No movement
LUXEMBOURG: The mood among those who want a deal at the weekend is gloomy. One foreign minister who wants as much of the constitution back as possible said this meeting had been between "a disaster and a catastrophe". The Czech foreign minister says he's cancelled his weekend appointments. It's going to be what Jack Straw used to call a "three-shirter" when the prime ministers and presidents meet for the European Council in Brussels.
It's not only the Brits who are a problem, the Poles are sticking their heels in, demanding a new voting system based on the square root of population, which gives more power to middle-sized countries like theirs.
Under the existing proposals they have 79 votes, under their plan they would get 65. But the Germans get reduced from 170 to 96, and the UK from 124 to 82. Malta would be bumped up from one to seven.
There really has been no movement here. But in London Mr Blair has been re-crafting his red lines. Conservatives say they are artfully drafted. It's true, for a master communicator Mr Blair's language is a little odd. What does is it mean that the British foreign secretary won't be "displaced"? What is "control" of common law? If he won't allow a "big say" over the benefits system, what about a "small say"?
But Mr Blair has a point when he says that over the last 10 years Europe moved in Britain's direction: some would say that is why French voters rejected the constitution in the first place.
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
I want the EU to have a treaty/constitution called whatever. I want the EU to have a single say in foreign affairs and internal affairs. I want an EU where my rights are respected right through it, not just for the big companies to sell theirs goods free of tax right thought it. I want an EU that's more than just a huge duty free airport lounge. States should be allowed to legislate for local condition but things that impact everyone should be common to all!
Cheers, Chris
I agree with Chris, that we don't want an EU that is just a marketplace. However, I think Blair recognises that the European Court (not an EU off-shoot, Mark?) has always managed to over-ride Employment Tribunals, and even other courts, where issues such as Employment and Human Rights are concerned. It's not the same as facing up to this fact squarely and having it in a treaty - but it works.
But please, Mark, will you please explain this square-root voting plan of Poland's?
Cheers, from France.
I want virtually the exact opposite of Chris (1) above. Let's have a popular UK-wide vote (aka referendum) and see which one of us comes out top.
I can't agree more with Derek. I think Blair is playing a game of words, trying to appease the Eurosceptics, while in reality some of the things he "won't agree upon", are already in effect (like the Charter, in an indirect way).
Being grown in a socialist country, it seems to me really absurd to read that a prime minister would not want the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be binding, IN ORDER to gain approval of the treaty in his country. For most of the rest of Europe the Charter is among the "pros" of the Treaty :S.
But of course, despite living in the UK, it still seems to me absurd that a party could be called "Conservatives" and get any votes.
People that say the Charter of Fundamental Rights should be in any treaty or constitution are missing the point.
This Charter has already been signed by (as far as I know it) every EU member state individually (minus Britain???). There is no point whatsoever in putting it in any treaty. Except that it would further the federalist agenda (supported by the decidedly federalist European Court).
The EU must be disbanded and we must revert back to the EEC. No political integration is acceptable to me, certainly not under current circumstances.
Also (Chris, Derek e.a.), all vetos must be retained by the memberstates and all vetos surrendered already must be brought back. There is no democratic legitimacy for any kind of political integration. This charade has lasted too long already.
If, as has been stated time and time again, "the people of the uk, will not accept a constitution and they want less power going to brussels". Why doesn't anyone in the government actually do something about it.
If they know we dont want it, why keep trying to sell it, just what are they (politicians) getting out of giving away our rights?
I want in the EEC, a common market which is ALL that the people of this country signed up to, but out of something we never agreed to, a federal superstate! With the EU gradually creeping grabbing what controls it can and then writing treaties giving legitimacy in retrospect, proves to me it cannot be trusted. Not one person in this country voted or agreed to the EU as it is and as it wishes itself to be!
No politician has the right in anyway shape or form to give away something they have no power to, at no point did any party or PM have a mandate to give our powers or sovereign rights to the EU!
Marcel, why is no level of political integration acceptable? If you're willing to accept that economic integration is in our interests, then what is wrong with a united government to lead and control our united economy? And even before that what is to object about over the idea of at least a united front to the rest of the world? What do you think is more likely to get the ear of the international community: 27 individual states, or 1 united voice which represents the largest economy in the world?
