A pig in a poke?
The constitution will officially be "abandoned".
You read it first here. Well, maybe you didn't, but we had it first.
Crowing aside, it does seem the British government has largely got its own way, although there's a lot of detail to be settled. But Eurosceptics are pointing out that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be legally binding and they've got on their side.
In the Commons, perhaps with the scent of victory in her nostrils, Margaret Beckett says she won't buy "a pig in a poke". Of course, opponents fear the reverse. As I understand it, they are saying it means buying a pig in a sack which might turn out to be a worthless animal like, ahem, a cat.
Eurosceptics fear that the little piggy will grow and grow until it becomes a tuskily threatening wild boar.
It will be interesting to see whether the argument stays with the detail or turns into a much more general row about Europe and the UK.
I’m Mark Mardell, the 91Èȱ¬'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 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Anything that further takes power from the UK and other member states should be rejected. Any substantial changes without promised referendum should be rejected. European leaders must be reigned in with their "Grandiose" ideas. Europe is doing OK at the moment without any new European porkers. English law should be paramount without having to serve Europe.
The trouble is we hear so much about the politicians saying they won't accept this or that but very little about what it's actually all about. I've just had a look at the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights web site and I honestly can't see what they're all crowing about in Westminster. In-fact, it looks like the ordinary person in the street would be better off with this charter. It's time journalists started looking at it and explaining what it would really mean for us all instead of what politicians (from all parties) think we should be told. How about you leading the way Mark?
Dan Hannan told us to expect false negotiation posturing as described here by Mardell. The Treaty is the COnstitution - legally binding and obliterting all the sovereign nations of europe. There must be a referndum or a war. Personally I'd prefe a referendum.
Does Britain wish to remain a member of the EU?
Does Britain agree to the terms of the latest treaty pretending not to be a constitution, which it clearly is?
Oh, well if Dan Hannan told you...
Tony Blair should not count his chickens before they are hatched. According to my paper, Spain, as the only substantial State to approved the proposed Constitution by referendum, will not accept any 'red lines' from the U.K. or Poland. Nor will they accept watering down the proposed treaty specifically as regarding the rôle of the future Foreign Minister and the creation of a President of the E.U. 'El Pais' Front page and full page article (page 8 International - The future of Europe) Wednesday 20th June.
Henry (1) is right. What we will be presented with will be the old constitution, in different words and with a different name. Do not be fooled by any 'concession' such as removing references to a flag or anthem.
In Netherlands I already sense a wall of silence amongst much of the MSM (main stream media), who seem to have been bought off to report that the new treaty is vastly different (which it won't be). Also they will suggest that polls show that people support this (which they don't). Amongst my colleagues, friends and family the sentiment hasn't changed at all so I fear the fix is in.
The whole "the government of xxxxx largely got their way" is the reason why those governments are destroying the idea of Europe. I say if you don't want a united Europe, then get the hell out of the EU and don't bother those nations, who are clearly ahead of you.
The constitution is finally once and for all dead? Good!
Maybe we can finally develop the idea of having two different European projects going:
One that promotes real free trade and common financial and commercial standards across the continent and another that will create a federation of European countries.
I wonder what would happen to the UK if Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland opted to join the federation project?
I also wonder which block would have more say in economic issues? The ones who only opted for free trade or the ones within the federation?
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
The sooner we work out that sinking any EU proposals in order to score points out at home, the sooner the EU will become truly a powerful world force - with everyone boosted with it.
Seriously, there's a lot we can learn from our US cousins. United they stand, and divided we are sometimes dangerously close to falling. Let's sort it out please!
With all these "opt-outs" and "opt-ins" plus "red lines", could Mark Mardell explain to us whether Britain is in or out of the EU
After following the debates on this blog, I have flip flopped to the opinion that dumping this Constitution is a good thing. Not because Europe doesn't need one, no, because the one proposed was just to weak. The Poles were right with the demanding for equal right of the smaller nations and the Germans were right as well, population does need to be represented. Only solution to solve the above mess is by a two chamber system because guess what the thirdteen founding states of the US had just the same arguement.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is a necessity these days, because what we have seen with the whole CIA thing is that governments do kinda look the otherside when they want to.
If Britain really believes that it didn't got into a political union when they joined, they were very ignorant. Even the United Nations is political, even the World Trade Organization is political, everything you do is political, whether you like it or not. So stop using that silly argument that it isn't what you expected it to be. You got in, you have to deal with it. I always hear big talks about leaving, why don't? Very easy, it's the economy, duh.
Europe is now in a total stand still and it does not deserve anything better. The politicians of the European nation states are to blame, they only think about their own power and not the benefit of the people. And the public is guilty as well, by their conservative standpoints, by their shortsightedness. Do you really believe a disintegrated army will make you stronger? Do you really think to be divided makes you stronger? Do you really think sixty million people counts these days?
Lets just wake up and see what a world awaits use in 2020, because if we want to have an influence then, we have to do it something now.
