A major concession?
Just seen a copy of a report by the Germans to national governments about the new treaty. Got to rush because I鈥檓 trying to do something for both Radios Four and Five. On first sight it's not great news for the British Government.
It says that Britain, France and the Dutch can have a smaller, amending treaty, not called a constitution - but other countries have made it clear this is 鈥渁 major concession鈥 and 鈥渢hey insist on the need to preserve the substance of the innovations agreed鈥 in the run up to the constitution.
They want next week's summit to give a 鈥減recise and comprehensive鈥 mandate to a conference in the autumn. And they say among the sticking points are still...
- 鈥 The question of the primacy of EU law... a big one this.
- 鈥 Terminology... not sure what this means (I mean, I do, but not in this context).
- 鈥 The charter of fundamental rights... they note that some (like Britain) want this out of the treaty and others oppose this. So they suggest as long as it is made clear that it is legally binding that will be ok.
- 鈥 Details of foreign policy... including whether there is a foreign minister...
- 鈥 "Delineation of competencies" between EU and member states.
- 鈥 The role of national parliaments.
This, of course, is not the end of the negotiations. Sorry for the breathless tone... must rush.
UPDATE: Here are some key excerpts from the German document:
- "All Member States recognise that further uncertainty about the treaty reform process would jeopardise the Union's ability to deliver. Settling this issue quickly is therefore a priority... there is a very strong demand for the Union to increase its efficiency, to enhance its democratic functioning and to improve the coherence of its external action."
- "A certain number of Member States underlined the importance of avoiding the impression which might be given by the symbolism and the title 'Constitution' that the nature of the Union is undergoing radical change. For them this also implies a return to the traditional method of treaty change through an amending treaty, as well a number of changes of terminology, not least the dropping of the title 'Constitution'.
- "Such an approach is not incompatible with the demand from those Member States which have already ratified, that as much of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty as possible should be preserved. They are ready to consider the alternative method of treaty change... They have made it very clear however that this would represent a major concession. They insist on the need to preserve the substance of the innovations agreed upon in the 2004 IGC."
- "Some delegations have requested that the text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights be removed from the Treaty. Others strongly oppose this move. Most of the latter could however accept it, provided that the legally binding character of the Charter is preserved by means of a cross-reference in the body of the Treaty."
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Why are we still talking about primacy? That's been around in pretty much the same form since 1962.
The UK needs another referendum on Europe. The previous referendums were all held on the basis of Europe being an "Economic" institution and not a "Political" one. Europe is rapidly becoming a political institution and the people of the UK need to decide for themselves if they want to be a part of it.
Because Eurosceptics find it far more convenient to wave around clause X of a "Constitution" than waving around Costa vs ENEL (which indeed was part of the acqus when we joined in 1973).
I was never offered a referendum on whether or not I wanted the capital in London, or to be part of some "UK", or "England" the existence of neither of which do I recognise. Why on earth should it matter where your laws come from, as long as those laws are good and just? Roll on a Federal Europe, tracing its existence from two thousand years of antiquity.
This is a classic case of the EU elites trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
No new treaties without a referendum on:
1) Continued UK membership in the EU.
2) Further transfer of powers from our elected parliament to Brussels.
The UK Government won't like this memo much. The draft makes it sound like legal personality for the EU has been agreed - but there is no way the UK will sign up to that. Hain and others are on the record saying it would be a problem. And other EU leaders have said it would mean a big transfer of power to the EU.
Rpomano Prodi said that the constitution was "A gigantic leap forward" becuase "Europe can now play its role on the world stage thanks to its legal personality".
The French Government's website on the issue said that "The European Union naturally has a vocation to be a permanent member of the Security Council, and the Constitution will allow it to be, by giving it legal personality."
The memo makes it sound like the UK is going to have to fight a number of battles which everyone had thought were over... making it much more difficult to get on the front foot.
A genuinely fair piece on the EU from the 91热爆,please keep up this transparent mode of reporting - a welcome change from the tradition of 91热爆 cover up of EU developments unpopular at home.
A question: Frau Merkel insists the EU needs this constitution if the EU 'is to deliver'...deliver WHAT? It is designed to take from us, not deliver anything.