I don't understand what the issue is with the British fear of having civil law trumping their common law. In Canada we have both living side by side without any problem (Quebec is ruled by civil law, everywhere else by common law). Also what kind of message does a western democracy puts out when it refuses to make a charter of fundamental rights binding?
As for the Poles trying to transfer more voting power from large countries to small, maybe they again should look at Canada and see how ridiculous such a thing can be. The Atlantic provinces with less population than Toronto have a greater say on national affairs than Canada's main city (which as none). The EU, which is already being labeled undemocratic, will be even more so.
As for keeping veto powers (as suggested by Marcel), that's a recipe for stagnation and immobility, which, now that I think about it, is exactly what eurosceptics want.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
Two possible solutions to the EU constitution squabble seem better than attempting to rejuvenate the existing treaty system, which apparently no one likes. The existing system is anti-republican, anti-democratic, vesting wide powers in an unelected EU bureaucracy. No wonder few, besides the bureaucrats and career politicians, are happy with it.
Solution number 1. Adopt a constitution very much like the federal constitution of the United States. Please avoid the temptation to constitutionalize welfare "rights" and limit those rights to protections against government power. Strictly limit the federal taxing authority to a single, uniform, low-rate tax. Your national taxes are, by and large, too high already, except, oddly enough, in the former Soviet bloc nations.
Solution number 2. Adopt a federal constitution very much, if not exactly like the Swiss Confederation. Again, avoid constitutionalizing "rights" that involve transfers of income from less-favored groups to more-favored ones or enshrining "group" rights. Same limits on taxing authority.
Either would produce immediate, significant positive results including explosive economic growth. It could happen if there is a leader with the will to make it so -- perhaps Sarkozy? I don't see Gordon Brown or Angela Merkel leading the parade.
I think Polands idea is ideal for the European Union, since it allows for an adequate representation of all people that live in the EU. Besides isnt that whats democracy is all about. The involvement of all people who will be affected by decisions made by the EU parliment.
Dear Thomas Patricio (6), Canada is indeed a federation. Most Brits, however, don't want to be part of a federal Europe and resent it being foisted upon us 'on the sly'. If UK Euro-federalist are so confident in their cause all they need do is state their case clearly (as numerous foreign politicians have done) and put it to the popular vote. It is precisely because that they recognise that they have no popular support that they resort to underhand tactics - like avoiding a referendum at all costs.
I do not agree with Thomas Patricio, in regard to Polands attempts to transfer voting power from large countries to small countries, as being a impractical. For the most part each new EU country has made sacrifices and committments that give them a right to a fair representation within the EU. Regardless of their size, or wealth. The EU is a union of countries therefore decision it makes should reflect what the entire EU wants, rather than the richest or more populace countries.
The comparison with Canada's maritime provinces having more voting power than Toronto is unjustified. Toronto's population is adequately represented within the province of Ontario which has more say in the governance of Canada than the maritime provinces on the whole.
To continue Thomas' thoughts, and reply to Marcel's...
As the situation is now, the European parliament has to agree on 3/4 of the issues, but for many, a SINGLE state can veto a decision.
Based on the Treaty for the Constitution the European Parliament participates fully in almost all legislature, and in only a few cases (apart from Culture, Education etc) a SINGLE state can veto the decision.
So in which case there is more democratic legitimacy? When you have to appease the government of (chosen by the parliament chosen by ) a small country that has right to veto, or when the directly elected MEPs decide with absolute majority?
And to this we can add:
1) the fact that the European Commission every single day gives press conference where everyone can ask practically everything and is expected to get a response
and 2) the fact that the European Constitution makes the meetings of the Council of Ministers public
(check europa/wikipedia).
I agree with Chris.
Europe should be for all europeans not just for large companies.
Let's end the charade and start constructing a union that really works for the benefit of its citizens.
I think a european constitution or a new fundamental treaty should be used for a fundamental debate about the future of the EU.
As JUncker said Poland doe snot share the same vsion of the EU than for example Luxembourg or germany do.
The same is more or less true for the uK. The long and frustrating ( for all sites) british membership shows that.
I would like to see the UK being a "normal" member but that will not happen. The UK always had and after 35 years it is very likely will always have a different vision of the EU.
