Berlin identified seven outstanding problems to be discussed at next week's EU
leaders’ summit on a new treaty for the bloc. These are: the question of symbols
(such as the flag, motto and anthem) and whether they should be included, and
whether it should be explicitly stated that EU law has primacy over national
law; "possible terminological changes"; the treatment of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights; the "specificity" of the common foreign and security policy;
the "delimitation of competences" between the EU and the member states and the
role of national parliaments."
Open Europe Director Neil O'Brien Open Europe Director Neil O’Brien has an article on Conservative Home...
“The mood in the UK embassy in Brussels must be pretty dire… it looks like the revised constitution might be more radical than we expected.” He notes “a legal personality was thought to have been killed off. It would mean that for the first time the EU, not the member states, could sign up to international agreements on foreign policy, defence, crime and judicial issues. That would be a huge transfer of power and make the EU look more like a country than an international agreement…the last time round the UK gave way on the issue. But this time round there is no way Gordon Brown will sign up to such an overt transfer of power. Nonetheless, the Merkel memo will be depressing reading for the UK team because it makes it clear that the UK will have to fight a number of battles which everyone thought were over - and that will make it more difficult to get on the front foot on other subjects.”
Open Europe say: "There was no concession in the Merkel text on London's opposition to moves to abandon national vetoes on justice and home affairs issue. Furthermore, Germany insisted on a "single legal personality" for the EU yesterday and called for a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights across Europe. According to the Guardian,
Both demands are anathema to the British government.” Legal personality would allow the EU to join international organisations, or sign international agreements. Those opposed to including the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights “could however accept it, provided that the legally binding character of the Charter is preserved by means of a cross-reference in the body of the Treaty."
As I wrote HERE in an article for CommentIsFree today...
The only reason these proposals are being described as a "treaty" is to avoid the need for a referendum. The trouble is, if it looks like a constitution, reads like a constitution and quacks like a constitution, most reasonable people will see it for what it is.
64 comments:
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a f*****g dodo. Europe in a nutshell.
It will not be agreed on.
Britain, France and Holland want the treaty slimmed down so it does not have to be put a referendum. Britain has more influence of the EU now.
Don't mention the War! Er, "constitution".
But I'm just a simple European citizen who doesn't know what is best for my own life. I'm sure those good old folk at that big ol' parliament they got there know what they are doing, and I'm thankful for all they do for me in my name because they are so much more wiser and more cleverer than little ol' me... and' dosh garn it, if they say that it's not a constitution, well, I believe them!
Of course there are still practical considerations to be addressed, such as: will the anthem be sung in unison or in four part harmony at school assemblies, and should the flag be saluted before or after morning prayers for the health and wellbeing of President Blair (Hallowed be His Name)? Directives to address these issues will be promulgated in due course. There is no cause for concern, citoyens.
"..... My party is opposed to an EU constitution so would not put
in(sic) to a referendum - as you say most people wouldn't want it so we know the likely outcome of any referendum here and particularly given verdicts expressed elsewhere. Hope that helps.
Best wishes,"
from my conservative MP 6th June
and from John Redwood's blog today....
"I was glad to hear Mark Francois, the new Conservative Shadow Minister for Europe, make it so clear on radio that our policy is to offer a referendum on any further transfer of power, just as we called for referenda on Nice and Amsterdam."
I'm confused.
Merkel has admitted, in a leaked memo, that the treaty is the constitution but with, in the words she wrote in her memo, "presentational changes".
The questions are: does Blair have a mandate to sign this piece of junk in our names, given that he promised a referendum a few days before he quits office?
Surely constitutional lawyers could get it reneged? Surely the British won't just shrug and give their country away?
What can be done?
Not being there, I don't know enough about Brown's personality, if he has one, but is he likely to revoke it because it was put over by trickery?
Third, it looks as though it may not be quite ready for signing by the time Blair takes his long-anticipated exist.
Finally, would it actually be a legal document as far as Britain is concerned, before the Queen has signed it? Would she sign it?
I am just so amazed there isn't much more discussion about this.
