Reincarnating the constitution
When the French and the Dutch voted against the big question was: ? And that led to lots of metaphors about being in the emergency ward, on life support, and whether the oxygen should be switched off. I know because I used them myself. Now, two years and a month later, I feel fresh analogies coming on... The constitution is dead, but its vital organs will be transplanted into a new treaty. The argument between European leaders is about how big an operation this is going to be.
Or perhaps it鈥檚 better to say that the constitution is going to be reincarnated, but the British government hopes it will come back as much lower life form 鈥 a mere fly, not worth the bother of swatting.
For the game in several important countries is to avoid a referendum at all costs, on the assumption that if you ask people, they will have the temerity to say "No".
It鈥檚 actually the new French President Nicholas Sarkozy who is the driving force behind this reincarnation of the constitution as something less than itself. He last winter, and it鈥檚 in his interests to get a deal, any deal, as quickly as possible. If he strikes while his mandate is hot, he can duck a referendum. Let it drag on, and Paris may be alight with street protests about his planned economic reforms 鈥 then the pressure might not be so easy to resist.
Mr Sarkozy has embarrassed Tony Blair by suggesting they鈥檝e done a deal already. As one EU official growled, the European Union is more than France and Britain. But Germany wants a deal this June as well - the triumphant conclusion to their six months in the EU鈥檚 driving seat.
Of course, the one question they all ask Tony is, "Do you speak for Gordon?" He answers, "Yes". The two men spoke five times last week about the subject, although Brown is reserving his judgement.
Forget newspaper tosh about Blair binding Brown鈥檚 hands. While the chancellor doesn鈥檛 seem keen to have his fingerprints on any June deal, there will still be months of detailed negotiating to go. And it鈥檚 Gordon Brown Prime Minister who鈥檒l have to sign up in December, so he can鈥檛 really pretend it鈥檚 all down to that other bloke.
Of course, walking away from the whole thing has huge attractions. But Mr Brown will not want to anger both Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel. When you move into a new house you don鈥檛 want to alienate the neighbours straight off. Mr Brown, of all people, knows that.
So the British government is trying to exclude anything that smells even vaguely like the constitution. The Dutch are very much behind this, and the Czechs and the Poles also want something pretty fly-like in weight and unswattability.
Who鈥檚 against this? Well that鈥檚 the trouble - just about everyone else. The argument of is that they鈥檝e already backed the constitution. They like and they want as much of it back as possible. As ever, there鈥檚 a gulf in the way this is seen. What will be portrayed on the continent as Britain getting everything its own way will be portrayed at home as a total sell-out. If Mr Blair and Mr Brown can persuade the other countries that resurrection is impossible, they鈥檒l still have to persuade voters that the constitution isn鈥檛 coming back, body and soul.
Have I stuck my neck out too far saying Brown cannot be bound by Blair? I hear he may be worried that in the dead of night, when the coffee has run out and fatigue takes over, Mr Blair may just give away too much. That would present him with a dilemma: unstitch the deal (and anger Sarkozy and Merkel) or risk the wrath of the Eurosceptic press. I鈥檓 told that he could try to unstitch at least part of the deal anyway, because he wants to be seen 鈥渂attling for Britain鈥 and is unwilling to offend the Daily Mail, which currently isn鈥檛 too hostile. This may be a difficult position. Is there any deal he could get on a new treaty that the Mail would applaud?
At the risk of boring you all early on, but in the interests of clarity, this is what I understand Blair is trying to exclude:
- 鈥 Calling it a constitution, or any mention of flags or anthems. That battle was won ages ago.
- 鈥 The idea that this is 鈥渁 consolidating treaty鈥 - Blair wants it to be "an amending treaty". This sounds technical but is politically vital because the government will argue that no Conservative government ever gave a referendum on treaties amending existing texts.
- 鈥 Losing the veto on proposals about policing and justice. Britain could win an opt-out on this. It already has a similar opt-out on migration policy.
- 鈥 . Britain is signed up to the charter already, but the government thinks putting it in the treaty makes it look more like a constitution. Mr Blair may have to fight hard to win this battle.