There is a major difference between the supremacy of EU law when it relates to the maximum curvature of cucumbers, and when the EU may create law in almost any area and impose it using QMV over the heads of voters. Already we have the situation that national referendums on any area where there is an existing EU law (e.g. on death penalty or even the minimum rate of VAT) must be ignored by national law makers with the powers in Brussels under no obligation to pay them any heed. When the EU creates law it replaces not just national law, but the ability of our national Parliaments to legislate in the area covered by the new European law. Over decades the inevitable result of this will be the slow extinguishing of democracy as we know it. The "community method" gives a monopoly right to initiate legislation superior to any national law to an unelected body (the Commission). Under the terms of current treaties a Commission proposal may be accepted by a qualified majority but can only be modified with the unanimous support of all 27 countries in the Council of Ministers (unless they are supported by the European Parliament as per Article 251 EC) and the Commission may withdraw and amend its proposal at any time (Article 250 EC) should it fear such unanimity may develop. It is ironic that the EU Commission should be so strongly in favour of removing national vetoes in the Council of Ministers and so passionate in preserving its monopoly of legislative initiative (which is essentially a pre-veto) on EU law. Such power to control the legislative agenda by the EU executive has no equivalent in any parliamentary or presidential democracy in the world and is totally inappropriate for an unelected supranational body. To use the 鈥渃ommunity method鈥 to decide major issues that previously swung national elections is totally unacceptable. This constitution must be defeated (again) if democracy is to be safe in the future. It is no accident the Constitution鈥檚 proponents have to resort of deceit to have it ratified, but if we let them get away with this there will be nothing that they will not feel they can get away with in future. Wake up Britain before it is too late.
This news story from today's press says it all.
EUBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The architect of the draft EU constitution has called on national governments to be honest about what they are trying to achieve with negotiations on a new-look treaty for the bloc and not deceive EU citizens.
Writing in French daily Le Monde, Val茅ry Giscard d'Estaing said EU leaders should not be afraid to tell citizens that they are essentially trying to preserve the text of the constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters two years ago.
"If governments agree on a simplified treaty preserving the essential institutional advances, they should not be afraid to say so and write so."
Pointing to the likelihood that the original constitution will be divided up with its "innovative elements" tacked on to the current Nice and Maastricht treaties and technical parts put into a non-descript treaty, the former French president noted that the public would then be "led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them 'directly'."
While noting that it might be a good exercise in "presentation" he went on to criticise that it will "reinforce the idea among European citizens that European construction is a machinery organised behind their backs by jurists and diplomats."
If Britain, the Netherlands, Poland and Czech Republic (and France) do not want to agree on closer union and would rather stick with their national authonomies, then I think that only fair solution would be to leave them out of new union. This could be done same way as with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. In this way other 23 countries would not be hostages of British egoism or Polish germanofobia and these countries could continue to enjoy their position of american puddles ever after.
Sir
I worked most of my life in Continental Europe. A Federation? Yes but not this one. A Constitution? Yes but not this one. Please gives us an elected Government, two Chambers and stop this dictatorship of the people by an unelected, self-serving alliance amongst unelected Commissioners, unenquiring national Ministers of State and hordes of self-appointed Public Administrators!
If you want to set the rules which govern (euphemism for dictate) my life I expect the right to vote you out of office within four years!
Another attempt to make the people of Europe swallow yet more integration that they do not want. Yes Costa and I. Handelsgesellschaft make EC law supreme but the reality is most in the UK do not know that and it is also possible to reduce the level of integration. We should have a referendum on this latest measure which will be a constitution in all but name. It is right to say that we dealing with politics rather than mere economics now.
Milosh (10), thanks we'll gladly stay out. But I wonder, how are you going to replace the money that Britain and Netherlands will then no longer be putting in? By squeezing more out of Germany?
Much pressure must be brought by us Dutch on our politicians to make sure they don't try and betray us again.
But as I said, you can have your federation (led by France) and be dictated by Brussels (Paris).
Think of some of the big problems confronting people in Britain today: global warming, terrorism,mass migration,Russia - on energy; the US - on many things .... These are all problems that cross frontiers, and ones that even big countries (let alone medium sized one like Britan) can't handle alone. Europe together is in a better position - and whether in or out, what Europe decides will heavily affect us. The key issue in not whether we need European or international action, but how to get it, what it should be, and how to control it. Thus, when the German document says that the EU must "increase its efficiency, enhance its democratic functioning and improve the coherence of its external action" this seems to me to be spot-on. We must get out of the mind-set that Europe just want to do (nasty) things to us, and recognise that we need Europe to do things with us.
