EU economic policy aggravates rather than curing economic crises. I shall concentrate on three areas:

1. The establishment and promotion of the Euro means that the external currency value, instead of reflecting the condition and needs of a particular state, tries (unsuccessfully) to reflect the average condition and needs of twenty-seven economically heterogeneous countries.

2. Freedom of movement of labour, between countries with greatly differing wage levels, results in high wage countries being swamped with economic migrants, causing unemployment, and lower wage countries being deprived of essential workers. There are instances of skilled workers and even professionals from Eastern Europe and from the Third World working as unskilled workers in the West, because they can earn more!

3. The progressive reduction of tariffs and the relentless opening up of Europe to products from Third World and rapidly developing countries (like China) will result in Europe being denuded of manufacturing and agriculture. The only way in which Europe and the developed world will be able to compete will be by wage rates falling to Third World levels.

As you might expect, I would prefer economic policy to be in the hands of sovereign nation states. However, even starting from your premise that the Economic Union is both necessary and desirable, I believe that EU economic policy is not in the interests of member states.

I am not so naive as to think that the EU will change its central economic policies - certainly not at my behest. However, I would advise candidate countries to think carefully before joining."

Meeting on the state of play of the accession negotiations and EU-Croatia relations in the presence of representatives of the Croatian Government held in the Croatian Parliament on 30th March 2010.

"I am sometimes seen as somebody who exaggerates when I say that Croatia is about to surrender its independence so I shall let the Croatian people make that judgement. Unfortunately, they have not yet been consulted directly. I just hope that that consultation will be carried out freely and fairly. However, I note that the rules for referendums in the Constitution, the goal posts if you like, are being changed to facilitate a ëYes voteí.

Let us look at the facts. The Croatian Parliament is already passing a vast volume of legislation that was not inspired by Croatian legislators but as a condition of membership of the EU. This is before any consultation of the Croatian people.

Some of these laws are undoubtedly good in themselves, such as those that ensure the independence of the judiciary, help in the fight against corruption or facilitate the combating of organised crime.

However, others bring in neo-liberal economic policies that will prevent Croatia from protecting the jobs of its own people.

Others still, bring in compulsory social liberalism that will shock members of a socially conservative Catholic country, like Croatia ñ when they become aware of them!

At present, all of these laws are like any other Croatian laws and can be repealed by the Croatian Parliament. However, when Croatia becomes a member of the European Union, EU law will not be able to be repealed and will take precedence over national laws.

In the future, some EU laws, regulations, will become Croatian law without any action on the part of the Croatian Parliament or Government. Other laws, directives, will have to be brought in by the Croatian Parliament or by secondary legislation of the Croatian Government. However, a directive is not an invitation to a member state to pass a law; it is an instruction.

There is more to come. Social liberalism is often presented as an extension of rights - and so it is. However, such extensions of rights often involve the denial of other rights such as freedom of speech and even freedom of thought. In the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament (AFCO) I and another member asked, quite separately, what the courts would be expected to do if there should be a conflict between freedom of religion and freedom of expression, in the context of criticisms of Islam. The constitutional experts to whom the questions were directed either side-stepped or ignored both questions.

The other MEP commented that questions to which the answer would be inconvenient were (routinely) ignored.

If all of this does not constitute a surrender of sovereignty, I really do not know what would constitute such a surrender.

Do not think that I am being unwelcoming to Croatia: I have great affection for the country and its people. To misquote Groucho Marx, I would be quite happy for Croatia to be a member of a Club of which the United Kingdom was willingly a member. However, I would warn the Croatian people against joining this particular club!"

Contribution to a debate on 'Communicating Europe in EU member states and in Croatia' held in the Croatian Parliament on 30th March.

"It is often assumed that any lack of enthusiasm for the European Union simply reflects a lack of knowledge. I shall not use a pejorative term ('arrogant' would be an ugly word ) but I do think that people with such an attitude are a little too self-assured. They arte also dismissive of ordinary people, who are not members of the political class. In particular, they are dismissive of the ordinary people of Croatia, when it is assumed that, those who oppose EU membership, do so out of ignorance.

The EU is presented as so self-evidently - even objectively - beneficial that only ignorance of its true nature could blind a person to its benefits.

I am not like some critics of the EU I could mention. I do not find Europe repellent, although I certainly do not like the European Union. Indeed much of the rhetoric and emotive appeal to our common roots, history culture and social and religious customs is appealing and attractive, although not, in my opinion, relevant to the EU. I told you, Mr. Chairman (the Chairman of the EU-Croatia delegation) that I could agree with about 80% of your speech at the dinner last evening (the 20% referred to the EU!).

When the debate on the referendum eventually takes place, I hope that the debate will be carried out fairly with both sides - indeed all sides - being given full coverage.

The problem with the word 'communication', is that communications about the EU are not always truthful. However, my first example involves my own government and not the EU being untruthful. The British Government insisted that the European Reform Treaty (later the Lisbon Treaty) was fundamentally different from the Constitutional Treaty, which it replaced, in order that it could avoid holding a referendum that it had promised, at the previous election, to hold. I managed to discover the truth - that the two treaties were essentially the same - from an answer from Commissioner Wallstrom and from a representative of the Rotating Spanish Presidency (of the Council), Mr. Lopez Garrido.

Sometimes, communications about the EU are not untruthful but they do not give the full story. A member of this committee said earlier and quite accurately that the Lisbon Treaty gave the right of withdrawal from the EU to member states. This needs to be qualified. Firstly, we already had the right to withdraw. This was established in 1974/5 when the British Government renegotiated the terms of membership, with the question of our continued membership being put to the electorate in a referendum. There would have been no point in renegotiation and the referendum, if there had been no right of withdrawal. Secondly, the European Parliament, under the Lisbon Treaty, has a right to hold up any withdrawal for up to two years. Thirdly, a right that is granted expressly by the EU, can, by implication, be withdrawn by the EU. When I hear that the EU has granted us a right to breath in and to breath out, I shall be truly worried!"

Vote on the Declaration and Recommendations of the Eleventh Meeting of the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Progress of Croatia's Accession on 30th March.

"I should like my abstention to be placed on record. I shall not vote against Croatia's accession because that might imply that I have some right to act on behalf of Croatian opponents of accession, when I clearly have no such right. The Croatian people must decide for themselves. Furthermore, It might imply that I am somehow hostile to Croatia, when I am emphatically not hostile."

The remaining members of the Committee voted unanimously in favour.