[ARTICLE 39]

SINGLE MARKET:

EU’S UNCONDITIONAL FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF WORKERS SECURED=

[ARTICLE 39]

AMENDMENT TO: Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and t= he Treaty establishing the European Community (Lisbon, 13 December 2007)<= /span>

&= nbsp;

Policy Area:

Treaty= on the Functioning of the European Union, Part Three Policies and Internal Act= ions of the Union, Title III – Free movement of persons, services and capi= tal, Chapter 1 – Workers, Article 39

&= nbsp;

Lisb= on Treaty: =

“= ;FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS

50) In Article 39(3)(d), the word "implementing&qu= ot; shall be deleted.”

Original Treaty:

“Article 39

1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.

2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employmen= t.

3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:

(a) to accept offers of employment actua= lly made;

(b) to move freely within the territory = of Member States for this purpose;

(c) to stay in a = Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing t= he employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;

(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall= be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.=

4. The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in = the public service.”

&= nbsp;

Expl= anation:

There are no substantial amendments to this Article. However, it is obvious that the EU’= ;s unconditional Treaty obligation providing for the freedom of movement of workers overrides massively important national legislation and parliamentary decision-making.

In addition to the effects of limitless EU immigr= ation in affecting public services, a recent illustration of its detrimental effe= cts has been the restriction that it has placed on the UK’s right to deport se= rious criminals to their respective home countries. It has become increasingly evident that the Labour Government’s ongo= ing introduction of recent EU legislation into Britain is making it almost impo= ssible for the UK Courts to properly pass judgement according to British law on the deportation of criminals from Britain to wi= thin the European Union. It has gone from bad to worse, as the British judiciary= has attempted to assert the two conflicting bodies of law. The failed attempts = by the British Government to deport foreign criminals after release from prison – noting the futile attempts of Home Secretaries Charles Clarke, John Reid, David Blunkett and Jacqui Smith – w= hilst simultaneously introducing EU legislation in through the back door to preve= nt such deportation has left the country open to a fragmented society, endange= red by serious criminals on the streets and acts of public terror within the cities. From June 1996 to May 2006, the total number of forei= gn nationals in prison in England and Wales alone rose from 4,259 to 10,232 which has undoub= tedly contributed towards the reason why deportation after release has become suc= h a serious measure in protecting the British public from severe harm of danger= ous criminals released from prison.

The Home Office has always been adamant that the strict EU laws on the freedom of movement of persons within Europe has not impinged upon the UK’s right to deport serious criminals or terrorist= s to the EU Member States. They have been proven wrong. As a case in point, the Asylum Immigration Tribunal (AIT) in the UK= refused to deport the killer of Philip Lawrence to his home country of Italy o= n the grounds of a Citizens Directive (2004/38/EC) issued in 2004.

In light of the Labour Government’s position on serious criminals appealing against deportat= ion on release from prison, it is clear that the UK Courts no longer have contr= ol on such deportations, rendering the criminal justice system and the faith t= hat UK citizens have within that system increasingly unstable, since it fails to achieve the criminal justice system’s overarching objective – t= he capacity for each and every British citizen to be protected in a fair and j= ust society. That condition is allied to the introduction of recent European Directives, in particular the Citizens Directive, which asserts an unconstrained and almost unconditional free movement of persons within the European Union. The unconditional assertion of this freedom of movement puts the British people in the way of grave dangers. It must be stopped and it m= ust be replaced with national legislation that allows for both free movement of workers with respect to a set of national labour market-based criteria for entry and for the UK Government to ultimately dec= ide its own ‘free movement of workers’ policies in relation to national provisions for public services, housing and the economy. <= o:p>