What gets me is that, in spite of globalisation - or perhaps because of it - petty national interests take precedence over stability, peace, freedom, etc., all of which the EU (-constitution) ensures and guarantees. If it was up to me, I'd gladly cede all power to a European President/ Parliament/ Foreign Secretary & Constitution. That is the way to go!
Milos, contrary to what most of the media and bureaucrats would like us to believe just because Poland, Britain, and Czech's have a problem with this treaty won't be the grim end of EU. That's right, the name is EU not Germany. Fact is that Germany is trying to pay off Poland with additional votes, because they do not want Poland proposed "squere root" way of vote distribution which would give more power to small and mid size countries. Under current proposal Germans would only need France and couple of other countries to make decisions for all of UE.
MaxSceptic:
Re: a referendum on further transfer of powers from our elected parliament to Brussels
We don't need one then, a Council President will put more power in the hands of Member States and their elected governments.
What does 'to Brussels' mean? Are you talking about the City Council?
Ibnez
Re: [the EU] is designed to take from us, not deliver anything.
It has delivered peace, prosperity, a single market (along with standards and safeguards to prevent abuse and lowest common denominator competition), technological progress through European R&D cooperation, and more freedom of movement for people.
Jake wrote:
"Under current proposal Germans would only need France and couple of other countries to make decisions for all of UE."
That is just simply wrong. The new proposed voting system requires 55% of member states representing 65% of the population. That means that not even Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain, Poland and Romania could force the others to follow, because they need the consent of other memberstates aswell. It means that both small and large memberstates need to approve of legislation before it is introduced. It is more functional and democratic than the current voting system.
As a Dane I would much rather have the new system, even if that means Denmark loses some impetus in the voting process, because I know that in the end, everyone will gain from it.
David Jones,
If you don't know to what I refer when I say "Brussels" you are either naive ir lying.
NATO provided Europe with peace. Not the EU.
I am curious and suspicious about the wording of your defense of the indefensible. I am happy to declare that I have no interests or income related to the EU and do not represent any organisation that does. Can you say the same?
Mikkel - It is rediculous to say that we can "benefit" from being outvoted as a nation and required to live under law we disagree with. Would you accept Anscluss with germany in which Danes and Germans elected representatives to the same Bundestag - an institution with far more democratic credentials than any EU institution? I am sure a majority of Danes would not accept being required to live under laws decided by this Parliament if a majority of Danes disagreed with those laws. The reality of Europe is that it consists of nations. To compare Europe with the USA is to ignore the reality that the USA is one large nation-state. A federal EU state would be more analogous to multinational federations such as Yugoslavia or the USSR. These are always inherently politically unstable because they are not based on the solidarity and cohesion provided by the national 'demos' that the EU clearly lacks.
Your maths is dodgy Mikkel. Germany has 18.5% of the EU population and together with two other large states such as France and Italy would have 35% of votes necessary to block decisions in the Council of Ministers.
I am British and proud of that fact. However, I am also European and equally proud of this as well. I live in Antwerp and love this pot-pourri of Europe with it's myriad of culutral and theological ideas. You can call it federalism if you want but a shared constitution containing policy and laws throughout the Union where "one man, one vote" ensures each and every person within the EU gets an individual say in what happens with regard to their own lives is the only enlightened way to go.
We can use all the big words we like but I don't hear anyone say in plain English (or French, or Italian etc) this is what it will mean to you and make it easy for people to understand. I am unusally against dumbing-down but this is fundamental and needs to be explanied in terms that everyone from the poorist farmer in the East to the highest qualified economist in the West comphrehends.
The US created a constitution on one page which stated simply in it's preamble "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
A United Europe is going to happen, all we need to decide is whom, and I'm talking people here, not individual states, wants to step up and be counted.
John wrote:
"Your maths is dodgy Mikkel. Germany has 18.5% of the EU population and together with two other large states such as France and Italy would have 35% of votes necessary to block decisions in the Council of Ministers."
Blocking isnt really the same as introducing legislation. Blocking a proposal would still require at least 4 member states if I remember correctly, and of course blocking minorities need to be preserved to some extent.
So yes, Germany, France, Italy and the UK could potentially stop the block from moving forward, but so could Malta, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Estonia.