- 鈥 Moves to give the EU a legal personality. Again a tough battle.
The British government will not object to:
- 鈥 A change to the way meetings between governments are run. At the moment a country is in the chair for six months at a time (it鈥檚 Germany now, Portugal next). The plan is to replace them with a president elected by the other presidents and prime ministers.
- 鈥 A change in the way votes are counted, to give more power to countries with bigger populations.
- 鈥 Cutting the number of commissioners, so that not all 27 countries have one.
But watch out for Poland. They want to change the voting system proposed in the constitution and to return to a system proposed under the . Their strange battle cry, 鈥淣ice or death!鈥 is back. It boils down to the fact that they got a good deal under Nice, seven years ago, and don鈥檛 want the old enemy Germany to gain more power. They want a system based on the square root of population. I have nightmares about having to do a graphic on this. They are also now arguing that they can鈥檛 do a deal in a few days' time, they need at least a year. But the point is, the Poles may block any deal, causing fury in most of the EU27 but transforming Mr Brown鈥檚 forced grin turn into a genuinely sunny smile. Could some other country end up sitting on the naughty step this time?
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
I always questioned why the constitution was not dead after the French and Dutch failed to ratify it. The Nice agreement insisted that it must be ratified by all states. Blair was happy not to have to call a referendum or railroad the constitution both of which would have been political suicide. (Just as Maasticht did for Major and the Tories.)
Sorry to have to disillusion people, but the EU as anything but a loose trading treaty is deeply unpopular with the ordinary man in the street. What the EU is trying to become is realy only supported by the Islington chattering classes, who in turn are viewed with more and more contempt by we, the ordinary worker. For Gordon Brown to support anything that gives the EU more power or control would be his political suicide. We want less EU control, less EU interference, and EU law where it belongs - subsidiary to British law. And no, I'm not a member of UKIP or the BNP, nor am I a Thatcherite tory - I'm Labour (unlike the creatures in number 10)
It's clear Europe is nearing stand still. A compromise could be even harder in this matter than forming a new Belgian government. This new treaty is probably as dead as the Constitution. The problem is that some people want the Union to be very progressive(France) and others want it to be very conservative(Poland, UK). Unfortunately, the ones wanting real European integration, the progressive side, doesn't get international unions. Just look at the US. The federal government is so conservative, whilst you have states like Oregon and California who almost resemble nations like the Netherlands or Belgium. If the American states should form a union this day and age, it would go as slow as Europe.
I miss the good old days (two years ago)- before you had the hard-won experience to handle the complexities of European politics with such aplomb as you do now - when you would stray more frequently into the 'non-political'. As someone with a degree in European Humanities, it was fascinating to watch you wander as a wide-eyed innocent into the lingustic minefield that is Belgium, with no idea of the difference between French and Wallonian, Vlaams and Nederlands - and to see the controversy and rage that you provoked.
Happy days!
(So anyway, is Vlaams a language or a dialect?...)
Thank you - those points on the constitution aren't boring, they are so useful for A level Politics revision!
Why don't we take gentle steps ? One thing at a time. Ratifying one big document will always pose a problem - one country or other will always object to some part of such document. What I would do :
1. ratify small document that defines general stuff everybody agrees to (human rights, abolishing veto power of member states, etc.)
2. add ammendements as the need for such amendments arises ~ every few years something new on the table.
Such steps would probably be accepted by general population. Hopefully, in 10-20 years time Europe would have something similar to the document that is on the table right now.
The Constitution was rejected in 2 states. To simply extract things from it and place it into a treaty is an utter disgrace. Nothing in the Constitution should be brought back without a refrendum. Give us a referendum Mr Brown and see that its not only "The Mail" that is Eurosceptic but the whole country.
Is it alive or dead? Well, if the constitution is to survive it is self evident that it will not do so if the British have anything to do or say about it. A look at the relative efficacy and efficiency of the health systems in Britain and, say, Belgium where I live should prove that to anyone.
