Documentation for New EU "Treaty" Released

[goneforlunch]

My quote was specifically in response to your claims that the EU will have any say over the UK's policies on ID cards, residence permits and passports. This is a blatant UKIP scare story. Please don't try and change the subject.

I'm not changing the subject. One of your theories is that I'm, to use your words, "regurgitating UKIP scare stories". You cannot dictate the debate, and therefore I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that sources which are opposed or entirely separate to UKIP back up what I have said. And that includes red lines relating to justice and home affairs issues and therefore residence permits and passports.

Honestly, I don't think you do know fully what the EU is or how it opperates. I think you've seen the myths and scare stories and that's what you base your opinions on. The fact that you cannot give me a definition of "the EU" in the context of foreign policy shows this. You've also shown a lack of knowledge in other areas. I'm sorry if this sounds patronising or insulting, it's not intended like that, but it is true.

You're wrong, and it doesn't sound like that. It sounds like a variant, though less succinct, of the rather arrogant only-the-finest-minds-can-understand-it mantra. Naturally, I think that's rubbish!

Now that you have said that you want my definition of the EU "in the context of foreign policy", I'm pleased to oblige. The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU a "legal personality" and that means it can enter into international agreements in its own right, provided unanimous agreement is reached in the Council of the EU. Member states can also enter into international agreements, provided they are compatible with the EU. (And I'd say the "EU" means any of the EU's institutions.) That means laws made by the Council in foreign policy are superior to national law, and the treaty says the "Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area." We will be treaty bound despite Brown's red lines if the EU chooses.

What is your definition?

Yes we have. But still you fail to comprehend EU foreign policy. You probably think "the EU" will force us to give up our seat on the UN don't you?

No, I don't fail to comprehend, I just don't agree with you! A single EU seat has already been considered by the EU's "High Representative" aka its "foreign minister" Javier Solana. I can't imagine he would have voiced that opinion without the backing of significant figures sitting the Commission or the Council.

I'm not sure the UK even deserves its seat on the permanent security council any more. We are losing the respect of many of the world's countries, due in large part to the party you support. There is also pressure for a seat from Japan. Are they less worthy of a seat that the UK is?

You mean apart from answering that particular concern of yours?

... IT'S NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE. You might choose to tell yourself that it answers my concerns, but you're flat out wrong.

Well it is significant, but not in the way I think you mean

So how is [the treaty] significant in such as way as to mean the government does not need to honour its manifesto commitment on a referendum?

MEPs are the responsibility of the nation state. Ironic that someone from UKIP is demanding powers should be taken away from the UK and handed to the EU!

I'm sorry that the neither the EU or the nation states hold dishonest MEPs to account. EU law is superior to national law in most areas, but in the corruption of its own institutions the EU sits on its hands. Do you think any decent person in Britain or anywhere else would object if the EU decided to bar such people?

Yes but most people probably don't

"Most people" probably don't know enough to make that judgement [about whether the EU has any fascist tendencies].

The two parties certainly share a lot of xenophobic tendancies, that, I don't think, can be denied.

No, the BNP and UKIP don't share "tendencies" (apart from seeing the need to leave the EU). It can most definitely be denied. And please, consider your accusations of xenophobia carefully. With the EU monitoring "racism and xenophobia" it is not an accusation one should make without evidence. Do you have any? And what is your definition of xenophobia?

No. EU laws govern liberalised industries, they don't tend to create them...

Umm, it's much more than that. Try references like this book

I didn't say UK industries were privatised due to EU laws. See earlier posts.

Yes you did, you even said it in the quote above!!

Taken in the context of my earlier quotes, it is perfectly obvious that I did not say that.

Don't you understand? We can only have a free-trade-agreement if we adhere to the rules of that market. That's the whole point of free trade - no barriers and no state intervention to give their industries an advantage!

I think your interpretation is wrong. The rules are set by agreement between the two parties involved, not set in stone before the matter is even discussed!

The point is, Sweden is free to follow a Scandanavian economic model inside the EU. You were trying to make out that Norway was only able to follow a Scandanavian economic model because it was not a member, and that if the UK ever decided to follow such a model it would need to leave the EU. Sweden proves you were wrong in your assertion.

I said Sweden is free to follow its generous welfare state in spite of its membership of the EU, but they are under pressure to conform to the norm. I don't think you have properly considered what the EU's stated desire for "ever closer union" actually means.

No. Because it's just an expression of speech. However, I can tell you quite a few that I disagree with that are opposed to EU legislation - like employment rights.

I suggest you find out which of that shitload you don't like is EU inspired. Employment rights can be guaranteed by any government.

I don't know what your point is. The UK wanted to do something, Spain tried to block us, and all of a sudden the person from UKIP says Spain should be able to block the UK's objectives?

