EU cut and paste?
So the official English translation of the new draft EU treaty is (PDF link). The weighty constitution died a death in 2005 when French and Dutch voters threw it out. The government says the new draft is inherently different from the old treaty. Therefore they don't, they say, as they promised for the consitution, need to hold a referendum to approve it. But the Conservatives contend much of it is the same - and that all that's happened is a cut and paste job.
Well much of the text is the same. For example, (PDF link, again) in article 1-46 set out the principles of representative democracy. You'll find that word for word in the draft treaty in article 8a.
But what about some of the more contentious issues?
The former constitution would have created a European foreign minister. In the new document the name has been changed to the high representative - but in article 13a the job description appears exactly the same.
The Tories claim the text is so similar its substance is practically identical, and that 96% of the documents is a match.
William Hague tells me (for tonight's Ten O'Clock News) that he is determined not to let the government wriggle out offering a referendum on what he says is an almost identical document. It could be fertile political ground for the Conservatives - after all Gordon Brown said he wanted a more consultative government.
But is the substance of the two documents actually the same? The same sentence could have a very different meaning in a different book.
Ministers say all mention of a constitution, an anthem and a motto has been removed from the draft. They say what it does is update existing treaties so it can't considered the same. But it's hard to compare the two directly because the draft treaty is a work in progress, not a final complete document.
Europe Minister Jim Murphy tells us the Conservatives are completely wrong and that the entire constitutional approach has been abandoned. He says this is about reforming the EU to make it work better for the British population.
The old document may be gone but debate continues about whether its spirit lingers on in the draft. Negotiations aren't expected to produce a full final document until October at the earliest. Expect sceptics and europhiles to be battling it out until for months to come.
I'm 
Comments
I think, the new European Constitution could benefit from a little polish and its supporters could be a little less enthusiastic. Then again, the people who rubbish it and try to look like authoritative defenders of "freedom and independence" might benefit from similar calm. Clearly, the European Union treaties could do with refactoring and better quality engagement from the politicians.
If there's a problem, here, it's that everyone wants to look right and put clear water between themselves and everyone else. This is competitive and dualistic thinking. If the political servants could wrap their head around this and develop more a more positive and timely consensus, I'd be much happier about the whole deal. Maybe perfection won't be delivered this time around but it's a useful learning exercise.
On a more personal note, I can't be bothered to seriously compare the previous version and the working draft. It's just a big mountain of crap I'd rather not deal with. If there was less nit-picking and peacocking from the various sides they might find it in themselves to summarise it on one page of A4. Life is short and . Thank you.
I hope I don't sound too sycophantic Laura but I must admit I like your style of blogging as you appear to tell both sides of the story factually and equally with little editorialising. Keep up the good work!!(ok now I sound patronising as well)
Laura has a different style to Nick. Don't know if she's just playing it cool or if its her normal style. Can't say it would look good if people trashed the joint when Nick was on holiday and sent Laura running away in tears. Anyway, Nick's changed his style during the time he's been writing, and Laura might play around a bit. Don't know. Can't complain.
Okay, I have waded a bit!
Actually, much like the old so-called constitution, this doesn't change things a heck of a lot.
Major changes in Europe are only limited by this or any other document, and are not really created by it. For instance selling the Strasbourg premises (and losing those inside) would be a good idea, but that possibility is obviously not addressed here. This is not about practicalities.
For that matter, any single foreign affairs representation will be limited by the acceptance of a third party to what powers they are happy for that representation to have. It could never be fixed in stone as, say, the role of our foreign secretary as the representation will be ad hoc by nature. So the treaty can only propose the existence of such a post, not rule the conduct.
However, there IS a major problem here, and one that William Hague on one side and, say, our First Lord of the Treasury on the other both revel in; the nature of the wording.
Having had to struggle with many legal documents over the years I do understand much (okay, perhaps just some) of this, at a push - but the politicians, and probably also the media, are banking on the fact that most of us won't understand a single word of it.
Therefore William Hague can tell his supporters that it means that we are selling our souls, and they will take him on his word.
Of course, in reality, and if anything went seriously wrong in Europe, the power of this treaty will be as meaningless as that ephemeral idea of "International Law" that people love to say we have broken over Iraq.