Sorry, but even if all of Merkel's plans see the light of day (unlikely) this is not going to look like a Constitution. Yes, it will mean the transfer of more powers to Brussels in some areas, but it will also make decision making a bit more streamlined. Every EU Treaty has done more or less those sorts of things - only Maastricht and the Single European Act were far more radical than this and the Tories signed those (no referendum called for by them...)
Overall I'm torn though... I hate the horse-trading going on in Berlin / Brussels over this, but I also really dislike referendums as I've not seen any fought sensibly in the UK.
Sehr geEhrter Iain
I flatter myself that Anon und I agree on so many things. but nicht on this occasion
... if it woddles und it quacks ... it's either ein Duck .... oder ein Solicitor
Quack, Quack
Yr obedient und Qvacking servant etc
G Eagle
What happens if England wants out but Scotland wants in?
It's very advantageous to the Scottish to be in, particularly now the easily accessible oil is running out.
It's very disadvantageous to the English as the most dynamic part of the English economy is wholly globalised and sterling plays its part, and England has different alliances and loyalties.
The Labour executive can't just tell the Scottish prime minister, First Minister Salmond, what to do any more.
Basturds !! Give us back our f**king sovereignty you thieving gits. Mrs T, where are you in our hour of need ?
NO ! NO ! NO ! is what she said, and is what is in our country's interest.
Hmm..Iain, you mention Gordon Brown - but I don't know why - he ain't going to the EU meeting, and it's all being handed by Tony Blair, who will shaft us down the river on his way out...
Iain I hope you checked this with central office:
Chamberlain, I mean Cameroon loves treaties like this.
..Air Chief Marshal Hugh Caswell Tremenheere Dowding - not another Tony Blair.
Iain I hope you checked this with central office:
Chamberlain, I mean Cameroon, loves treaties like this.
Caswell Tremenheere Dowding - not another Tony Blair Said
Iain I hope you checked this with central office:
Chamberlain, I mean Cameroon, loves treaties like this.
(Blogger doesn't like long user names does it?)
Silly me, I just googled "British Constitution" and discovered the concept of parliamentary sovereingty.
I agree with Verity as usual there is not a lot of coverage. If there is one subject above all that the BBCis consistently biased on it is this one.
Right bucket and spade packed I `m off for a couple of weeks .!!
Yippee
This one is not exactly a magnificent swan but it doesn't quack at all. As others have pointed out it clearly is a treaty and it clearly is (a) relatively minor and (b) on balance benefical. IMO.
One of Nick Griffin's big policies is get out of Europe and his party appear to have nicked more than half the Tory voters in Charlestown, Manchester just yesterday. The Tories slumped from a clear 2nd to a distant 4th.
Have you seen the comment on FT website.
Push for Blair as new EU president
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5fe52a74-1b6e-11dc-bc55-000b5df10621.html
So he negotiates a new 'treaty' constitution which he signs shortly before he leaves office and then he becomes President Blair shortly after with lots of new powers to control what happens in the UK - still in power over Gordon.
You could not make it up! Cameron has to get his teeth into this surely - its a major election issue.
Politicians who try to pull the wool over the eyes of British voters as regards this Constitution will pay a heavy price in the trust stakes.
We all know exactly what it is, and that murky Merkel has orchestrated a dishonest anti-democratic attempt to slide it through. Yuck.
As David Cameron said (not William Hague - whose words were not clear) the transfer of any powers to Brussels should be preceded by a referendum. That's the only acceptable position - call it Constitution, Treaty, Duck, Goose, or any other aquatic creature, as you like.
Merkel had a little plan.
Dale called the thing Her Duck.
She put it to the little lambs,
But none of them would agree to it.