My point is that billions of pounds of public money being channelled into private enterprise through a system which is hugely corrupted. Think that's a good thing, do you? I'm grateful that Spain at least tried to hold the project up even if they did do it for understandable nationalistic reasons. And the UK's objectives are very often not ones I agree with.

Anyway, on the Gallileo system, I think it's a good idea

It has very definite useful applications in a system in which the government, ie the EU's institutions, has the interests of the people at heart, but there are also significant implications for civil liberties.

 

[CyberRose]

I'm not changing the subject. One of your theories is that I'm, to use your words, "regurgitating UKIP scare stories". You cannot dictate the debate, and therefore I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that sources which are opposed or entirely separate to UKIP back up what I have said. And that includes red lines relating to justice and home affairs issues and therefore residence permits and passports.

Ok well at best you are trying to match mutually exclusive policy areas. Just because the EU has competence in some areas of JHA it's wrong to then make the assumption that they will have competence in all areas of JHA. Passports, ID cards and residence permits are the sole competency of the nation state, and I can't imagine that will change. Don't forget, it's not the EU versus the UK, it's 27 different countries, and altho on many issues the UK may find itself alone, there are certain areas where each country will not want to give up its sovereignty - and these issues probably fall into that category.

You're wrong, and it doesn't sound like that. It sounds like a variant, though less succinct, of the rather arrogant only-the-finest-minds-can-understand-it mantra. Naturally, I think that's rubbish!

Well compared to most people you're an expert on the EU!!!

Now that you have said that you want my definition of the EU "in the context of foreign policy", I'm pleased to oblige.

Well I actually wanted it in general terms but hey ho!

The Lisbon Treaty gives the EU a "legal personality"

No, it already had that, as do every international organisation

and that means it can enter into international agreements in its own right

It already can, that's nothing new

provided unanimous agreement is reached in the Council of the EU

This is the key phrase. And this is why I asked for your definition of the EU, because it is not a harmonious body working against the UK. It is 27 different countries each with their own agendas. In foreign policy, the Council must agree in unanimity. This means there is no "EU" in this area. Each nation must agree to a common position, otherwise the instruments of the EU cannot be used. The High Reprsentative (which is not actually a new post but the merging of two departments) can only act when ALL 27 member states have agreed, which means foreign policy is 100% in the hands of member states (other than trade, where the EU does act on behalf of all member states - giving us a huge advantage that we simply would not have individually)

That means laws made by the Council in foreign policy are superior to national law

But in foreign policy that would mean the UK has already agreed to it, so there's no change. If we disagree, the EU cannot physically pass that law into existance in the first place.

and the treaty says the "Member States shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union’s action in this area."

But the treaty has always said that. That's nothing new. The "shall comply" bit is governed by what I said above - ie only when the UK (or any other EU member) gives their consent

We will be treaty bound despite Brown's red lines if the EU chooses.

This is what the treaty says on foreign policy...

In addition to the specific procedures referred to in [paragraph 1 of Article 11], the Conference underlines that the provisions covering Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) including in relation to the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and External Action Service will not affect the existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each Member State in relation to the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy, its national diplomatic service, relations with third countries and participation in international organisations, including a Member State's membership of the Security Council of the UN.

The Conference also notes that the provisions covering CFSP do not give new powers to the Commission to initiate decisions or increase the role of the European Parliament. The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the CFSP do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.

What is your definition?

Well it depends on the context!

The reason I asked you is because you referred to the EU as something acting in its own interests. I don't think it's possible to define the EU like that at all. The Commission can only propose legislation - it cannot make laws. The Council and Parliament pass the laws. The Council is basically each member acting in their own interests, so they cannot be defined as "the EU" (especially in foreign policy)

No, I don't fail to comprehend, I just don't agree with you! A single EU seat has already been considered by the EU's "High Representative" aka its "foreign minister" Javier Solana. I can't imagine he would have voiced that opinion without the backing of significant figures sitting the Commission or the Council.

The treaty guarantees the UK and France's UN seat. Only nation states can sit at the UN. Why would France or UK even consider giving up their seat? Despite what you may think, there is no legal framework that can force either to give up their seat.

So how is [the treaty] significant in such as way as to mean the government does not need to honour its manifesto commitment on a referendum?

Well leaving aside my belief there should never have been a referendum promised on anything, its not a significant treaty. It's no where near as far reaching as Maastricht. As the content of the other treaties did not require a referendum, there's no way this one warrants one!

I'm sorry that the neither the EU or the nation states hold dishonest MEPs to account. EU law is superior to national law in most areas, but in the corruption of its own institutions the EU sits on its hands. Do you think any decent person in Britain or anywhere else would object if the EU decided to bar such people?