Europe survives at the end of the day, because we nations need it to survive and let it survive. This treaty and others are attempts to formalise something that exists anyway to a certain extent.
Now, we can argue whether that formalisation (i.e the EU) is needed or not - I think it is - but it would be nice to conduct the argument without the scaremongering gibberish that pervades BOTH sides of the argument!
PS: I think you have gained a couple of fans above!
The fact that on page 44 the treaty replaces the word 'countries' with 'states' says it all.
Before one tries to make a big fuss about this EU Treaty, I would ask myself, (How much would the people know what they would be voting for in a referendum?) Laura, the Tories want to cling onto something, and the usual excuse was Europe. Why am I saying WAS, because they think that the public is still eurosceptic. Well, there is news for them. The British public believe Blair and Brown when they declared that nothing is changing our laws on this land, including foreign policy, end of!
The tories have got a very long way to go to achieve what Blair has done to the Labour party. He got rid of the lefties or rather (communist sympatysers) and never gave in to their demands, and neither will Brown.
As an ex Tory, I will not be taking the old nostalgia to heart again, and Cameron is no stuff to RADICALLY CHANGE the party IN SUBSTANCE, not in presentation!
This attitude of all Europeans are wrong and that only the Conservative's naive foreign policies are right, will not win elections no more.
At present this new EU Treaty is a working document, meaning that it can still be changed. Mr Hague instead of banging on about a referendum should first give us the Conservative Party's analyses of it. Which parts are acceptable, which parts they want changed and how, which parts are so against the British interest that the whole treaty should be rejected. This ofcourse would highlight the divisions within the party hence the banging on about the referendum. If the David Cameron Conservative Party are serious about forming the next government they must grasp the Europeian nettle now, otherwise they will have the same fate as the Conservative Party. Mr Hague in particular should realise if there was to be a referendum it would be the Prime Minister who would formulate the question and in such a way that it would take the party years to recover if all all.
Albert wrote above 'The British public believe Blair Brown when they declared that nothing is changing our laws on this land, including foreign policy, end of!'
I'm sorry but either this is blatant trolling to provoke a response or Albert is on a completely different planet to the rest of us! Neither of Messers Blair or Brown are exactly renown for telling the truth to the British public and I'm sure I don't need to go detail the many examples here to illustrate that point!
If however the Prime Minister truely believes that then he should have the balls to to put it to the British public at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manor ie via a referendum!
We are being advised by the Brown administration that the original constitution document on which the government promised a referendum has been revised to a degree that allows him to abandon that promise.
Until the next general election when a new mandate will be sought it seems to me that the government has only three honourable alternatives:
1. Hold a general election before making a committment.
2. Hold a referendum.
3. Explain in simple terms which changes release them from the referendum obligation and why.
At the moment Mr Brown and his team seem to be hiding behind a mist of ambiguity and confusion generated by this latest tome.
Whatever the balance of truth is it is becoming increasingly clear that unless this issue is decided by a referendum or a general election Mr Brown is going to have a serious credibility problem.
We share 99% of our DNA with chimps. The devil is always in the detail.
Of course, every EU treaty should be ratified by Constitution as in Ireland. but the UK has no written Constitution, no notion of popular sovereignty and no history of doing it. If the Tories were following the arguments to their natural conclusion, they might be taken more seriously.
Laura
Changing labels and leaving the contents undisturbed is blatant. If Gordon Brown must seek to mislead us, he should at least show us enough respect to try to make the deception plausible ?
Whether or not a referendum is a good idea well may be arguable. However, it manifestly clear that the proposal on the table is the same as that on which the government judged it right to give its word to hold a referendum.
When a Prime Minister treats the electorate with contempt, even contempt by stealth, pretty soon the feeling will become mutual.
As it was with Blair, so shall it be with Brown.
Why cannot Mr Brown simply say, "There are no new powers being transferred to the EU in the proposed treaty, I guarantee".
He will then be the only leader in the 27 EU members who will be in step!.
Five hundred years ago, the city of Venice was a great world power.
Two hundred years ago, colonies from Massachusetts to North Carolina realised that on their own they would be too weak to effect any influence, and would be run by others.