I think it is time to seperate the EU. Countries that want a closer integration should go on and other countries as poland or the UK can act as Norway. Norway adopts most EU rules without being a member country.
That could end the frustration on all sites and the neverending debates that could not produce positive results when partners have completly different oppinions about the goal they want to archive with the EU.
I do not want to hand over powers to the EU in its current form. It is little better than a dictatorship at present.
Until the EU parliament becomes the supreme source of legislation, rather than the faceless bureaucrats of the Commission, then I will refuse to swap a sovereign government (ours) for a committee of appointees.
Make Europe a democracy and I'll be a lot happier.
Brian (16)- you say "Make Europe a democracy" and you'll be a lot happier. Surely that's why we have European Elections every 4 years?
I will agree that one of the weaknesses with the current EU model is the fact that these elections seem to have precious little connection with the way that the EU itself is actually RUN on a day-to-day basis. I'm not sure what the answer is to this issue, but wonder if we could address this "gap", maybe it would go some way to assuaging people's fears about "handing over powers to dictatorships" etc. etc.
Views anyone?
I agree with Frank (15). This will never end until the UK bites the bullet and leaves the Integration Project.
What is the logic of the British Government? Why were they in favour of the Constitution 3 years ago, but not now? Didn't they realise its implications(simple incompetence, surely not?), or have they now changed their position (if so why?)
The argument always seems to be having a seat at the table to "influnce events". This is illogical. This approach has cost the UK £62 Billion (or £100 Billion at today's prices) already in direct payments alone. For what? An option we never seem to exercise anyway to prevent, or rather delay, further integration by others? But in the end we can't stop them from integrating anyway if they want to do this.
If the British government is now finally reflecting the views of the majority of its citizens like me who doen't want any further EU integration involving the UK, fantastic!
But then why don't we move to EEA status immediately and stop paying over any more British money to these already very weathly countries.
All "Anti EU" commentators are now considered "Terrorists" according to the Italian President.
Those who want to have Europe a simple "single market" forget that we already had that before 1914. Goods circulated freely (not only in Europe but around the world), people could move where they wanted (my grandfather, who travelled all around Eufrope, adamantly refused to visit Russia or Turkey, because "these uncivilized countries demanded a passport...."),there was even an ancestor of the Euro, the "Latin Union" where the gold coins had the same weight and the same value. But the lack of a central authority made World War One possible. Do all those who reefuse the union want a repeat of it ?
Another consequence of the lack of union would be that our separate coutries would be no match for China or India. Would you British "refuseniks" be happy to have Prince Charles or Prince Harry having to make a yearly pilgrimage to Beijing and "kowtow" (lay flat on the ground) in front of the Chinese president or (even worse) having to kiss the feet of a Gandhi descendant in New Delhi ?
The EU in its current form is democratically accountable through the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
The new treaty would strengthen the hand of the Council of Ministers by creating a permanent President of the Council who would be able to set the agenda much better than the current system and thus cut the power of the Commission.
We should embrace this positive step and lobby hard for increased power for the Parliament.
Thos contributors here who say they want a return to the EEC don't seem to be aware of our advantages under the EU: we can travel more freely, take our health and social security rights with us, and work and buy property much more easily than before.
A single market, without quality standards and some social protection, would a be a free for all for big companies, with the lowest common denominator winning. All the negative aspects of globalisation that people complain about would be made even worse.
Since these standards and social issues need to be decided jointly, and with democratic accountability, it is essential that the EU have some political integration.
The limited political integration that we have in the EU also helps us to address problems that affect us all in a cooperative, coordinated and more efficient way, such as: climate change, economic competitiveness, new technology etc.
Max Sceptic,
British politicians have done exactly what you suggest.
Every party elected to government since the UK joined has put continued membership of the EU in its manifesto.
The British Government has built a rod for its own back. There is no EEA status on offer, nor will there be. In most of Continental Europe Tony Blair and by inferance Great Britain is seen as a rather difficult 'brother-in-law' to the family who has been lead by the nose by America. Sorry but that is the way it is whatever polite noises are made during the gatherings in Brussels.
The role of Brussels is large one of co-ordination and regulation for the benefit of all the members. Rather like that of a club secretary.