Look, just deal with it - the UK and not the EU are responsible for the conduct and laws governing their own politicians - that is something that someone like you would argue FOR if it weren't for the opportunity to create it into a criticism of the EU (just like UKIP's policy on the Post Office)

"Most people" probably don't know enough to make that judgement [about whether the EU has any fascist tendencies].

Most people don't know enough about the EU full stop!

No, the BNP and UKIP don't share "tendencies" (apart from seeing the need to leave the EU). It can most definitely be denied. And please, consider your accusations of xenophobia carefully. With the EU monitoring "racism and xenophobia" it is not an accusation one should make without evidence. Do you have any? And what is your definition of xenophobia?

There is plenty of examples of UKIP members being caught out, but I honestly cannot be arsed with that here. So I give up, you can win this one!

Umm, it's much more than that. Try references like this book

Cool! Is that your Christmas present for me!?

I said Sweden is free to follow its generous welfare state in spite of its membership of the EU, but they are under pressure to conform to the norm. I don't think you have properly considered what the EU's stated desire for "ever closer union" actually means.

Well I'm not an expert on Sweden's economy, but do you know that the pressures it faces are specifically from the EU and not from global trends?

I suggest you find out which of that shitload you don't like is EU inspired. Employment rights can be guaranteed by any government.

Not true actually. Individually, capitalist economies will try and give themselves an advantage over others. Usually this spills into allowing companies more flexibility with workers (meaning more profits). The EU and free trade require and equal playing field - this means workers rights should be the same across the market so that one country does not have an advantage. This is more likely to come from a supranational institution than from individual countries.

 

[goneforlunch]

These posts are getting so long, I don't have enough time to reply as I'd like to, but there is absolutely nothing in this new treaty that allays my concerns. It comes down to a question of trust, and the EU's past history and present evasiveness work against it in this respect.

I know it isn't the EU v the UK. I just don't trust politicians, UK or otherwise, working in EU institutions or EU bureacrats, Commissioners, or MEPs, because democratic controls over them are too much too weak. I don't believe they have the people's interests at heart now and I doubt they will without reasonable democratic controls in the future.

That's my opinion and I completely understand you feel the opposite way.

I'd still be interested in your definition of xenophobia.

 

[CyberRose]

Well xenophobia is a dislike of foreigners!

Ok, well just answer me one thing - do you think this new treaty will improve the EU, or do you think it will make it worse (if so why?)

 

[goneforlunch]

Well xenophobia is a dislike of foreigners!

Ok, well just answer me one thing - do you think this new treaty will improve the EU, or do you think it will make it worse (if so why?)

The EU states "Racism and xenophobia will mean belief in race colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining aversion to individuals" and it has a "framework" for combatting it as explained here.

If you really think that opponents to the EU are xenophobic (and I very strongly disagree) then the EU could deny them freedom of speech if it took the same position.

I think I've made my feelings about the treaty clear enough.

 

[CyberRose]

The EU states "Racism and xenophobia will mean belief in race colour, descent, religion or belief, national or ethnic origin as a factor determining aversion to individuals" and it has a "framework" for combatting it as explained here.

If you really think that opponents to the EU are xenophobic (and I very strongly disagree) then the EU could deny them freedom of speech if it took the same position.

I think I've made my feelings about the treaty clear enough.

I've never said anything about all opponents of the EU I don't think, just UKIP. And I stand by it, UKIP appeals to those of a xenophobic and even racist disposition. Not that I accuse everyone who ahs voted for UKIP as being a xenophobe or racist, but UKIP are certainly trying to win that section of support from the Conservatives and BNP...

 

[goneforlunch]

So is UKIP xenophobic simply because it thinks the UK should leave the EU, and if not, what makes it xenophobic, in your view? Do you think UKIP should be denied a voice on xenophobic grounds?

And please, don't misrepresent UKIP's position. Perhaps it would be best if you used actual quotes/speeches from UKIP itself to avoid this.

 

[CyberRose]

So is UKIP xenophobic simply because it thinks the UK should leave the EU, and if not, what makes it xenophobic, in your view? Do you think UKIP should be denied a voice on xenophobic grounds?

And please, don't misrepresent UKIP's position. Perhaps it would be best if you used actual quotes/speeches from UKIP itself to avoid this.

Well of course UKIP are not "officially" xenophobic! It's not like it's gonna be in their manifesto, just as the BNP are not "officially" racist

The fact is, UKIP's policies appeal to right-wing xenophobes and those that would otherwise vote BNP if it weren't considered wrong not too

http://www.blink.org.uk/print.asp?key=3531

 

[goneforlunch]

Aren't you being just a little hysterical here? UKIP attracted only around 2% of the vote at the last General Election, so they're not appealing to very many people. And Kilroy-Silk is no longer a member of UKIP. You might as well claim that Labour is not 'officially xenophobic' as he was once a Labour MP if you're going to use him against UKIP.