Only continental powers have a hope of getting anything done. On their own, Germany, France, Finland and Britain can all very easily be ignored, for the same reason that nobody worries about annoying Sao Tome and Principe - they cannot do anything. The European Union, however, can stand head to head with the US, Russia, China and India. We have a choice to make - matter, or be irrelevant. Influence, or be forgotten.
The Tories want to destroy a thousand years of standing on the world stage, retreating into some small island backwater where maybe just maybe we can occasionally rattle Iceland's cage. That's not good enough. Some of us actually care about the world. A federal system, in which central government has powers over foreign affairs, external security, internal trade and environmental matters, and the states control the rest works in Australia, the US, Canada, India, Russia, etc. It's beyond ridiculous to suggest that only in Europe is it a bad idea.
Of course there must be a referendum. Two reasons: i)The people have NEVER been asked if they agree to be in a European Union (only the Common Market, and that was in 1975). ii) If it is such a good thing why is there a reluctence to "ask the people". The reason is obviously because the politicians know the people will reject. This is a scandle against democracy.
Maybe I am an old grumpy 50 something but everytime I have heard any politician say that "this agreement does not really effect the UK",I know that it really will.
Eurosceptic,yes,because I feel I have been lied to about the EU over the last 30 odd years.
I also notice that whenever a referendum goes against the EU,they somehow get around the will of the people who voted.This latest document is the latest way of doing such.
The same old debates, the same old problems.
A thought.
Would we have ended up with a better, more cooperative Europe if the Common Market, EU, etc, had never been formalised?
I suspect we would have done more, through a sense of cooperation, than we have done through bureauocracy and dictat. And we would have done it willingly and without suspicion.
Dear Laura, no*8* referred to my contribution, and although he talks a lot he does not actually say anything. Why? Because if he does not have any idea of what this treaty is all about, maybe he should stick to children's blogs.
This particular blog is about the EU treaty and not a political person's trust.
We have an election to decide about the issue of trust. Grow up, and do your homework!
I would not believe either Brown or Blair if they told me they where Prime Minister they cannot tell anything straight.
Remember, "some of the people" etc. etc. etc.
We are supposed to be a democracy, and so any changes to our personal level of influence need to have authorisation of the people who's rights and authority may be watered down. I expect us to EVENTUALLY aim at globalisation of policy and law, but feel that this is best achieved by discussion, reason and referendum rather than oligarchic decisions. You only need to consider the evils generated in the world by dictators, autocrats and oligarchs to realise that we as a people deserve our say over how our lives are run, and that the unity sought can only ever come about by agreed changes. If we have such regulations dictated to us by undemocratic or pseudo-democratic politicians then the popular resistance will destroy any chance of unity, and divide the politics from that point hence. The way to unity lies in transparency and mutual agreement, not in posturing and lies.
We won't just have to worry about our own national Nanny state alone after this, we'll have that AND the EU nanny state disrespecting our intellectual integrity and personal freedoms. We should work closely on as much as possible, but liberty and unity will be reduced if policy is approached in this fashion, where they should be unified. Isn't the true sense of democracy only served by allowing the people to decide on such wide-ranging matters as this?
Why am I so suspicious of the EU? Because of the lack of democratic control.
Having European govt.s cosily "agree things" is no reassurance. The past history of such govt.s is appalling. Look at the 19th century or the twentieth with Hitler, Mussolini and Franco - even De Gaulle.
If the EU parliament had TEETH and could control the Commission then things might be different, but having bureaucrats make the laws for the parliament to rubber-stamp is crazy and the wrong way round as well.
Really reform Europe. Make the Parliament sovereign and membership of the parliament by election ONLY with seats allocated on a constituency basis. PR lists allow parties to cherry pick MEPs who will do as they are told. MEPs should be accountable.
This treaty won't do that - it's just another "gentleman's agreement" cooked up in "smoke filled rooms" that the odrinary plebs - you and me - are supposed to swallow without question.
The EU is a great idea - atrociously badly implemented.
Albert (or should I say No 6 & 17), I have to say that Keith (No 8 in your world) made a very valid point when he talked about trust. Yes, this is about the EU Treaty/Constitution but it is ALSO about those people that we TRUST to deal with it on our behalf. Those people currently in power (your favoured party now, I assume) promised a referendum on the EU Treaty and are now trying worm their way out of it. Politics is all about trust - as the Tories discovered to their cost in 1997 and Brown could well discover if he and his colleagues continue with the mealy-mouthed mindset that they appear to have adopted.