Bait & switch - Tony & Gordo will convince UK voters that we have "won" on the points listed in this article; we sign up & still find ourselves with lots of new areas open to QMV & with a smaller percentage of the vote
An attempt in the HoL by Lord Pearson was met with some resistance by peers who enjoy generous EU pensions -
From today in HoL -
My Lords, if the noble Lord has a little patience, he will hear the kernel of my argument. Former Ministers do not lose their pensions if they fail to uphold the ongoing interests of the country. As I was saying, these noble Lords are proud of their careers in the plush and well remunerated conclaves of Brussels, but of course they are also—here I exonerate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, if necessary—already in receipt of a generous EU pension, or are looking forward to one. Few people know that EU pensions are unusual in that holders of them can lose them if, in the opinion of the Commission and the Luxembourg court they,
"fail to uphold the interests of the European Communities".
A large and growing number of noble Lords feel that these pensions should therefore be declared in your Lordships' debates, although as far as I know none was declared today, as usual.
Our view is shared by no less a personage than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who chairs your Lordships' sub-committee on our declaration of interests. But unusually, and perhaps uniquely, our Privileges Committee itself has just overridden the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on grounds which appear to me to be almost wholly spurious.
Oh Fuck - the FT are saying that Sarkozy is lobbying for Tony Blair to be EU President - Nightmare !!!!
What they will agree on next week is to hold an Inter-Governmental Conference in order to discuss the next treaty, that being the only way this can be done in the EU. Have a look at the already existing Consolidated Treaties. The Constitution was always a treaty. That is what brings the document, which is called the Constitution for Europe into European legislation that then has to be translated into national legislation. Which bit of it is hard to understand, Iain? You can't fight something, assuming you and your party are going to fight, without understanding how it works, because the chances are you will fight on the wrong bit of the front. This is why real eurosceptics do not consider the Conservatives to be reliable allies.
False posting at 10:02 p.m. from some fatuous nitwit posing as me.
It's not offensive. Just stupid. Definitely male. Only men think women say "Silly me."
"This is why real eurosceptics do not consider the Conservatives to be reliable allies".
Bang on Helen.
Oh, no! Sarkozy wants Tony Blair as president of the european dung heap? Are they sure? Sarkozy called immigrants who were burning cars and buildings "scum". Tony would have had him up in court for that remark, had he made it in Britain.
Nightmare indeed, Anonymous 10:56. But Sarkozy is so intelligent and politically savvy.
Perhaps the left-invented rumours about him drinking are correct! No one could express such a wish sober. It's the only explanation ...
verity - ain't seen tomorrow's FT, clearly, but Downing Street have issued a 'nondenial denial' saying TB had 'ruled out a return to front line politics' which could mean anything.
Just have to pick up the 'Weekend FT' tomorrow, which I guess is the point of them getting the 'scoop'. Could be seriously disastrous news if he is back in bad with that Meddling Minnie Mandelson.
Details here...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2bc60e12-1b72-11dc-bc55-000b5df10621.html
Anonymous 11:33 - surely you didn't think he'd ever been on the outs with Minnie Mandelson?
This programme is long term. In fact, it's the endgame.
Cameron has been recruited.
One can only hope that Gordon Brown puts the kibosh on his Napoleonic plans...
OK Iain,
Tell me, given that Neil is right, and frankly I am not sure he is what be the Tory line. 'Well we would call for a referendum on the forthcoming Lisbon Treaty' I guess would be the answer.
Fine. But if the bottom line of such a treaty was that the nation states were to understand that if they were to reject the new slimmed down mini-treaty then they were essentially voting to leave the EU. (not a bizzare scenario if you listen to the powers that be over here in Brussels) then what would Cameron do?
He has told us many times he believes that Britain's future lies within the EU. Could he call for a referendum, then campaign for a Yes vote?
So under this new "treaty", there will be a President who can sign up to treaties on behalf of the whole 27 nation bloc?
EU legislation is to be sovereign, so no repeal of the European Communities Act would get us out of the EU.
Sounds just like a tidying up excercise...
I think Cameron needs to be a bit more vocal on this.
The only three important words on Europe are "better off out".
Unfortunately, public opinion isn't quite ready yet, but give it another few years and enough anti-EU publicity, and who knows?
