Documentation for New EU "Treaty" Released

[CyberRose]

I think the EU constitution breached the British constitution and so shouldn't have been on the table in the first place. Blair would have needed a larger mandate than a parliamentary vote to get that through.

But every international treaty we sign up to erodes sovereignty away from the UK, why are you not calling for referndum's on any of them?

 

[laptop]

Here's a Constitution/Treaty comparison from Stephen Mulvey in Brussels for the BBC a few days ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6928737.stm

He applies a certain amount of scepticism to the sceptics, for example:

Vetoes

A national veto disappears when member states agree that decisions that have hitherto been taken by a unanimous vote, can in future be taken by a majority vote. Opponents of European integration talk about surrendering vetoes, supporters prefer to talk about about pooling sovereignty - but neither side disputes that the Reform Treaty takes this step in somewhere between 45 and 70 policy areas.

This is numerically larger than in earlier treaties. However, that does not necessarily mean the net effect is greater, as some of the new areas which the treaty makes subject to majority voting are quite arcane - such as, in Tony Blair's words, "The council review of general rules on the composition of the Committee of the Regions, and the Comitology Committee, whatever that might be". Other examples are decisions on the methods used for gathering statistics in the eurozone, and on transport subsidies to the territories formerly in East Germany.

 

[YoursTruly]

Do you think the European Constitution warrented a referendum?

Anything beyond a common market does.

 

[YoursTruly]

But every international treaty we sign up to erodes sovereignty away from the UK, why are you not calling for referndum's on any of them?

I am. We wasn't asked for a European Union.

 

[CyberRose]

I am. We wasn't asked for a European Union.

But why are you campaining against the EU and not NATO?

 

[CyberRose]

Anything beyond a common market does.

Why does it? Is it a requirement of British law that changes to the constitution or sovereignty must be decided by referendums?

 

[laptop]

If Yours Truley is really asking for a referendum on every international treaty, on the grounds that they all erode sovereignty, do they see the Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War as illegal?

That'd put them in political cahoots with the most unsavoury political forces in the US.

Then there are treaties like the Law of the Sea, Space Weapons, the Berne Conventions covering authors' rights...

 

[gosub]

I have called for them on previous treaties. You don't ask why I think it breaches the British constituion but I'll tell you anyway.


96-97 was involved with the Referendum Party, got given a video of a very ill Lord Tony Pandy (fomer speaker) that was played at the RP's party conference (as she was then Betty Boothroyd also endorsed the party which was unheard of). Using a mates Yamaha 16 track and my then state of the art P120 with 64Mb of RAM, spent three days rerenderingthe video to recolour the video (badly lit) and remove some of the croak from his voice, got to know the speech very well. He wanted a referendum because there was and is no exit mechanism from the EUro and according to him our unwritten constitution states that "no parliament may bind its successor."
The first draft of the EU constitution and the current 'amending treaty' includes an exit mechanism that puts exit from the EU outside the say so (or soveriegnty) of the UK parliament, which seems pretty binding on sucessive parliaments to me.


You would not believe the hassle I got a few years back for pointing out (among other things) that Britain can unilaterally decide to leave NATO.

 

[CyberRose]

I have called for them on previous treaties. You don't ask why I think it breaches the British constituion but I'll tell you anyway.


96-97 was involved with the Referendum Party, got given a video of a very ill Lord Tony Pandy (fomer speaker) that was played at the RP's party conference (as she was then Betty Boothroyd also endorsed the party which was unheard of). Using a mates Yamaha 16 track and my then state of the art P120 with 64Mb of RAM, spent three days rerenderingthe video to recolour the video (badly lit) and remove some of the croak from his voice, got to know the speech very well. He wanted a referendum because there was and is no exit mechanism from the EUro and according to him our unwritten constitution states that "no parliament may bind its successor."
The first draft of the EU constitution and the current 'amending treaty' includes an exit mechanism that puts exit from the EU outside the say so (or soveriegnty) of the UK parliament, which seems pretty binding on sucessive parliaments to me.


You would not believe the hassle I got a few years back for pointing out (among other things) that Britain can unilaterally decide to leave NATO.

So now the Reform Treaty (and Constitution) contain an "exit clause" your calls for a referendum become completely unfounded right?

ETA: Sorry think I misunderstood you...you mean because the Parliament and Council have to agree to the request to leave the EU. Altho the obvious loop-hole in the "binding" clause is that should the Euro Parliament or Council not agree to the request, it is not the UK Parliament that bound successive Parliaments but the EU. So they should be perfectly able to do it.

 

[gosub]

?????

Because the exit clauses mean we can't get out without the say so of other member states, this is binds future parliaments. If the current parliament wants to do that it should seek an extra ordinary mandate. - Namely through a referendum.

[E2A (after yours) This treaty is not binding on the UK until the UK parliament ratifies it. No loop hole there

 

[CyberRose]

?????

Because the exit cluses mean we can't get out without the say so of other member states, this is binds future parliaments. If the current parliament wants to do that it should seek an extra ordinary mandate. - Namely through a referendum.