The fact that Britain, unlike Spain, has failed to take full advantage of E.C. membership is fairly and squarely the fault of Britain and its Government. For example failure to join the Euro cost U.K. industry dear. Not only does high interest rate mean selling over an un-nessary cost barrier but also 2-3% exchage costs have to be met. This may boost the profits of U.K. banks but is a heavy burden in manufacturing industry.
I will agree with Mike Dixon, but also with Frank.
I think it's enough. If the majority of EU wants an integration, they should proceed with more enhanced cooperation, and leave the rest behind. The euro shows the way, and it's already talk about that (Greece's Prime Minister dared to suggest something like this yesterday).
I will also answer to Sam Davis: "Again, avoid constitutionalizing "rights" that involve transfers of income from less-favored groups to more-favored ones or enshrining "group" rights." He says. Which are the "favored" groups to be protected by the Charter?
-The minorities? Visit Thrace, visit Roma in Romania etc and see how these "favored" groups live.
-The employers? The right for collective negotiations for example? When there's unemployment, the employer has an unfair advantage.
-Those who want their personal data protected? Despite the regulations, UK still manages to have cameras everywhere anyway.
Of course, this argument will not lead to anything constructive. All information we might give about the actual text of the Treaty won't convince a Eurosceptic, and no argumentation can change in a day one who things that collective rights shouldn't be protected. It's a clash of views that simply underlines the need for an enhanced cooperation of the main bulk of EU.
Regarding Post 19. from Mark Dixon.
He says "There is no EEA status on offer, nor will there be".
I don't think this is correct. Surely all EU states are EEA members, along with Lichenstein, Norway and Iceland?
So if the Single European Act is repealed then surely we automatically have EEA status by default?
In general it also seems to me most of the posts on every EU topic are either from committed Eurofederalists, or those, like me, who want out. I don't read many posts which defend the status quo of a half way house that won't change too much from how it is now, apart from limited tidying up. And that is the problem is it not? - No-one believes in the hybrid and pratically no-one wants it either.
Mr. Mardell; Don't know whether you could comment/rule on these sort of things - actually like many things with the EU I may be wrong, or Mr. Dixon is wrong - help! tks.
tec-goblin (13) makes a common and understandable mistake. He believes the mere fact the European Parliament is elected makes it democratic. I assure you it does not. A truly democratic parliament would be able to form a government in majority, and set the agenda as to legislation. The European Parliament can do neither. It is more like an advisory council than an actual parliament.
Of your two scenarios I can say this. As long as the EU lacks explicit popular backing expressed in national referendums, the scenario where 1 country can block via the veto is decidedly more democratic. After all we don't want to be ruled by the tyranny of the majority but to protect the interests of the minority.
Also, if we were to give up our vetos, our liberal policies on drugs, abortion and euthanasia would be voted right out of existance. And also, Netherlands and Britain are the only 2 EU countries with significant private pension funds. We wouldn't want Brussels to get its hands on that.
Try asking Barroso in one of those press conferences where his democratic legitimacy is. I assure you he will sidestep the question. Those press conferences and semi-public Council meetings are/would be utterly farcical.
Alistair Mitchell (7), political union under the current setup or anything near like it is unacceptable because no politician ever had a popular mandate to build such a political union. They have always done so by carefully ignoring public opinion. The Monnet method of integration by stealth, subterfuge and deceit must be halted.
The united front which you mention cannot and must not be brought about without a clear popular mandate. First one, then the other.
I am against the idea altogether of signing up and creating a form of "EU Federalist Superstate".
They say it is for "continental peace" and "economic benefits". Yet, the possibility of an EU will create just more conflict and tension in the world.
There is belief the Euro, whilst having an earlier success, could begin to slip in the near future and become weaker than the U.S Dollar due to the states such as possibly Romania joining up. So, that could lead to a Euro and possibly economic dip.
And if it is "peace" we are after, I am afraid that is very much not the case. The U.S is concerned with the EU's growing power and such a "state" is bound to get into conflict with the Russian Federation and Africa at some point.
I see nothing but problems in the future. It is better off we remain in the nation state instead of throwing everything into one basket.
So let's be like Canada with a member state seeking independence from the whole every few years. Let's have a Common Market but where everyone has different money in his pocket and does not know if the price he paid is a fair one and let's leave the EU the ferry company and train jobs don't matter when they are lost due to no more cheap booze, fags and all the other stuff we by in Europe. Finally lets forget about the huge amount of trade that is currently tarrif free, we don't need that when we sit outside of market we all hate and which will not appreciate us. The savings we make can pay for unemployment. Its time for a commonsense discussion of Europe across Europe as a community and then we can worry about whether the constitution is still needed.