It is, of course, "thanks" to the Tories that we are subject to laws determined by Stalinists (technically so called), Trotskyists, neo-Fascists, neo-Nazis, people who believe the pointedly undisbanded Provisional Army Council of the IRA to be the sovereign body throughout Ireland, kleptomaniac members of the Eastern European nomenklatura, and increasing numbers of people from the neocon-Islamist alliance (for so it is).
That last would be augmented even further by the accession of Turkey, where the governing AKP, the point of which is to restore the Caliphate, is an associate member of the European People's Party, and thus, like Merkel's CDU, a sister-party of the Tories.
The fact is that these have a say - and any is enough to be intolerable - in making the laws by which we must abide, whether through the European Parliament, or within and around the Council of Ministers, which is routinely heavy with people with some extremely objectionable coalition partners, and members of which are sometimes actually drawn from deeply distasteful parties.
And who are even the ostensibly mainstream, moderate, centre-lefties and centre-righties? Blair and Sarkozy? Their appointees as Ministers? Their supporters among MEPs?
Furthermore, the Council of Ministers is one of only three legislative bodies of politicians in the world to meet in secret. The other two are respectively in Cuba and in North Korea. Yet thus are made most of the laws that apply in this country. Doesn't it make you proud? Above all, doesn't it make all of you Tories proud?
For the first clause of Heath's legislation taking us in is a textbook definition of a federal state. That was we joined one, having stayed out from the start because, when confronted with the original ECSC plans, Douglas Jay pronounced them "the blueprint for a federal state", and was told that, yes, that was exactly what they were.
After Heath's Treaty of Rome (opposed by most Labour MPs), Thatcher's Single European Act (especially, and opposed by all Labour MPs), and Major's Maastricht Treaty (opposed by far more Labour MPs than Tories, even though there were far more Tory MPs than Labour ones at the time), there is no political integration left to do.
DL aren't you being a little simplistic?
Yes, Heath took us in during a period of national weakness and desperation.
Wilson then supported staying in after a puny "renegotiation" and since then membership has been the status quo.
The real trick that leaders of all parties have pulled off is to scare us into thinking that we can't have trade if we aren't in the EU. Of course that is nonsense but we are always threatened with 3 million job losses if we don't sign up to the next treaty.
I thought by now the old myth about 3 million jobs being lost would have been dead and buried.
1) We would still trade with the EU even if we left.
2) If the EU tried to put up trade barriers then they have far more to lose since they export far more to us than we do to them so they are putting approx 5 million of their jobs at risk.
As far back as 7 or 8 years ago it was being said that Blair really wanted to be President of an enlarged EU.
Whether he gets this offered to him will depend on what Germany's ambitions are as regards rule over Europe.
Neither outcome is benign for the Untied Kingdom.
If Blair does sign this "treaty" then he should be tried for treason.
Victor
A Constitution by any other name would...stink.
If people want to see how Britain will fare in Europe under this new "treaty", just look at how the voting works on Eurovision. We will be simply left to write out the cheques.
On a point of order, Mr Chairman, the "UK Embassy in Brussels" is accredited to the Government of Belgium and as such probably have very little interest in what is going on in the Commission offices.
There is a different and completely separate UK office for the EU (which of course merely adds to the confusion twixt State and Elephant).
PS - Verity, we all knew that "Silly me" comment by 10.02 was not you for not only do you know how to spell sovereignty properly, you also know what it means.....
The rest of the EU accounts for a declining part of our trade anyway, (it may be below 30% by 2015) because our trade patterns are shifting from merchandise trade to trade in services, and the rest of the world is growing faster than the rest of the EU. We'd be much better off leaving and getting rid of the Brussels imposed trade barriers.
To say nothing of the £6 billion net our membership will cost us in financial payments.
I wish these facts were better known.
Perhaps this is all far too clever and conspiracy theorist but:
Is Blair signing up to this new EU Constitution to split the Tories again over the European Question?
Cameron looked as though he had the Eurosceptics back in their box but now they will be out again over this issue until 2009. Right up to the next election!