And one more thing Albert - it has always been my belief that anyone who resorts to personal insults during a debate (as you seem to have done with Keith) is well on the way to losing the debate.
People in this country need to wake up to the manipulation that is going on here:
1. After rejecting the idea of a referendum, because the EU Constitution was only a 'tidying up exercise', Blair announced a referendum in April 2004. Then just over a year later in June 2005, our referendum was cancelled. But given that the referendum was announced just before the Euro elections in 2004 and was cancelled just after the 2005 general election, it is obvious this was just a charade to enhance Labour's election prospects.
2. When Blair announced the referendum in the Commons April 2004, he was asked by Conservative MP David Heathcoat-Amory: "If another member state holds a vote and rejects a constitution before we hold a referendum, will he go ahead with his promised referendum, or will he use that as an excuse to cancel the British national referendum?". Tony Blair replied: "No, of course not. The referendum should go ahead in any event, of course it should". (Hansard April 20th, 2004). However, when Holland and France rejected the Constitution, our referendum was promptly cancelled, why? Because Labour feared they would loose the referendum.
3. Now we are being told a referendum is not necessary because the document is not the same and because our 'red lines' have all been protected. However, according to Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, who was a member of the steering group that produced the draft EU Constitution, the new treaty "still contains all the significant changes of the original draft" and "in broad terms there is nothing new about the red lines. The same opt-outs and red lines were obtained and secured in the previous treaty, which the Government signed up to and decided should be the subject of a referendum. Nothing has changed" (Sunday Telegraph, July 29th, 2007).
Some of you may call Labour's actions 'spin', but where I come from its called lying, plain and simple. The fact is that in promising a referendum over the EU Constitution, Labour promised us a say over our future relationship with the EU. And as Gisela Stuart argued in the Commons last month "this is now a question of trust. It is a question of having given a commitment to a referendum on a document that we say is good for Britain. We should ask the people to endorse that. If we are so confident that it is good, we should have the confidence to ask the people"
If you agree we should have our say over the EU then visit: www.proreferendumrally.co.uk and sign the Downing St petition at:
Sounds about right, Joss. People just like to argue and finger point. Doesn't matter if it's some game, a blog topic, or a European treaty. Egos at the bottom railing at egos at the top. It's all just so much beating of chests and tearing of clothes.
The world is imprecise. Things change. Stuff happens. It makes liars, robbers, and whores of us all. People need to wake up? Of course they do. It's the raison d'etre of Zen Buddhism. If you want to peddle your warez, you've got competition, darling.
Dear Laura, I apologise to have to bother you again. May I say to no *8* and no *21* the following.
Can you mention the laws in this treaty which you do not agree with? Please do not be hypothetical, but stick to what is said in the treaty.
I repeat my phrase, that we have elections to decide who we trust. That occasion arises in a general election. THAT IS THE DEMOCRATIC WAY, and not keep grumbling and mumbling words, because one does not have any knowledge regarding the topic! Thanks Laura, and I hope you have a nice holiday when Nick returns.
Albert,
there's a case to be made that Britain has moved away from the position you describe. I think a new consensus has emerged that challenges the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament: in constitutional issues, there is now a feeling that British democracy will be best served by referenda. Thus, Scottish and Welsh devolution were not established by parliamentary decree, or, at least, not without popular support in a referendum. The Welsh vote was close: do you think Labour ought to have introduced devolved government there whatever the result, or, indeed, that there ought not to have been a referendum at all?
It is inconceivable that a future government could, on the basis simply of electoral success, take Britain in to the euro wthout a referendum (although you must think otherwise). I wold anticipate any future reform to the voting system in the UK likwise would be put to a plebicite (Only you would disagree).
(Indeed, the only major constitutional reform that has not been and probably will not be put to referendum is reform of the HoL, but I suspect that arrangement to be in the interests of all sides of the political class, the importance of which is all too easily overlooked by the public, since no party wishes to upset the applecart.)
Or maybe not - it is conceivable that a future government might try to legislate on any of the above examples without a referendum. It is inconceivable, though, to think that nobody would oject to that, or that their objection would have no merit.