I've certainly never claimed that UKIP has NO racist members. Can ANY party claim that?!

And as for your link, in its own words ... "The 1990 Trust is the first national Black organisation set up to protect and pioneer the interest of Britain’s Black Communities. Our approach is to engage in policy development and to articulate the needs of Black communities from a Black perspective."

Doesn't that sound just a little racist to you? The link is long on allegations and claims from those opposed to UKIP but provides no evidence. I'm not surprised the 1990 Trust is anti-UKIP. I doubt UKIP would support moves to "set up to protect and pioneer the interest of Britain’s Black Communities" or "engage in policy development and to articulate the needs of Black communities from a Black perspective". Politically correct it is not!

As racism is now against the law, where are the convicted UKIP members?

Is UKIP xenophobic in thinking the UK should leave the EU in your view? Do you think UKIP should be denied a voice on xenophobic grounds?

 

[gosub]

Today it gets signed, that David Saville knows his job prevents me from looking at from an occupational perspective. Looking at things from a occupational perspective seems the most likely explantation as to the nature of media scruitny -looking for the picture that paints a thousand words (or rather a thousand pages of words)

instead a link to a UK Parliamentary debate in the Commons on Tuesday

from that debate:

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): As the Foreign Secretary is adamant in refusing the British people a vote, why does he not give this House a vote before he signs away our birthright by signing the treaty?

David Miliband: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, no birthrights are being signed away, and I look forward to many debates and many votes in this House in the course of the new year, when we can debate such issues at great length.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): I am happy to have my right hon. Friend’s assurance that no birthright is being signed away. However, one or two rather fundamental points are being agreed in this treaty. Despite the fact that objection to the treaty may be regarded as a purely political ploy on the part of some Members, it might be helpful if we in the House of Commons were to register in some way that there is a great deal in it that causes great worries to many people of all parties.
.
.
.
Mr. Hague: ....Alongside all those compelling global questions, the House’s main preoccupation is, of course, the European treaty that is to be signed this weekend. This debate is traditional, but it is disappointing that the Government have offered no separate debate on the recent report of the European Scrutiny Committee, which resulted in the Committee’s exceptional decision to exercise its scrutiny reserve on a treaty and to call for a debate specifically on the document before it was signed. The response of Ministers to that request has been to ignore it.

There has been a pattern in the Government’s behaviour this year of minimising parliamentary scrutiny on the issue whenever possible. In June, only days before the treaty was agreed in principle, the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor was saying that she was not aware of any negotiations, even between other countries—as if the vast document that then emerged came literally out of nowhere, handed down by some great deity of European affairs with no prior discussion with any human beings.


Mr. Hague: I shall give way to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Michael Connarty: I am sorry for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman’s flow, but I must correct him on an important point. The document under scrutiny was the Commission’s opinion on the intergovernmental conference, which was then added to by the Government’s White Paper on the Commission’s opinion. The reform treaty, even in draft, has never been presented to us in this House, which is disappointing. We are not scrutinising that, because we have never been given it to look at.

Mr. Hague: I am sure that that is correct, because it comes from the Chairman of the Committee. It is also correct that the Committee called for a debate in this House specifically on its report before the treaty is signed. That, of course, is the point that I was seeking to make.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells) (Con): The situation is a bit worse than my right hon. Friend described. In May, the Foreign Affairs Committee wrote a public letter to the Foreign Office stating:

“The Committee regards the refusal of the FCO to provide a Minister to give oral evidence during this crucial phase of the discussions on the future of Europe as a failure of accountability to Parliament.”

 

[CyberRose]

You do know that the vast majority of volunteers of the European Scrutiny Committee are made up of Eurosceptics? It is therefore not an unbiassed source...

 

[gosub]

Where to begin, been reading stuff on the economy today and comments made by Mr Brown have put in my mind "if you repeat a lie often enough....everybody knows you are deluded" so on reading cyberrose's comment, the first thing that pops into my head is "its not paranoia if if everybody IS out to get you".


You may not recall, but I started this thread after your continued assertions on a previous thread that the EU is democratic. I hope readers whom have persevered with this thread have gained some insight into what is going on an how it is being conducted.

The debate linked to is not of the Parliamentary Scrutiny Committee but an open debate for the whole Commons, though it is worth noting that the Labour Chairman of that Committee speaks at some length during that debate and distances himself from "sceptics".