"John:
Mikkel - It is rediculous to say that we can "benefit" from being outvoted as a nation and required to live under law we disagree with."
Why? My views as a citizen are often at odds with the views of the "nation" as expressed through our elected official. I still think I've benefited by being a citizen of the UK, in comparison to being part of an anarchy. That's democracy; the majority consensus rules.
The EU has both direct democracy and second-tier democracy. We elect to the EU Parliament, and we elect to our national parliaments who then vote on some matters and elect others to administer the whole thing. I'm fairly certain there isn't a high ranking EU position where you don't need to be either elected by the people or elected by the people who HAVE been elected by the people.
All vetos must be returned to the member states asap. We will not accept any more vetos being removed. Netherlands has been taken for a ride by others who want us to shut up but keep paying.
And as I said before, if there is to be a 'weighed' system, all net contributors must have a bigger vote than net recipients meaning Spain should have the smallest vote of all.
Max Sceptic,
Given that NATO was set up to provide mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party, it's hard to see how this alone prevented conflict between member states. Tying France and Germany together economically, while providing a structure for joint decision-making, has been a major factor in avoiding conflict between two countries that had spent the previous centuries continually at war.
Your use of 'Brussels' is simply a rhetorical device to blur the distinctions between different institutions, and their different powers and roles, so that the phrase 'transfer of powers from our elected parliament to Brussels' really has no meaning.
Our lack of constitution means that, as British subjects, we have no rights that cannot be taken away by a parliamentary majority (usually under the control of the PM and his/her party whips). The EU, can actually increase our freedom (of movement, as just one example) and rights, through the joint decision making of our elected representatives to the Council and under the democratic oversight of the European Parliament.
It's not perfect, so let's reform it and make it work. The alternative would leave us less prosperous and with less influence.
Mikkel #23# "Blocking isnt really the same as introducing legislation."
Qualified Majority voting is only used in the Council of Ministers which is at the end of the EU's legislative 'pipeline'. Therefore this body is about blocking proposals. It cannot introduce legislation which is a monopoly right of the Commission. Therefore the important fact is not the 65% of population threshold required to approve legislation, but that 35% is required to block a Commission proposal. The Franco/German alliance would be very close to that threshold under the rules proposed by the rejected Constitution.
There is no doubt that the "Penrose" method of basing voting weights on the square-root of population with a threshold of 62% is the fairest scheme. See the following for example:
Mathew Walsh #24# "That's democracy; the majority consensus rules."
Democracy is more than majority voting. It is majority voting in the context of a "constitutional demos" or a People that accepts the will of the majority even when they are outvoted. This exists within nations but not between nations. The EU has no "constitutional demos". No decision taken by the European institutions (including the European Parliament) with which the British people or their parliament disagrees has any democratic legitimacy in this country. Previously the EU/EEC concentrated on minor matters of low political saliency (i.e. sensitivity) and it did not matter much if it decision-making lacked democratic legitimacy when deciding the maximum curvature of cucumbers, etc. But now it is making decisions in areas of ever greater sensitivity and the lack of legitimacy is laid bare. This is why the EU is suffering a crisis of legitimacy now. The only solution is to make EU law (outside the area of the common market) inferior to national law so that each national demos may accept it or not of its own free will as expressed by their national parliament.
Dear Mark
AS much as everyone goes along withh the propaganda of EUROPE, the case for a United Europe was set in stone on the 15th may 1954.
This was the first Bilderberge meeting and it has controlled every event ever since.
Europe as a united state will happen, no matter what.
Keep on doing the good job Tony (and Gordon) so we'll see this artificial "Union", which was undemocratically shoved down people's throat, finally crumbling down to pieces and every single people getting their freedom to decide their future.
I'm not talking about the European Union here, I'm talking about the Union where the Scots who, like the Irish a while ago, are sick of reactionary, undemocratic, foot-dragging dictated from those men in number 10, and are eager to step from the 2nd into the 3rd millennium. Five more years like this (and the inevitable recession that will set-in after so many years of artificial economic pumping by pushing the man on the street into huge debt) and the SNP will get its way in Scotland. Maybe Wales will follow suit and the Kingdom will have to surrender Northern Ireland to its people's will too...
On the more philosophical side, having lived in England for three years now I think that, despite the appearances engendered by some, such as non-British owned tabloid and overzealous posters on this blog, most people in England value each people's right (not only theirs) to decide their fate, more than imperialism and impositions and will oppose any use of force against non-violent centrifugal movements such as the SNP's (since Scotland is at the door-step this time the will of the people will prevail against that of the elected few, unlike Iraq).