The position you argue from is rigidly paternalistic; with regard to constitutional issues, at least, will you not allow people to believe that constitutional change - change, that is, to the very way we are governed -ought to be decided by the people directly?
There's an argument to be had here, with legitimate points on both sides: bellowing 'IDIOT' down the internet doesn't do service to either.
DrK
Hi Laura,
Contribution no*25* keeps repeating the word inconceivable. One wonders why certain people do this.
Can one mention the country that has joined the Euro currency through a referendum?
Can one mention one E.U. country that is going for a referendum to ratify the last E.U. treaty?
Can one mention one parliamentary rule that obliges the U.K. Govt. to go for a referendum before it overhauls the House of Lord, if we have a PM with balls?
Yes, it is inconceivable to think, that one has to go for a referendum if say the Welsh or the Scots go it alone and be independent.
That would mean the end of the word U.K. or Britain, as we know it today, because we do not have a written CONSTITUTION.
Please allow me to enrich your memory that the U.K. is the only country without a written CONSTITUTION.
Guess what that means? As it stands the Govt. in Westminster can legislate whenever about whatever, and whoever, without a referendum, simple majority in parliament rules.
As it stands, the PM can also take this country to war without the authority of parliament, or even discussion.
Looks like some people in U.K. are now realising, that not all that E.U. countries have different from us in U.K. is wrong!
At the end of the day this blog of Cut & Paste is about (what is there to use the referenda for?)
Which part of this treaty effects the way Westminster governs? One cannot mention our CONSTIUTION because we do not have one! Thanks Laura.
Albert,
let's put aside for a second that, to my mind, using the word 'inconceivable' twice hardly constitutes the repetition you seem to suggest above. (Three times might be 'keeps repeating', twice is stretching things a bit...)
Instead, I'll try to answer your points.
Of course, I cannot name a European country which joined the Euro after a referendum. There is't one. On the other hand, I can name two countries (Denmark and Sweden) that held such referenda and voted not to adopt the Euro. Moreover, I can name a further pair which held referenda on the ratification of the Maastricht treaty - a treaty that, as I am sure you know, with the negotiated exceptions of the UK and Denmark, obliged exisiting members to join the Euro - France and Ireland. (Denmark did, even with it's opt-outs). Further, Ireland, at least, would have been obliged to have a direct referendum on adopting the Euro, were it not for the preceding referendum on Maastricht.
You only asked for one European country that intends to hold a referendum on the most recent EU treaty, so Ireland ought to suffice.
Now, on to your comments on my previous posting.
I agree, for the reasons set out above, that a referendum is extremely unlikely on HoL reform. More's the pity.
You seem to have missed my point regarding Wales and Scotland. You, rightly, suggest that Scottish or Welsh *independence* is inconceivable without a referendum. Above, though, I pointed out that Scottish and Welsh *devolution* (which did not reult in 'the end of the word UK or Britain') proceeded by way of referenda. I repeat, with emphasis: you surely feel that those referenda ought not to have been held at all - that a PM 'with balls' ought to have pushed the matter through parliament without the consultation of a plebicite.
You then proceed to patronise me concerning the constitutional arrangement of the UK. I wonder why: did I appear spectacularly ignorant? Above, I suggested that the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament may well be undergoing something of a change, and tht a more nuanced view might be in order. By your reasoning, a future UK government could repeal the acts of devolution and return 'direct rule' to Westminster. I would agree that this is possible, by virtue of the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament; I would add that such a move is, and here I almost hesitate, but then proceed with caution, pretty much *inconceivable* - that a UK government *would* not act in such a way. Presumably you disagree?
The times, they are a changin'. I suspect that a precedent (upon which, as you - our resident constitutional expert - are surely perfectly aware, the unwritten constitution of the UK operates) is forming regarding the limitation of the doctrine of the supremacy of parliament in the face of fundamental constitutional reform.
I'd love to comment on the following sentence, as it seems to be some sort of trumphant conclusion to your paternalistic treatise:
'Looks like some people in the U.K. are now realising, that not all E.U. countries have different from us in U.K is wrong!'
Unfortunately, it makes no sense whatsoever.
I crueller man than I would make a cheap jibe about your argument to date - I'm not so impolite, however. Now, let's see whether you can put your polite hat on if you decide to respond...