More importantly this treaty since first put together in a period of two weeks by Merkel in the summer, with soul UK input from Tony Blair and the Head of the Civil Service, and signed today by Gordon Brown on his first EU jaunt, has had NO scrutiny by the UK Parliament, there has been no Commons debate of the treaty (Lords debate here, no chance for our elected representatives to vote on the subject let alone the manifesto commitment of a plebiscite.

There will be Parliamentary debate (not even Gordon Brown will want to make a liar out of the Queen) after it is signed but MP's are limited Accept/Reject/Honour Manifesto commitment and allow electorate to decide/Come up with additional legislation which blocks part of what the Government has signed up to.

 

[CyberRose]

The EU is democratic...



Look, just get over it, the EU is very useful (as current climate talks look set to collapse in Bali prove beyond all reasonable doubt) but needs reforming to actually allow it to opperate with 27 (+) members.

I have no idea why somebody opposed to the EU for being a waste of money would support meassures to ensure that the EU is a waste of money

 

[gosub]

It took me a while to read that debate, it would be more informative if you had done the same before commenting, LSE report referred to in the debate dismisses claims EU close to breaking. Not that it doesn't need reform but this not genuine reform, it is a bunch of wankers grabbing more power and cocooning themselves from the accountability of the EUropean electorates. And at what a pace :can't fit in around National Parliaments having and input, can't fit in around Prime Ministerial commitments, can't even fit in with all the signatories being from bona fide governments!

"I have no idea why somebody opposed to the EU for being a waste of money would support meassures to ensure that the EU is a waste of money" Either do I, are you going off on a tangent again?

 

[CyberRose]

How would you like the EU to reform?

 

[gosub]

The treaty begins its second reading 'debate' in parliament tomorrow, I say debate but if any amendment to the treaty gets through during the 15 days of Commons time allotted (or further debate in the Lords) and the treaty fails. First of the amendments is an early day motion by Ian Davidson calling for a referendum.

Other developments include Commons Clerks shoot Lib Dem strategy out of the water

Another Parlaimentary Commitee (the Foreign Affairs Committee) has apparently critisied the handling of the treaty, I say apparently as while their web site says the report would be published 00.01hrs on Sunday 20 January, its not on the website. The press release said press had embargoed copies on Friday, so from the Telegraph :"
The committee says: "We conclude that there is no material difference between the provisions on foreign policy in the Constitutional Treaty which the Government made subject to approval in a referendum and those in the Lisbon Treaty on which a referendum is being denied."

It adds: "The Government risks underestimating, and certainly is downplaying in public, the importance and potential of the new foreign policy institutions established by the Lisbon Treaty,namely the new High Representative and the European External Action Service. We recommend that the Government should publicly acknowledge the significance of the foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty."

The committee says that the signing of the treaty was the culmination of a process which had "little scope for UK public or parliamentary debate and engagement".

It concludes: "We recommend that all amendments to the treaty, including extensions of qualified majority voting, should be done by primary legislation and not simply by a vote of the House."


There most likely will be a three line whip but by Tuesday it will be possible to ascertain our elected representatives attitudes towards their manifesto commitments and the the clout of the TUC

 

[gosub]

Sorry, was distracted by side search into Trade Union Group (not the most transparent bunch) forget to mention, what the Commons is voting on is a mass of disjointed amendments to previous EU treaties

I think Mr Brown's "were this the Maastrict treaty there should be a referendum" whilst amending the Maastrict treaty should produce some relief from what is expected to be a rather tedious three weeks. Personally I'm not so sure about the tedium.., a three week three line whip at peak of the usual flu and Norovirus season ....

 

[CyberRose]

http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1188497043757

Here we are, a complete run down of the amendments the Treaty will make to the existing texts. One thing the link makes clear is how European leaders can tell their populations its very similar to the Constitution, yet UK leaders tell us its quite different, is because the UK's Treaty is unique to the UK with the opt-outs etc.

It reforms the EU for the better and the only people opposed to it are those people who oppose the EU full stop. The proof is that they never address the points made in the Treaty (as gosub and goneforlunch highlight perfectly) all they do is claim it is just like the Constitution (which is an irrelevant debate).

It also shows up the lies spread by the right-wing alliance about foreign policy and losing our seat etc. Even tho JHA is now decided by QMV, the UK has an opt-out so those policies would not apply to us. The criticism I have is that we have an opt-out on social security. That pretty much means workers in the EU are gonna get more rights than us so thank you UKIP/Tories/Telegraph cos you are the ones that made economic and human rights into something that should be opposed as "job destroying"

 

[gosub]

It took nearly 5 months and 80 posts for cyberrose to admit that the EU is undemocratic (or at least I think he did, I have some trouble grasping his unique 'humour').