Typical health care situation: I went to my GP, at 2 hrs notice, with a concern about a possible hernia. He gave me a prescription to take to the hospital down the road (there is always a hospital down the road here you see) and suggested that I have an ultrasound scan. He also gave me a note to the consultant of abdominal surgery.
I went to have the scan that day, and made an appointment for the following Tuesday with the consultant. I had to wait until the Tuesday because I was busy at work. When I saw her (the consultant IN PERSON, not a nurse, or a registrar or a tea lady like in the UK) she offered me an appointment for surgery on the following Tuesday which I gratefully accepted. I was in and out in 48 hours, not ten hours on the conveyor belt such as I might have been lucky to enjoy in the UK.
I am back at work now and, by the way, the consultant herself took out my stitches.
Thank you Belgium. We may pay a bit more in tax, but we have ACTUALLY the best healthcare system that I have ever had need of using, one that has a reasonable claim to being the 'envy of the world'. That is why the British should keep their paws off the constitution and allow the rest of us to get on with it. France and NL will see sense in due season.
Can you tell me why you use Blair and Brown instead of Tony, Gordan or even Mr.
I have always thought you only drop to surname only when you have a negative view of a person. It projects a negative feeling.
Yes, gentle steps away from this monolithic, bureaucratic, corrupt, anti democratic entity that is the EU. Because little steps is what it has been taking for years, little steps in eroding our right to self determination. In 20 years time I hope Europe is well, but that the EU is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs.
Not entirely sure why it wasn't an EU-wide referendum at the same time. Ah I forget countries like the UK don't allow their people to vote on major subjects unless put into a corner.
They couldn't even do the Regional Assembly referendum correctly because they based it on one region only. What about the rest?
All over again, the minority speaks for the majority.
If Europe re-emerges as an issue it could cause problems for Cameron and the Tories too. It's another case where the official party line (for EU membership, after all) clashes with the deep Euro-scepticism of much of the rank-and-file. No doubt Brown will be looking for a deal on the constitution that exposes the old fault lines in the Tory party.
Mark we will never get unbiased reporting from you because your pro EU Just like when Edward heath promised us it was only ever going to be about trade Tony Blair is installing the final bits that gives the EU the grounding to build the constitution into a fully working model within a very short time. This is standard practice for new labour's tactics and of the EU history. The Public have never been consulted its just gradually slowly taken over until now we are being run from brussels. The majority of countries POORER ones voted the EU constitution and this will be used to bulldoze any opposition. Blair Brown Mandelsohn were all working together in the new labour project and will continue to make sure we lose democracy as were run by the commissioners who decide what the council can do and even then overturn a wrong decision let alone future upgrades to the system that wont be voted on as they can never be thrown out of power. A dictatorship then. But your all riding high as our tax money gets spent on making brussels lined with gold The government proves it doesnt care about the people it steals fom like BAE systems for example. And its the same here. You enjoy Brussels and remember where all that money comes from those hardworking people here who get fleeced by VAT Income tax council tax car tax and all the other taxes.. Just remember robbery legalised Brussels Yours Mate.
The problem the EU faces is one of communication with its populace. It is too easy for national governments to claim credit for the good things and blame the EU for anything they don't like. This makes the Union seems remote and technical and a waste of time and resources.
We take for granted the huge benefits the EU has given us. Freedom of movement to work and travel, stability of relationships between members, a vast amount of social and personal legislation guaranteeing our personal rights. Even the Euro (for those who have it) makes travelling a lot simpler and less annoying.
Obviously the depth of integration is a huge issue to think about and will always generate tensions. But on the whole it does tend to make sense to have one document that guides the Union rather than the complex series of treaties at present which only add to the confusion.
However I think the Union needs to spend more time over the next few years in a communications exercise promoting its positive aspects before putting the treaty back on the table.
Sir,
You can see why people get annoyed with the EU - it just doesn't make sense! Who makes the rules?!! Having the three institutions (the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the Parliament) is madness. Here's what you want:
1. ONE Parliament in ONE location.
2. Every single eligible person in the EU has ONE vote.
This bit is very important:
3. Every single vote carries the same weight as every single other vote.
Bob's your uncle, a Parliament people can associate with. It makes the laws because it has a clear mandate from the people. None of this other SQV gobbledegook, none of this square root rubbish - ONE person, ONE vote, ONE institution.