Currently the politicians all want a federal state so they can all be presidents like George W
I think there is a lot of frustration at th emoment within the EU.
We have 27 members and are unable to establish even smaller agreements not to mention the constitution.
In the uK all governments missed the chance or the challange to have a honest and real debate about the EU.
On the other site countries like LUxembourg germany or belgium live in a complete differetn EU than the UK even today ( Schengen, Euro).
Growing up at the border region between these countries you can see the changes every day and the benefits of the EU.
These countries will and can not wait forever. The calling of a core Europe is old but very very loud at the moment in a lot of nations.
There is no right or wrong or no good or bad just different views that can not live under a common structure until one site changes fundamental values.
The EU has to find a way to fix the huge huge problems or the we will see a smaller EU if w elike it or not
In fact, when politicians follow narrow self-serving agendas, they tend to try to break countries up into private fiefdoms where they can rule the roost, rather than larger territories where their chance of rising to the top is much lower.
This, to some extent, is what has been happening in Belgium.
If they were really motivated purely by power then national polticians would be anti-EU (as most populist demagogues are) since coordinating with other countries reduces their own freedom to exercise power.
Just because lust for power can motivate some politicians to try to break exisiting entities into smaller units, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to unite people instead.
I reply to Marcel's (26) interesting comments:
"A truly democratic parliament would be able to form a government in majority, and set the agenda as to legislation."
1) "Majority"?
Compare: EU Parliament chooses in majority to accept or not the Commission, and in cases where it seemed unacceptable, there were adjustments. The heads of states have to agree at least on the choice of President of the Commission. There is no dominant party that can set a government of its own. EU parliament's majority represents a majority in the populace (simple proportional representation is used practically in all countries for the EU elections) in most cases, BUT for the adjustment to help small countries. So Germany's votes count less than Luxembourg's votes, for obvious reasons.
National parliament: in most European parliaments the ruling party's head decides on a government. This ruling party in almost all cases has not taken 50% of the votes of the populace (in UK particularly the voting system is quite problematic in this respect) - in some countries there is a direct representation system, which forces coalitions and the procedure seems much closer to what happens in the Parliament
2)In many countries the parliament does not (I don't say cannot) initiate legislation (including Greece, and, if I am not mistaken, France?) - it is initiated by the government. What the parliament can do is to propose changes and reject laws article by article. This can be done in EU Parliament.
3) But I DO recognize a democratic deficit. This has less to do with the procedures in the EU parliament, but with the procedures before the elections, where in most countries, people vote to "send a message to their government" - something like a poll - where in reality this is not a poll, this is not a mock test, real people are sent to take real decisions. It's a problem of perception, IMO, of the importance of the vote.
"As long as the EU lacks explicit popular backing expressed in national referendums, the scenario where 1 country can block via the veto is decidedly more democratic."
I agree about the need of referendums. What I see, though, that it is practically impossible for 27 referendums to hold the same decision, so I propose that the countries that had a "yes", proceed in the integration, and the rest can join later.
"Also, if we were to give up our vetos, our liberal policies on drugs, abortion and euthanasia would be voted right out of existance."
From whom? EU parliament is certainly more liberal than most governments, and even EU Council would never attack these things! (Some of the new states Mr Blair was so insistent of welcoming to EU, though, like Poland, WILL have objections, but they have their own problems with European Court exactly because of issues of discrimination).
"And also, Netherlands and Britain are the only 2 EU countries with significant private pension funds. We wouldn't want Brussels to get its hands on that."
Please explain to me a scenario this would happen, this is interesting.
"Try asking Barroso in one of those press conferences where his democratic legitimacy is."
Mr Barroso doesn't even have to be present in these conferences :P. 2 members of the Commission are there I think, but the President doesn't have to be there :P.
"They have always done so by carefully ignoring public opinion."
In UK probably, in most of the countries in the maximalist group, the integration is welcomed.
Is there any legal reason why the Conservative Party, or any other organisation, could not hold a national referendum on this latest EU treaty?