It came out in the Commons debate that there was only a two day window in which to shape the treaty so I would be in awe if they managed to placate all interested parties except those implicitly against the EU. Though if this is the way the EU wants to carry on, it can only make people bring the EU to a full stop.

As I have said before, one of the reforms I would like to see is modification of Maastricht to create an exit mechanism for the EUro (without leaving the EU) and a lender of last resort for the currency. Though I will concede that now the rebate is being abolished, the UK's leverage to do that is diminished. What was the concessions the UK received for giving up the rebate again?

But it would Quixotic to assume that all those snubbed by an elite's vision share the same vision of reform, so I repeat for cyberrose to presumably studiously ignore (again) : it is better to stick to common platform for an achievable goal: to get to a position where those outside the hallowed sanctums of the establishment can have some influence on what is done in our name. First objective a referendum

Whilst it is worth noting for those following the referendum debate in Eire that the situation IS different for the UK, the opt outs cited by the FCO are the same opt outs from the constitution which Lib/Lab/Con made manifesto commitments to have a referendum on, thus removing the issue from the 2005 election.

 

[CyberRose]

It took nearly 5 months and 80 posts for cyberrose to admit that the EU is undemocratic (or at least I think he did, I have some trouble grasping his unique 'humour').

Erm no I didn't because the EU is democratic. I don't think you've ever convinced me otherwise...

But it would Quixotic to assume that all those snubbed by an elite's vision share the same vision of reform, so I repeat for cyberrose to presumably studiously ignore (again) : it is better to stick to common platform for an achievable goal: to get to a position where those outside the hallowed sanctums of the establishment can have some influence on what is done in our name. First objective a referendum

Not sure what you're saying here? Anyway, face facts, rightly or wrongly, there will be no referendum so what exactly are you achieving by constantly calling for one? The ONLY reason people are calling for a referendum is because they oppose the EU full stop. Those who oppose the referendum claim that holding one would open up a "proper" debate on the Treaty. Fucking liars. A referendum on the Treaty would be presented as a referendum on membership of the EU. No-one who opposes the EU will be arguing against the points in the new Treaty because to their mission the content is irrelevant. They will be campaigning for "no" but lying what "no" means. The "no" on the ballot paper will be for the Treaty, but the "no" people will be voting for will be for membership of the EU. How could we possibly have a fair and democratic referendum if people won't even know what they are voting for?

I'm sorry but calls for referendums are simply a desperate attempt by the EU's opponents at throwing a spanner into the works of EU reform because they are unable to debate or argue against the reforms made in the Treaty.

 

[gosub]

From the Commons Debate 21/01/08

I am pleased to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) because he started with the important point about the labels that we give people for their attitude towards Europe. We do not have the language to describe those of us who broadly agree with co-operation between European Union member states that goes beyond pure trade relationships but also make critical assessments. We immediately jump to calling people Europhobes or Europhiles or Eurosceptics. Just for the record, I find fault with the treaty and with the organisation, but I absolutely refuse to be labelled as a bad European or a Eurosceptic by anyone for that reason. I will take no lessons from anyone about that.

That leads me on to why we need to consider the substance of the treaty. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), because he started to describe the consequences of some of the provisions in the treaty and to explain what will happen. People might like it or not like it, but we need to start saying what is within the treaty.

I suggest that those on our Front Bench should look a little at the history of how we ended up with this piece of legislation, which started life with the Laeken declaration. The treaty started because there were perceived to be two problems in the European Union. One was to do with its bureaucratic efficiency—at that stage, by the way, a review was needed for enlargement, so let us park that one for the moment, because enlargement happened. The second and much more fundamental problem was a disengagement from the institutions by the people of Europe and the loss of the kind of democratic legitimacy that people had hoped for when we started direct elections to the European Parliament. In reality, all that happened was that fewer and fewer people either turned up for elections or related to the institutions.

Someone then came up with an answer—a constitution. That treaty—the constitution—was continuously changed. The French rejected it, and we started giving it different names, but we should waste no time today asking whether the treaty is the same as the constitution. It is a bit like Heinz baked beans: with more than 57 varieties, we know what the thing is in essence, and in essence it requires democratic legitimacy from all the people in the member states of the European Union.

Kelvin Hopkins (Luton, North) (Lab): I agree with what my hon. Friend has been saying. Does she agree that that disengagement is potentially dangerous, as was illustrated strongly by the French and Dutch referendums, where the elites and the political parties all recommended a yes vote and the people voted no? That disengagement could undermine democracy in Europe.