No it would be irrelevant, as the "binding clause" would still be in place. My point is - where does it say that changes to the British constitution must be approved by referendum (like in Ireland)? What stops the current UK government repealing the "binding clause" through Parliament?

In fact, that bloke who refused to sell bananas in grams used the "binging clause" in court and he lost...

 

[gosub]

You mean some sort of "tidying up exercise" to amend a few things, best left to the scrutiny of parliament

What is it with Pro EUropeans and bananas?

 

[CyberRose]

You mean some sort of "tidying up exercise" to amend a few things, best left to the scrutiny of parliament

What is it with Pro EUropeans and bananas?

What is it with Eurosceptics and bananas more like!

So your call for a referendum stems from this "binding clause"?

What about the actual point of the EU, namely making it easier in a global world to implement policies?

 

[gosub]

EU passed the directive on banana curves, pro EU lot spent a lot of time sayinging it didn't when anti lobby talked about anything. Imperial/ Metric was down to UK dropping the opt out.

Yep


So undermining democracy and accountability is the raison d'etre of the EU?

 

[CyberRose]

EU passed the directive on banana curves, pro EU lot spent a lot of time sayinging it didn't when anti lobby talked about anything. Imperial/ Metric was down to UK dropping the opt out.

Yep


So undermining democracy and accountability is the raison d'etre of the EU?

No comment on why the EU is bad for the UK? Which EU policies do you think are bad for the UK, and which policies do you think the UK is best going it alone?

 

[gosub]

Nice of you to ask, any chance of you extending you inquiry to the other 50 million or so people I share the country with? Prefereably in some sort of legally binding way.

 

[CyberRose]

Nice of you to ask, any chance of you extending you inquiry to the other 50 million or so people I share the country with? Prefereably in some sort of legally binding way.

What do you think elections are for?

 

[A Dashing Blade]

What do you think elections are for?

Do you thing that the majority party should stick to promises made in it's election manifesto?
Lab Party manifesto (apparantly) promised a referendum on the EU constitution, then Gordon Brown comes along and basically decides that even tho' it looks like a duck, goes "Quack" and floats on water, it's not really a duck because it's name is "Dobbin".

 

[CyberRose]

Do you thing that the majority party should stick to promises made in it's election manifesto?
Lab Party manifesto (apparantly) promised a referendum on the EU constitution, then Gordon Brown comes along and basically decides that even tho' it looks like a duck, goes "Quack" and floats on water, it's not really a duck because it's name is "Dobbin".

That would depend on whether or not you think the Reform Treaty and the Constitution are the same. They are not. Dispite how similar some may claim them to be, they are not the same document.

Besides, I think it was wrong of Labour to promise a referendum on the Constitution. The Constitution would not have made many significant changes to the EU, and didn't give the EU any more competency areas. If there were to be a referendum on changes to the EU Treaty (which lets face it, won't make any difference to anyone in this country) then why not referendums on issues such as Iraq? Or unemployment benefits? Or privatising the NHS?

Plenty more issues are far more significant than the EU Treaty, yet for some reason the Eurosceptics only call for referendums on the EU. It is nothing more than simple opportunism by people who are incapable of coming up with valid arguments of why we should not be in the EU. It's easy to play on people's fears, prejudice, and if we're honest, xenophobia and racism, and that is the only way they will ever get their way.

 

[gosub]

Well I don't speak French but it looks good!

An example of Cyberroses judgement relating to EU matters

 

[CyberRose]

An example of Cyberroses judgement relating to EU matters

I don't see the problem?

 

[A Dashing Blade]

That would depend on whether or not you think the Reform Treaty and the Constitution are the same. They are not. Dispite how similar some may claim them to be, they are not the same document.

Could you define what you mean by "not the same document" please?

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that a number of European politicains and beurocrats DO believe that the Reform Treaty is a repacked version of the Constitution.

 

[CyberRose]

Could you define what you mean by "not the same document" please?

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong but it appears that a number of European politicains and beurocrats DO believe that the Reform Treaty is a repacked version of the Constitution.

Well the Reform Treaty does not contain everything in the Constitution.

It does however, preserve some of the useful changes the Constitution would have made.

Like I said, Labour should never have promised a manifesto for something not very significant (especially when compared to the meassures introduced by previous treaties, none of which required a referendum) then we could have had the full Constitution and not this watered down version.

Their "get-out" clause is that the Reform Treaty is not identical to the Constitution (which it's not) and is no longer taking on the form of a Constitution, but keeping the same format as every other Treaty that has been introduced.

So, to define "not the same document", I mean exactly that, it's not the same!

 

[A Dashing Blade]

Well the Reform Treaty does not contain everything in the Constitution.

It does however, preserve some of the useful changes the Constitution would have made.

Like I said, Labour should never have promised a manifesto for something not very significant (especially when compared to the meassures introduced by previous treaties, none of which required a referendum) then we could have had the full Constitution and not this watered down version.