In fact, paranoid Eurosceptics driven by the noisy propaganda media and British Empire nostalgics apart, the English people realise the value of their European heritage and reason will prevail against irrational gut feelings...
Not immediatly, though, but in the long run. English are reasonable people, but they don't like to admit it and they need their times to accept innovation that doesn't come from the former colonies (read USA). They joined the European Common Market 25 years late, they are adopting cold/hot water mixers 35 years late, they're heading to Croatia and Costa del Sol for vacation 45 years later than German/French, they have discovered the goods of double glazing 55 years later, many have traded stale beer for good wine and bad unhealthy food for delicious Mediterranean cuisine, and some, believe it or not, are even tearing carpets from the bathrooms and putting in tiles! So, they will eventually admit the benefits of being part of the EU super-state, as some like to call it, over those of being a proud (whatever that means) and isolated place.
Unfortunately, this attitude makes it so that the English never get to design much of the things they adopt from the Continent, whereas the Continentals embrace English ideas and start excelling at them very swiftly as to make their masters pale (see trains, football, etc.)
As much as I have always been a great lover of the UK, its History, culture and language, sometimes I really wonder why Britain is staying in the EU as a full member, as their policy has always been more than hypocritical.
Only in and for when they pleased, for their only purpose and personnal interest.
We are not any more in Philippe II of Spain and Napoleon's time. The War of Roses, the Wars of the XXth Century and Colonisation are over and the Berlin Wall has fallen.
Our days the partners fo the EU and the International policy should not be "take it or leave it" .
And most of all "the UK is not the salt of the earth".
Whichever side of the fence one sits on the question of Europe there can be no doubt that the UK's relationship with the Union has changed markedly since we first joined. Surely, whatever the depth or extent of the changes proposed in the new treaty, the people need to be given the chance to support or reject it. Arguing that a single Government elected by a tiny proportion of the voting population can bind Britain to such significant, long term change is fundamentally insupportable. Our Governments are quick to talk about inclusion and democracy, to claim that their policies come "from the people" but they are never brave enough to put the big questions to a wider vote. One wonders why.
The British Government fear a referendum because the 'YES' campaign would be open to much more scrutiny than the earlier one on the 'Common Market.' This would virtually guarantee exposure of the deliberately misleading EEC/EC/EU presentation fed to us by EVERY government since 1945.
Great Britain has traditionally been a reluctant member of the EU, perhaps half-heartedly joining at a time of relative national weakness in the early 70s. Today, the UK has not only regained serious stature in the world but ranks as one of the leading proponents of the benefits that open markets bring. As a wealthy, largely unilateral free trader (Britain was ever thus in the days of Empire), with world class institutions, the UK is ill-served by the bureaucratic (there is no English equivalent to this French word other than red tape), politically fractious, financially wasteful, inept and horrendously protectionist European Union. If there is to be a referendum it should today ask the British people a simple question - should Britain retain its EU membership or withdraw its EU membership.
I am so annoyed at how this has been passed without the people, which government speak for, have not had so much as even a vote nor a say on the matter!. I FEEL FUMING OVER IT!.
I wasn't around for the first referendum, but I am now.
I want my vote - and Blair tries to sound like he's doing me a favour by my not needing to have one this time.
Why was there such a rush?
The biggest problem has be the failure of EU governments to explain exactly what this Treaty entails.
To say that it is in the "best interests" of the citizens is patronising at its worst.
What's the big plan? One central Government that replaces all others?
Does anyone really know what the future holds?
Why exactly would you want a referendum about this, now?
We've never had a referendum on whether or not we should be governed from London.
I am very surprised to see that the amendment about competition policy is hardly mentioned in the debates following the EU summit.
In the raw of the negotiations, undistorted competition was downgraded from one of the main objectives of the Union to something contained in one of the (too) many protocols attached to the treaties.
So, taking advantage of the Poland-driven battle over the voting system, France managed to send a torpedo right in the heart of the internal market. So long 鈥渇urther opening to competition of markets dominated by national champions鈥! So long 鈥淟ess and better targeted State aids鈥! Mrs. Kroes鈥 frustration, the only commissioner who reacted after the EU summit, is explicable.