It seems Peter Mandelson was sent over to Europe to stir things so that New Labour win the next UK election - genius! Many questioned whether Blair would find a way of coming back or indeed ever really resign the UK premiership and now we have our answer.
another more likely possibility. Blair was kep on until Sarkozy was safely in place.
Merkel and Sarkozy both 'won' close elections in Germany and France by being the candidates willing to sign up the EU Constitution. Once Sarkozy was in, the push for the Constitution could begin in earnest. Blair could agree to it, and then he could go.
Brown would certainly have been in on the agreement.
The Conservatives matter little - unless their MPs join forces with Labour and Lib Dem eurosceptic MPs to block the Constitution at Westminster.
You have to ask yourself how did Merkel and Sarkozy both win to push on with the Constitution which is unpopular in both Germany and France. There is little doubt that the 4 million postal vots in the UK saved Labour from a hung Parliament in 2005. Merkel and Sarkozy had the media rigged their way. Maybe the voting systems and the counts were also 'worked' there too.
The UK is hanging out of the European Union like a poorly tucked-in shirt tail; outside the Euro, opted out of quite fundamental aspects of the European social model, poised for further optouts on much more, with much of its population seeking to leave even if its political leaderships are in denial on this last.
Doesn't sound like Blair would be welcome as President of a rapidly federalising European state.
You could add - a Bildeberg backed candidate has never yet failed to win an election. It's spooky, but democracy in Europe could just be a front to keep the federal/totalitarian process rolling.
From FT - The decision on who gets the new EU post may not be taken for two years.
In other words they're using it to keep Blair onside while they stitch the Constitution up. Sarkozy like Bush, Chirac and all others cannot believe what easy meat Blair is. They know that the Blair moment is their best chance to imprison Britain once and for all.
Brown must be playing along with the timing of Blair's departure which is clearly orchestrated to get the Constitution signed up to.
Where will the resistanc come from? Bullets or votes?
How long will it be before the fragrant Angela starts talking about Lebensraum???
When I read the front page of today's FT I nearly choked on my breakfast. "(Spinning) Blair for EU President". Arghhh! I thought we were just getting rid of him.
I bet Brown is chuffed at this prospect as well - still having Tony telling him what to do. And as for all those in Europe who were not 'keen' on the Iraq war....?
Ted had his boat, Blair his Palace.
david lindsay said:
re the ruling party in Turkey
"the point of which is to restore the Caliphate"
How did the Caliphate work - was he elected or was the Post hereditary?
in which case is there a Caliphate in exile somewhere? - like the ex-King of Greece or Bulgaria?
Would a "central" voice for the Sunnis make them more angry or less?
...perhaps Tone could combine the post of EU president AND the Caliphate?
When you think about it it makes sense - he's going to convert once he's an ex PM - why stop at Catholicism?
If you look at the google earth, the border between Greater Belin and the Brandenburg region is described as a state border, just as between American states.
Germany, like the USA, is a federation of sovereign states. Each state is a euroregion and has its own prime minister. Of course the EU's idea of breaking up the other EU countries into euro-regions is totally coincidental, as the eU transforms itself in this treaty into a federation of ..er.. sovereign states.
The problem is that we have always been lied to about the true nature of the EU. The bigger problem, for eurosceptics, is that were the truth to be told by the government, would people turn against the EU, or would they, given the calibre of so many british politicians prefer the country, in the words of the late, great, Auberon Waugh, to be run by a gaggle of Belgian Ticket Inspectors on the grounds that they would do a better job?
Still, who would have thought twenty years ago that we would be on the verge of becoming part of a state encompassing East Germany under the
direction of the east German Chancellor.
Song For Europe From Britain - on the installation of Gordon Brown as the new Prime Minister, with the hope that we can finally rid ourselves of Tony Blair (Acknowledgement to Engelbert Humperdink)
'Please Release Me. Let Me Go. For I Don't Love You Any More.
To Waste Our Lives Would Be A Sin.
So Release Me and Let Me Love Again.'