Their "get-out" clause is that the Reform Treaty is not identical to the Constitution (which it's not) and is no longer taking on the form of a Constitution, but keeping the same format as every other Treaty that has been introduced.

So, to define "not the same document", I mean exactly that, it's not the same!

Hmmmm, fair enough if that's your view, but I'd take you up on this point . . .
Why, for "something not very significant " did other couintries have a referendum?

 

[CyberRose]

Hmmmm, fair enough if that's your view, but I'd take you up on this point . . .
Why, for "something not very significant " did other couintries have a referendum?

No idea! IMO there was no justification in any country having a referndum because even with the full Constitution it was not going to introduce any significant changes or reduction of sovereignty as previous Treaties (none of which had referendums)

Politically the UK was forced to follow suit from France after they promised a referendum. Also perhaps to lessen the blow of what would be construed in the right-wing media and by right-wing parties like UKIP as an unpopular policy.

It should be noted that 18 countries actually ratified the Constitution and France, Netherlands and most likely us have prevented all of those countries from having the EU they want. Some countries such as the Czech Republic are refusing to have a referendum because their population WANT the Constitution!

But I get incredibly angry over this referendum debate because whether or not we should have a referendum, and whether or not the Reform Treat and Constitution are the same is not what we should be discussing - we should be dicussing what is contained in these documents and whether or not they will benefit the UK!

But should we do that, imo, the right-wing eurosceptics will lose the debate, which is why they instead have chosen to concentrate solely on the irrelevant and hypocritical arguments over referendums

 

[A Dashing Blade]

But should we do that, imo, the right-wing eurosceptics will lose the debate, which is why they instead have chosen to concentrate solely on the irrelevant and hypocritical arguments over referendums

C'mon, Eurosceptisism is not the preserve of the right-wing.

Bottom line : Brown doesn't want a referendum because

a) he genuinely thinks it's not a revamped version of the constitution

OR

b) he thinks he'll lose it

The argument that he'll lose because of an historic right-wing media conspiracy having pre-conditioned the British public is simply patronising.

To argue that the UK's membership of, eg NATO, has already reduced sovereignty fails to justify any further reduction. This argument is akin to a pro-ID card stance ie "we already have photos on driving licenses etc . . . "

 

[CyberRose]

C'mon, Eurosceptisism is not the preserve of the right-wing.

Bottom line : Brown doesn't want a referendum because

a) he genuinely thinks it's not a revamped version of the constitution

OR

b) he thinks he'll lose it

The argument that he'll lose because of an historic right-wing media conspiracy having pre-conditioned the British public is simply patronising.

To argue that the UK's membership of, eg NATO, has already reduced sovereignty fails to justify any further reduction. This argument is akin to a pro-ID card stance ie "we already have photos on driving licenses etc . . . "

I find the debate over whether or not we should have a referendum irrelevant. I also find the debate over whether or not the EU erodes our sovereignty equally irrelevant - of course it does, as do all international treaties. I find it strange that people (like yourself?) automatically assume that because something erodes national sovereignty it is a "bad thing". How is it? In the 21st Century there are simply shit loads of policy areas that individual states have no control over on their own. Only by "pooling sovereignty" (which is the positive way of saying eroding sovereignty) can these problems be addressed...

 

[gosub]

Hmm, can we look forward to arguments in in the future of Mr Blair's may have been leader because of an election where he made various commitments, but if they were that important the turn out would have been higher. What is the point of a consitution if governments don't feel they need a special mandate to violate it?

Personally I feel the main focus at present should be to build broad consensus that a referendum is needed, personal positions towards the as yet not finalized text will vary,and I think to argue about things on which are yet not up for public discussion would be navel gazing of a sort. Other people take a different view. The case on Iwantareferendum.com runs to 7 pages starting here

 

[CyberRose]

Hmm, can we look forward to arguments in in the future of Mr Blair's may have been leader because of an election where he made various commitments, but if they were that important the turn out would have been higher. What is the point of a consitution if governments don't feel they need a special mandate to violate it?

Personally I feel the main focus at present should be to build broad consensus that a referendum is needed, personal positions towards the as yet not finalized text will vary,and I think to argue about things on which are yet not up for public discussion would be navel gazing of a sort. Other people take a different view. The case on Iwantareferendum.com runs to 7 pages starting here

You mean the only option available to eurosceptics is opportunism?

Tell me, what would UKIP do if Blair hadn't promised a referendum on the Constitution? They wouldn't have a leg to stand on would they?

If the only thing you can find to argue against the EU is that we were promised a referendum then I don't fancy your chances ever. I guess it's easier to play on people's fears and prejudices than it is to actually say how being in the EU is not to the UK's advantage (presumably because the arguments for being in the EU outweigh those against by a long shot...)

 

[A Dashing Blade]

I find it strange that people (like yourself?) automatically assume that because something erodes national sovereignty it is a "bad thing". How is it?

By and large, as a rule of thumb etc I dislike something being taken away from me unless I'm asked. Simple.