Oh for Gods sake Mr Curteis, get a grip - referendum or war indeed! Cant Eurosceptics ever ease up on the exaggerations? In a world increasingly dominated by a militaristic and self-interested US, beligerent Russia, and growing China what voice do you believe a little Britain, France etc could possibly have? A strong EU foreign policy would be a stabilising and positive influence for peace. However, I see little chance of getting it while our little countries play their tribal games.
Here is the deal Let scrap the EU constitution and forgo to Turkey in the EU. If UK sign up then the 2 speed EU will take shape rapidly with the Euro zone as a core.
Dear Mr Mardell,
I wonder why it is that for some EU states this constitution/treaty, call it what you will, is either a) a "tidying up exercise" or b) one of the great issues of our miserable times and perhaps even the greatest thing since sliced bread. Shome mishtake surely as the great Private Eye would doubtless say - or at least an absurd contradiction.
Allow me to state one fact regarding the constitution (now to be scrapped or emasculated, making the piles of cash the likes of Spain and France spent on their referendums utterly pointless):
Only Luxembourg can say a majority of its population voted for it - and now it won't come into force anyway!
But what is really at issue is what would happen to the continent were the absurdly wasteful European Union to pack up and go home. Oh sorry, which home? Would that be Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg, between which the overpaid, expenses-grabbing, under-elected (look at the turnout) people who inhabit these endless corridors of "power" trundle endlessly up and down.
A plea to you as a senior journalist at a respected media organisation:
Just, for once, do a prime time piece to camera charting the cost of (eg) Strasbourg, taking all the building, refurbishment and transport costs into account.
The whole thing is totally unnecessary and the wider world should be reminded just how much it is costing.
And don't get me started on the laughable Common Agricultural Policy (scrap the CAP)!
We shell out for subsidies so certain countries can produce over-expensive wine few people want. Then we pay again to have much of it turned into (I believe) industrial ethanol.
Then, having paid out two lots of subsidies for "wine" we get, er, no wine. How ridiculous is that?
Germany takes the word "constitution" out of the treaty, **while leaving the content 99.99% unchanged** and Mark Mardell describe this as "the British government has largely got its own way"
If this is victory, then what would Mark Mardell describe as "defeat"???
Whether the word constitution is included or excluded in 0, 1 or 23 of the official languages of the EU is immaterial. What matters is the text that will bind the UK to follow the EU nomenkultura's directives, and this has not changed. I thought it impossible, but Blair has proven to be the poodle of both Bush and Barroso.
To say they have abandoned a constitution is ridiculous they have not come this far to abandon their plans and really haven't we pretended this elephant sitting in the room is not there for long enough?
The EU has slowly taken more and more powers it stands now with its own Judiciary Police army Flag and anthem It now has access to everyones personal details and we now have EU workers here undercutting british jobs... The EU is ready with regional assemblies in place all the infrastructure neccesary.. NOW how do they complete the transistion???
1) A written constitution without permission and disguised
2) Join us to the Euro
3) Allow regional assemblies which have their own constitution that binds them to the EU TO take over councils and devolve power to them..
We are already hearing how they want each region to have an elected mayor like livingstone with real authority and power THE GLC is the greater london regional assembly and are answerable to brussels only its not used this way.. The same as Scotland Northern Irelnd and Wales.. The eight assemblies in england await there time because the last attempt at electing one by prescott failed...
England is being punished for this which could be option
4) Leave england out in the cold getting poorer and more isolated taking its money and giving it to the EU..
I am a company trainer living in Germany. As such I have opportunity to speak to many professionals from different EU nations. I have often asked my students for their opinions about the constitution and their replies are usually similar.
I am yet to find anyone who knows what is contained within the proposal. Most make a comment that it will bring Europe closer together. When I ask how, no reply. When I ask is it important, 'yes' is the usual answer... 'why?' No reply.
May I suggest the only people who are properly informed or care about it are politicians and journalists. The majority of us simply don't know or are indifferent. The MEPs/MPs should tune into this and stop creating a crisis which only exists for them. After all, who are they supposed to be representing
Most of the people I have spoken to do not believe Europe has a problem without a constitution, so what's the fuss? The whole concept should have been allowed to die when the French rejected it. But then again it should be good for a few headlines.
As a commited pro-European, i am beggining to wonder whether the UK should remain as a member state of the EU. Every six months we have this rather tedious debate about national sovereignty and domestic rights, in the process delaying and impeding the smooth operation of the Union, which is in turn criticized for being slow to act and reform.
If the UK is not committed to playing it's full part in the Union, as i believe it should, we should leave so as to let those countries who put the common good first get on with that task without waiting for those countries that pander to ill-informed insecurities at home, which includes us.
I completely agree with Ryan McAlister, one country should not impede the progress of 20. I have lived in Britain for 6 years and have experienced the Europhobia that permeates European policy and discussion there. The question is why. I have not been able to find a satisfying explaination of that phenomenon. Mark, can you help me understand it?