Ms Stuart: Indeed, and that leads on to the referendum. When our then Prime Minister promised a referendum in 2004 on the new package of changes to the European Union, he did not do so for constitutional reasons; he did so because it was the right thing to do. The second point about that is that this Labour Government, more than any other Government, have used referendums to settle certain questions—we used one in Scotland and Wales, and we even used one to decide whether Birmingham should have an elected mayor. The notion that using referendums undermines parliamentary democracy therefore does not sit easily with those on our Treasury Bench. Given that we had a promise about the use of a referendum, and given that one of the most fundamental problems in the European Union is a disengagement and a lack of democratic legitimacy, I cannot for the life of me understand why our side is reneging on its promise.

Even though I am not surprised, neither can I understand what the Lib Dems are doing. They are the most pro-European party when they are here at Westminster, but when they go back to their constituencies, especially to some seats with fishing communities, they might as well be to the right of the UK Independence party. Now, rather than honouring what is a question on the treaty, they are asking, “In or out?” To me, that is using blackmailing, bully-boy tactics, which for a mature democracy is a sign of real intellectual and political poverty. If the Lib Dems really think that we should be asked, “In or out?” please let them go and ask that question, which is a perfectly legitimate question.

That takes me back to my opening remarks. It is perfectly possible to wish to be a member of the European Union, but to find significant fault with the treaty, which may be sufficient for people to say no. However, the fundamental argument about democratic engagement is this. Our Parliament and other national Parliaments are not being given more real powers; we are simply being given more information. We are being given a mechanism that, as any Committee that has considered it or anyone who really thinks about it will know, is completely and utterly ineffective. This mechanism requires two thirds of a national Parliament to arrive at a view opposing that of their own Government. However, this House, for example, has no tradition of being given a mechanism for arriving at a view opposing the Government. The Government can always whip anything through.

For that reason, if those on the Treasury Bench are serious about some of the changes, I urge them to consider, for example, one of the Foreign Affairs Committee's recommendations, which was that rather than having a vote, should there be further extensions to qualified majority voting, there should be primary legislation, which would be required to pass through both Houses. Let those on the Treasury Bench look at how this House could scrutinise things with much greater power or at what the European Scrutiny Committee said about who should trigger the mechanisms.

At the end of the day, however, if we are really serious about restoring democratic accountability and faith in the political process, about bringing people closer to the European Union and about what the Foreign Secretary said in his opening remarks—I wrote this down; he said, “This is good for Europe and it is good for Britain”—when he prayed in aid the NSPCC, the bishops and so on, how about praying in aid the people of this country? If the treaty is good, let us go out and ask them. Then the Foreign Secretary will have a mandate and an endorsement, which could not be undermined by any successive Government, of whatever shade. Let us ask the people and have faith in them.

Ms Stewart is the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston who was the UK Labour party representative on the EUropean Convention which drafted the EU constitution when it was still calling itself the EU constitution.

Smilies are usually used to indicate that a joke was made (hence no smilies in this sentence)

 

[CyberRose]

this House believes that the draft European Constitution constitutes a fundamental change to the relationship between the European Union and the Member States and should only be ratified if the British people have freely consented to it in a referendum

Gisela Stuart, she say no (link)

So, is Gisela trying to suggest that the Reform Treaty is actually more far reaching than the Constitution was

 

[CyberRose]

Oh yea, she also supports George Bush...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/31/wus131.xml

 

[gosub]

Marvin stood at the end of the bridge corridor. He was not in fact a particularly small robot. His silver body gleamed in the dusty sunbeams and shook with the continual barrage which the building was still undergoing.

He did, however, look pitifully small as the gigantic black tank rolled to a halt in front of him. The tank examined him with a probe. The probe withdrew.

Marvin stood there.

"Out of my way little robot," growled the tank.

"I'm afraid," said Marvin, "that I've been left here to stop you."

The probe extended again for a quick recheck. It withdrew again.

"You? Stop me?" roared the tank. "Go on!"

"No, really I have," said Marvin simply.

"What are you armed with?" roared the tank in disbelief.

"Guess," said Marvin.

The tank's engines rumbled, its gears ground. Molecule-sized electronic relays deep in its micro-brain flipped backwards and forwards in consternation.

"Guess?" said the tank.



"Yes, go on," said Marvin to the huge battle machine, "you'll never guess."

"Errmmm ..." said the machine, vibrating with unaccustomed thought, "laser beams?"

Marvin shook his head solemnly.

"No," muttered the machine in its deep guttural rumble, "Too obvious. Anti-matter ray?" it hazarded.

"Far too obvious," admonished Marvin.

"Yes," grumbled the machine, somewhat abashed, "Er ... how about an electron ram?"

This was new to Marvin.

"What's that?" he said.

"One of these," said the machine with enthusiasm.