Yours,
DrK
80% cut, some paste, as the new document is about 1/5 of the length of the rejected "Constitution."
Laura, welcome to this blog.
Of course there needs to be referendum on the current "not-a -constitution" Trojan horse-style treaty. As the Open Europe Forum says it's 96% of the old Constitution rejected by France & Holland in 2005. Why 96% - because out of about 250 articles in the previous document, only 10 were removed (eg the flag & the anthem, & 240 remain. Hence the "96% constitution"!
There are all sorts of hidden items in it- eg Article 308 which hints at the EU(LD) (ie the EU of Lies & Deception) perhaps gaining tax powers of its own ("having access to its own resources") in the future.
The EU(LD)'s new President will be elected by the EU(LD)'s "toy Parliament" in Brussels & Strasbourg (what a waste to still have both!), but not by you & I, or elected representatives in EU(LD) member states in their national parlaments. Yet the "toy parliament is notoriously & obsessively "EU(LD) fanatical, so they will almost cetainly elect someone of the same ilk. Pity those countries which are not so taken up by EU(LD) centralism!
There's lots more to say about this bogus "not-the-Constitution" Trojan Horse-style Treaty. But the simple answer to it all is: give Britain its democracy back, starting with a referendum on this current treaty!
Though I was never against the original constitution, I really don't see what the fuss is all about with the new treaty. So the treaty is mostly a recycling job. As most of the original constitution was simply a tidying-up exercise to somewhat simplify the series of treaties that now governs the EU, that seems fair --after all, this still needs to be done.
I also cannot understand why the UK should be opposed to a stronger EU foreign policy line. After all, the UK will still have a (rather significant) voice in forming that policy, and, once enacted, it will have the full diplomatic weight of all member states behind it, rather than just this country's. When we factor in the fact that the UK ceased to be a Great Power decades ago (Security Council seat or not), and is still moderately disliked in large swathes of the world due to its imperialist past, I really can't see why UK politicians wouldn't want to capitalise on this new opportunity and lead the way, rather than blocking progress.
As much as I like the idea of a referendum on this, I fear that there can be no such thing as an open referendum as the popular media will inevitably decide the outcome. With a certain Mr Murdoch controlling so much of the media (and a lot of the rest not being allowed to have an opinion one way or the other i.e. the 91Èȱ¬) a referendum would cause the treaty to be rejected, regardless of the content.
Were an open, unbiased referendum possible based purely on the facts of the treaty then it would be a good idea. As things stand at the moment all things are not equal and therefore we must trust those that we voted for (after all they're only there because of us).
If this Treaty is so threatening to British identity and Parliamentary sovereignty, why hasn't even one of the great defenders of the UK sought a recall of Parliament fr some propoer scrutiny over the summer?
Hmmmn, I thought so. This argument is about something else entirely.
RE Ben, #31, I cannot agree with your somewhat naive view on this subject.
In what way do you suppose the 91Èȱ¬ is impartial on the subject of Europe? Are you suggesting that the 91Èȱ¬ offers equal time to both sides of the argument, or that interviewers do not take a hostile view to those that suggest we need to rein back our integration into the new EU superstate? If so, you must be reading / listening to or watching a different 91Èȱ¬ from the one I help to fund. Yes, newspapers and other organisations can offer their own views, with little or no need for balance, but it is up to us whether we choose to fund them. The 91Èȱ¬ on the other hand sucks up our money and offers an extremely narrow view based on the bias of those that operate within it. I am not able to avoid the tax that goes with this propaganda.
Likewise, and perhaps more importantly, do you think the EU will sit on the sidelines and not advertise or promote a positive view of itself while a referendum was underway? Highly unlikely in the extreme don't you think?
As to the politicians in the UK, in what way do you think we should trust them to take a rational or balanced view on this matter? After all they were the very ones who said that we would have a referendum on the issue (as included in their election maifesto) only to turn around now and say that what looks like the same document is in fact different? These are the same people who failed to hold Blair to account for his lies (or at best, delusions) on WMD. They are the same people who have interfered with the independence of the Select Committee system by fixing the appointment of Keith Vaz to the 91Èȱ¬ Affairs Committee, and his subsequent appointment as Chairman (something for which Harriet Harman should now offer her resignation as the supposed impartial Leader of the House as it was she who led the debate on this subject the day before the House rose for the Summer).