The whole idea of a united Europe was to stop the constant wars between certain countries. It has grown into something of a congealed mess and very difficult to control. Nobody appears to have a clue about its function or its aim. Everybody is arguing about how to fry an egg before they've decided what is on the menu.
It's all about people with big egos and little else, big ideas, but little substance.
It needs a person of great integrity and drive to grab it shake it up and produce a working congenial Europe with one currency and a viable defensive force.
The whole idea of a united Europe was to stop the constant wars between certain countries. It has grown into something of a congealed mess and very difficult to control. Nobody appears to have a clue about its function or its aim. Everybody is arguing about how to fry an egg before they've decided what is on the menu.
It's all about people with big egos and little else, big ideas, but little substance.
It needs a person of great integrity and drive to grab it shake it up and produce a working congenial Europe with one currency and a viable defensive force.
We are steping to the future the first world and then there is a second world.........
@Marcel:
Maybe you can explain to us why the Dutch insisted to kill off dear old Beethoven in this process.
What's wrong with a reference to a European anthem? It gives us some sense of community, in particular as Beethoven came from a Dutch family, was born in Germany and spend most of his life in Austria. Most people seem to actually like his music.
It seems that the national pettymindedness has now finally taken over the European project. I just can't see any good in this.
And I cannot help the feeling that the Dutch with their over-tolerant immigration policy have hit the brick wall and found it very convenient to blame EU enlargement for the mess.
on paper most european laws sound good and the idea of a european state for the people is brilliant, but when your working class person takes advantage of the free trade laws, the government steals his ciggies, beer and car
when your low income person wishes to take advantage of the free movement of citizens laws, the government tax u off low cost airlines and label u a climate criminal
whats the point in being in europe as a brit apart from me paying for backwards countries to get up to the wests standards
I agree with Ryan McAlister that those European countries which are not committed to be part of the European free trade area should leave.The rest of the world is not waiting for the Europeans to get their act together.It is the average European who is losing out whilst the nationalist politicians are squabbling about petty things, making themselves look important.
Steve (16) - To quote the advertisement, "calm down!". Let's look at some of the "facts" that you've raised:
You then really got going with your rant about them wanting to take over regional government. You shoot yourself in the foot though when you say they want to have an "elected mayor". What's so bad about an "elected" mayor? Or will it be than only people in France and Germany can vote for our mayors?
Oh dear - I think you need to calm down a little bit, stop reading the Daily Express/Mail/Sun (delete as applicable) and think about what you're actually writing. You may then find that it's not all as scary as the xenophobic, eurosceptic media in this country would have you believe.
Try taking a deep breath and reading Jeremy's (17) very insightful post about what he's found when he's talked to these weird aliens from another planet, oh sorry, European neighbours of ours.
Ryan (18) - I hope we don't end up doing what you suggest - maybe if we can *finally* get some sort of agreement at the end of this week, that will put this particular issue to bed once and for all and Europe (including the UK!) can move onwards and upwards together! :-)
I find it strange that so many people seem to find democratic debate unacceptable.
EU Treaties are simply foreign policy, carried out with unusual transparency and accountability.
Who knows what deals our representatives make when talking to Washington, Moscow or Beijing?
Who knows what takes place behind the closed doors of the G8 and WTO?
Yet we can all debate openly what kind of treaty we want for reform of the EU.
This seems to me a good thing.
Countries disagree. People disagree. The important thing is that the EU gives us a way to resolve those disagreements and arrive at compromises that allow us to compete fairly with each other in a single market and work together to meet the very serious challenges that face all European citizens.
Peter Kerkhove (11). Yes the UN, World Bank, WTO, IMF etc... are all political. But they are also intergovernmental.
The EU is decidedly not intergovernmental, but supranational. This is a key point in the EU.
And up to some years ago, politicians (when asked) almost always denied this supranational aspect. They always stressed that it was a union with economic purposes only.
The Monnet method (integration by stealt, subterfuge and deceit) is primarily responsible for popular disenchantment. It's not that I don't like cooperation, it's the fact that I don't like the decades of deceit.
We would all be better off if we had this constitution. Jeremy (17) says no-one knows what the advantages are yet he is a living example coming from one part of the Union and working in another. Surely he would want the same protection and rights where ever he freely chooses to live and work. Who would want to live in a place that has 'Guantanamo Bay'. The common theme always seems to be that citizens never blame their own Governments. The reason that the Union does not have a properly elected Executive is that the Governments of the Nation States do not want to lose their power; most of whom have a handful of parties and influential friends (e.g. Rupert Murdoch) who exchange power at periodic intervals. After all Turkeys do not vote for Christmas!
Not matter what,no-one can vote the EU out of existence. No matter what the EU does or says its Government cannot be changed. By what stretch of the imagination can the EU be democractically accountable ?
Can someone please explain how the EU can be voted out of power, and the EU government and policies thereby changed.
Politicans have at long last found the "magic potion" by which they can stay in power forever. It is called the EU Constitution