Yours,
Angry from Canterbury.
If no one in Britain wants an EU Constitution, why are our political leaders backing one? We are clearly no longer a democracy.
MPs should debate the Bill currently passing through the HoLords, about to be sponsored into the Commons by the Labour MP Austin Mitchell, which questions whether the cost/benefits of our EU membership are positive or negative.
If EU membership is a negative, then we shouldn't be signing into a Constitution at all, but withdrawing from the EU and returning to free trade only, and independent government. Even Ken Clark is bemoaning the collapse in respect for Parliament, he who did more than anyone to casue it.
MPs would seize their moment and prove that Britain is still a democracy by rebelling across the parties against their leaderships, and blocking the EU's latest attempt to close down Britain's existence.
It's a defining moment.
Meanwhile Switzerland, Iceland and Norway just go on getting richer and richer. Doesn't that tell you something!!
a looser european union is probably better is the feeling here in Ireland in my view. Still the taoiseach Berite Ahern is in favour of the European constitution as are all of the main political parties except Sinn Fein and the Greens which have about 10 percent of seats in the Dail between them. Irish views of the EU have changed but even the Maastricht treaty only just scraped in to become law, I think our government will sign up for a treaty and the people will cogitate according to the feeling of the time but I think they'll need a lot of reassurance on two points. the loss of a guarantee of having an irish commissioner and second the handing over of more power to the more populous states in the format devised in the treaty, I mean the European parliament already represents by population so why change other checks and balances in favour of the bigger states. maybe give the parliament more power instead or redistribute the power amongst the institutions, but as it stands the treaty appears to favour big states.
Andy Williams wrote "What the EU is trying to become is supported only by the Islington chattering classes".
First, Andy, I'm not a member of these classes, whoever they may be, and I like what the EU is trying to become, namely a more effective force for good in the world, a simpler, more open and more democratic union of sovereign nations.
It has long been much more than just a free trade area: successive treaties have made it so, and they were all signed up to, unanimously, by the elected leaders of its member states. Eighteen of those countries have also signed up to the Constitution - which contains useful innovations for making the EU more efficient, more democratic, less complex.
If the majority of British people really are so wholly opposed to anything but a loose free trade area, then their government should take the UK out of the EU and let the rest of us get on with shaping the EU's future, sadly without you.
A couple of things really irritate me:
The euro-sceptics make all kinds of allegations against the EU, most of them unsubstantiated, but they cannot provide any ideas on what our continent should look like. Clearly, we need to define Europe in a globalised world and it has to be different from Victorian England or from the approach to just follow blindly the USA. I am sick and tired of debating with people who have no productive input to make.
I agree that the EU has a democracy deficit. But this won't be helped by delegating decisions to a couple of Dutch or French voters or the UK tabloids. I demand respect for the views of the many pro-EU Europeans whose opinions on the constitutional treaty have been expressed either by their parliaments or directly through referenda. Let's have an EU-wide vote then if you love direct democratic participation so much.
The biggest joke must be the position of the Polish government. Not only does Poland owe its EU membership to the insistence of the Germans, they also provide Poland with its biggest market. It is already pretty rich (and not very democratic) that Poland has such disproportionate voting rights, but insulting Germany as the "enemy" should have consequences. It just goes against the EU's key principles (ok, each and every Pole I have met has apologised for the idiocy of their government, but someone must have voted them into the office for which they seem utterly unfit). By the way: If you want the square root, draw it from a product as this is mathematically more sound. I suggest to calculate the product of number of inhabitants and GDP per capita and then derive the square root. By this two things are made to count: Size of population and contribution to the EU's wealth. This would put things into perspective and, ironically, we would end up pretty close to the voting balance foreseen in the constitutional treaty.