Finally, if you feel that the electorate cannot be trusted to vote rationally on this issue in a referendum, how can we then accept that the general election was not in itself wholly flawed? After all, the wishes of the people are not reflected to any great degree within the first past the post system.
Re John (#32),
You appear to be mixing up the issues concerned with the debate. We have not yet arrived at a point where anything is to be put to Parliament, and in these circumstances, there is nothing that can be put to a referendum. So why would we need Parliament to be recalled?
Having said that, there is a need to have the Treaty discussed in terms of its full implications for the ordinary citizen as well as for our institutions. At the end of the process, what is wrong with agreeing to have a referendum in line with the Labour manifesto?
Believe it or not, there are sane people who do not view it appropriate for the UK to give its sovereignty to another body on the say so of the Labour Party who don't have a majority in Scotland never mind the UK as a whole.
Finally, if you read widely, you will find many defenders of the UK who are strident in their determination that we should not adopt the Treaty unless and until the electorate have their explicit say on the matter.
Should we be charitable re the claims above that such and such a continental leader believes that the Reform Treaty is so many percent of the original and rejected Constitution?
They are speaking form their individual country's perspectives, the UK has various opt outs.
Not sure my charity is concentrated on UKIP, the BNP and the Dave 2 Davies and Wm HagueTory party, so no . . .
Most of them are disingenuos in their machinations.
Had they true concern for a particular issue they would have agreed on that and tried to get that section of the Treaty changed,
The leaders of these factions favour their own reactionary dirigisme, be warned.
For most of the former Treaty's gestation, the Government was resolute in calling it a Constitutional Treaty, rather than a Constitution pure and simple (because it was an agreement between sovereign states which would only come into force when those states ratified it).
So the fact that the "constitutional" aspects are largely withdrawn (although many of them remain in force as the law of the European Union) gives them justification for saying it isn't the old Constitutional Treaty, just a treaty making reforms the Government has long been saying are necessary.
As for a referendum, I could understand if it were on joining the Union, or maybe even remaining in it. However, where a Treaty both reworks what's already there, and makes some more substantial changes, how is one expected to vote? On the basis of clause 2,345.67, or on the Treaty as a whole? The French seem largely to have been voting against elements that were carried forward from the earlier Treaties, rather than any of the changes - the opposite of the presumed situation here. Not sure I can see how that particular circle could be squared!
Stephen (33) - I agree with your broad position, but find your conclusion absurd. You're right, the 91Èȱ¬ isn't unbiased. You're wrong about the direction. Considering the amount of time they spend fawning over UKIP spokesmen, allowing them free reign to spew lies, propaganda and fear without any challenge, it's not possible to call the 91Èȱ¬ neutral; they're as vitriolically Europhobic as the rest of the MSM.
Laura
Here's more evidence from the Open Europe blog's site of Monday, August 06, 2007 that the EU(LD)'s new "not-the Constitution" treaty is in fact the Constition (thankfully rejected in 2005) by French & dutch voters) all over again. [ie the EU of Lies & Deception] See:
The text reads:
"A couple of weeks ago Gordon Brown accidentally talked at a press conference about how he had discussed "the Constitution" with the Irish PM.
But he isn't the only one making that Freudian slip. It turns out that the Portuguese presidency of the EU have also left in a couple of references to "the Constitution" in the new text of the Constitution "Reform Treaty".
Article 4 of the "new" treaty (a.k.a. Article I-14 of the Constitution) states that "The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Constitution confers on it a competence which does not relate to the areas referred to in Articles [I-13 and 17].
Article 188c(6) of the "new treaty (a.ka. article III-315 of the Constitution) states that: "The exercise of the competences conferred by this Article in the field of the common commercial policy shall not affect the delimitation of competences between the Union and the Member States, and shall not lead to harmonisation of legislative or regulatory provisions of the Member States insofar as the Constitution excludes such harmonisation."
God knows how a reference to the rejected Constitution slipped into this totally-spanking-new, never-seen-before, amending-institutional-mini-reform treaty.
Labels: the truth will out - through typos!
Now you know why I call it the EU(LD) - the EU of Lies & Deception. A well-deserved title, it seems!