Ian - I would like to add a dimension to this argument which I doubt if many or indeed any of your other bloggers are affected. Every time another treaty is signed you can almost guarantee that prices and eventually community charges will rise, it seems that these extra costs are now always passed on to local government to implement. Whilst the majority of your readers would not be happy about it they of course will see their incomes rise eventually to take this into account but not so for the likes of myself and many others i.e. pensioners.
The size of the community charge alone is now becoming frightening and represents a large proportion of state pensions let alone the other price rises which surely come with it and these increases are never taken into account when the rise in pensions is calculated
Any mention of more powers to europe now sends shivers down my spine!
Next time you see Dave perhaps you might bring this to his attention as there are an awful lot of us and the number is always increasing!
Deep down in Hades, Napoleon and Hitler are cheering - the great plan is coming to fruition - ein Volk, ein Reich.
Look at Germany with its fake federalism and its total uniformity. Everything is regulated even down to the size of letterboxes by DIN standard, and the number of telephone boxes per km2.
This is how Germany views any spatial area - to be standardised and bureaucratised. The EU is merely the latest means of delivering raw material to an administrative machine.
The way East Germany was rendered bundesfaehig should be a warning since all becomes harmonised, standardised, and homogenised.
Everything the British hate about the EU will be delivered in bucket-loads if this Constitution is ever implemented
When are you going to join "Better off Out" or UKIP then?
Cameron can't/wont help you.
Cameron's part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Jeremy Jacobs said... at 2:12 PM
What you say, Jeremy, is sadly true. Had David Davis won the election things might be different, but Cameron just does not seem interested in the concept of Nationhood.
I think the EU appeals to Ministers because of the devious way decisions are made. I think it is because in the EU Ministers can agree to things that they could not get through their own Parliaments on their own.
The EU directive tool allows them to say 'we can't do anything about it Guv' when faced with domestic opposition. Whereas they had actually agreed to it, even wanted it, in the EU meetings.
Remember that politicians love to pose in the House of Commons, acting as if they were all powerful.
When they are in their posturing mode they rarely admit to the true source of these decisions.
Their craven attitude to the EU is Chamberlin style appeasement: "I have a treaty in my hand signed by Frau Merkel".
Napoleon and Bismark must be laughing in their graves.
Jeremy - don't help your enemy - by allowing him/her to divide us. UKIP in the Lords are doing a great job, as are Conservatives, some Labour, LD's and Independents. The Bill to challenge the cost effectiveness of the EU currently being debated will only succeed if it gets through the Commons where there are no UKIP.
You need cross party support from MP's on all sides of the house.
Each MP should see by now that they will soon become a second rate reality TV show unless they retrieve the powers thrown away to Brussels.
Ant & Dec could compere the show. Simon Cowell could judge debates. It will go to the top of the ratings - 'MPs have talent' (but sadly no power to change anything at all).
Why Blair is allowed to swan off and sign this thing I do not know. There is surely the rule that no parliament can cede powers, nor impose liabilities on future parliaments? To me that means this is unconstitutional.
Vanity, thy name is Blair. Gordon will happily slide into place if he is given the bribe of head of the IMF or ECB. Anyhow, he is a rabid communist, so is very much at home in the EU. Cameron has the objective of power before anything else.
The UK needs to unhook itself - if it means Scoland is left "over there" then so be it. Hadrian's Wall was a tax border before, so it can be again.
As we post, no doubt Blair is conspiring to foist this damned treaty on us against our wishes.
There is seemingly nothing we can do about it for the time being.
Therefore, I would rather discuss what we are going to do with Blair once we have kicked this government out, overturned the treaty and returned our sovereignty.
Is the tower accepting guests. Is Elba for hire?
Sarkozy's pissed in public - watch him slur and sway -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6747801.stm
Tone Made Me Do It, the Caliphate was hereditary, at least in practice. There doesn't seem to be any claimant to it, though. Whether global Sunnism would be happier with it back, who knows? But Sunni thought is absolutely unanimous about the need for it, and the AKP leader is strongly suspected of wishing to declare himself Caliph. Better than Blair, I suppose.
Post a Comment