From its turret emerged a sharp prong which spat a single lethal blaze of light. Behind Marvin a wall roared and collapsed as a heap of dust. The dust billowed briefly, then settled.

"No," said Marvin, "not one of those."

"Good though, isn't it?"

"Very good," agreed Marvin.

"I know," said the Frogstar battle machine, after another moment's consideration, "you must have one of those new Xanthic Re-Structron Destabilized Zenon Emitters!"

"Nice, aren't they?" said Marvin.

"That's what you've got?" said the machine in considerable awe.

"No," said Marvin.

"Oh," said the machine, disappointed, "then it must be ..."

"You're thinking along the wrong lines," said Marvin, "You're failing to take into account something fairly basic in the relationship between men and robots."

"Er, I know," said the battle machine, "is it ..." it tailed off into thought again.

"Just think," urged Marvin, "they left me, an ordinary, menial robot, to stop you, a gigantic heavy-duty battle machine, whilst they ran off to save themselves. What do you think they would leave me with?"

"Oooh, er," muttered the machine in alarm, "something pretty damn devastating I should expect."

"Expect!" said Marvin, "oh yes, expect. I'll tell you what they gave me to protect myself with shall I"

"Yes, alright," said the battle machine, bracing itself.

"Nothing," said Marvin.

There was a dangerous pause.

"Nothing?" roared the battle machine.

"Nothing at all," intoned Marvin dismally, "not an electronic sausage."

The machine heaved about with fury.

"Well, doesn't that just take the biscuit!" it roared, "Nothing, eh? Just don't think, do they?"

"And me," said Marvin in a soft low voice, "with this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left side."

"Makes you spit, doesn't it?"

"Yes," agreed Marvin with feeling.

"Hell that makes me angry," bellowed the machine, "think I'll smash that wall down!"

The electron ram stabbed out another searing blaze of light and took out the wall next to the machine.

"How do you think I feel?" said Marvin bitterly.

"Just ran off and left you, did they?" the machine thundered.

"Yes," said Marvin.

"I think I'll shoot down their bloody ceiling as well!" raged the tank.

It took out the ceiling of the bridge.

"That's very impressive," murmured Marvin.

"You ain't seeing nothing yet," promised the machine, "I can take out this floor too, no trouble!"

It took out the floor, too.

"Hell's bells!" the machine roared as it plummeted fifteen storeys and smashed itself to bits on the ground below.

"What a depressingly stupid machine," said Marvin and trudged away.


With apologies to Douglas Adams


Care to comment on the fact that the Trade Union Congress voted overwhelming in favour of a referendum?

 

[gosub]

In the Parliamentary Scrutiny stage:

The original 20 days of debate cut to 12, and when they say days the reality is about 90 minutes of a day

Three former Labour ministers may have whip withdrawn for campaigning for what was in their (and just about every other MP's) election manifesto)


Though as MP's can't actually amend the treaty I am not entirely sure what more scrutiny would actually bring. And whilst this treaty does further undermine democracy looking at the state of it pre-ratification, is decidedly unwell, the constitution just makes it terminal.

 

[gosub]

French Parliament passes Lisbon Treaty (as did the Romanians)

Mark Mardell's blog piece on the event.


That link to the Post Referendum Opinion Survery again




"Nicolas Sarkozy thinks he is above the sovereignty of the people," warned Socialist deputy Henri Emmanuelli. "This is going to end badly"

 

[gosub]

“There was no Plan B, so the European Union was paralysed and the finger was pointed at us. When we voted ‘No’ to the 2005 text, we inherited a double responsibility - for ourselves and for Europe - that of giving it back the momentum and spirit that we took away.” Francois Fillon, French Prime Minister 4/2/08

Trans EUropean Policy Studies Association report on Adaptation to Enlargement from that report: "the ‘business as usual’ picture is more convincing than the ‘gridlock’ picture as regards practice in and output from the EU institutions since May 2004"

 

[Equalrights]

Europe cant be all that bad compared to the bunch of rubbish we have here parading as a Govt, just look how they have dealt with uncaring Airlines who were benefitting by passengers misery with the blessing of our "care only for the rich" govt, add to that Ms Redding slapping our greedy mobilephone networks in to line, something again our "care only for the rich" govt would have never done.

 

[gosub]

George Santayana wrote "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I would recomend you read The Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes and its historical context, (though I personaly believe that the world would be a far better place had the Putney Debates been valued.)


Speaking as a descendant of one of the signatories of King Charles death warrant, latter sentenced to be hung, drawn and quartered by Charles II. (Family got on a lot better with the Tudors)

 

[CyberRose]

George Santayana wrote "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

LOL! That was the whole point of creating the EU in the first place!

Me thinks you should try practicing what you preach!