My suspicion here is that expanding the union before changing voting practices is actually going to result in the death of the union. Certainly in its current incarnation. The EU is an unwieldy behemoth. If it did become the federal institution that the French and Germans so clearly want, the undemocratic and flawed government structure in the EU would rapidly lead to countried leaving. Already countries like the UK, Italy and some others are under extreme pressure to leave.
The process will probably be interesting. I can see a partially ratified constitution being the catalyst. Insistence from the pro-federation governments results in a treaty that creates a 2-tier EU, this further disillusions those who didn't sign up to it, and finally results in the withdrawal of a major country. That in turn start an avalanche of withdrawals - remarkably like the collapse of the ERM. Don't forget, last time I checked, a majority of Italians wanted to withdraw from the single currency - and that is technically harder than withdrawing from the union.
I think a proper cost benefit analysis should be done regarding the EU. What are the benefits and negatives. As far as I can tell from the press (biased in both directions) we give a lot of money which is unaccounted for, accept laws from Brussels and not made by our democratic leaders. The EU offers open working and trade but would this be any different if we were not in the EU?
Once we join the euro and this constitution is ratified we will have an even more powerful body that is unelected and unaccountable with a massive budget. This is inheritantly a problem especially given they cannot even get thier own accountants to sign of the accounts as being correct.
Let the EU be what it was proposed initially; a trade pact.
I do not want to be part of the United states of Europe but wish to keep my own identity and currency. I work in Europe and every other person I speak to want to retain thier own identity and think of themselves as French,Dutch,German and then European.
In reply to Ronald Gr眉nebaum:
If you take the product of the number of inhabitants and the GDP per capita, all you get is the GDP of the nation. Are you saying a nation's voting balance should be based solely on its total wealth?
Our "democratic" leaders know perfectly well that anything submitted to referendum will be rejected. If they know it's so unpopular why do they keep pushing it forward against our will?
If they made it useful we would vote for it.
Step 1: Kick the UK out of the EU. We really do not need the British as a fifth column. Let them remain a part of the economic part if they wish. For the rest, let them join the US or pretend that we live in the age of queen Victoria - whatever gets them off. There are other obstructionists, but nobody is nearly as bad as the UK and with Brown things won't improve.
Step 2: Give the European Parliament more power and reform the Commission. Instead of the countries electing their own commissioners, make the Commission work at an European level. The commissioners should be loyal to the common EU causes without local interference. In addition a detachment might facilitate in breaking the current pattern of local level politicians taking credit for everything good the EU does and blaming all their mistakes and errors on the EU.
Step 3: Get a directly, democratically elected president who in cooperation with the parliament selects a cabinet. One person one vote. And we have to make sure that this is all about EU level and not about the national level. A French person shouldn't vote for a French EU president just because of his nationality. It's difficult, but it can be done. I'm sure quite a few Scots and Welsh voted for Blair although he's English.
Looking at the UK[and for that matter Europe] pre EU and post, it is difficult to imagine that either would be as good, without the union.
The danger for the naysayers, is that a smaller group[ex Britain etc], will continue with integration, and leave the rest behind. I have a feeling that the average Brit might well find that there were a lot of things that they didn't realise they'd miss,or even knew they had.
As well, those that point out the deficiencies of the EU, paradoxically , seem to be those most obstructive to changes which improve the chances of fixing those deficiencies.
Blair's voice, as well as Brown's and any other UK leader for that matter, are very weak within the EU. By not joining Maastricht and Schengen the UK has condemned itself to irrelevance on the European scene. In fact, the UK is now considered more of a burden to the EU, rather than a constructive partner; a bit like Poland, albeit without the excuse of being dirt-poor. While full EU nations, such as France and the Netherlands, are morally entitled to have a say at the EU, for having risked and sacrificed in joining treaties which were not so easy to accept, Britain has no such precedents to its credit, and thus her proposals will be pretty much ineffective.
Let's hope Gordon Brown will have enough courage to decide whether to join the EU totally, or opt-out once and for all. Surely all the moaners will soon start thinking constructively and stop complaining vacuously at the prospect of being left floating in the Atlantic Ocean between the EU and USA.
Meanwhile Range/Land Rover and Jaguar have started their final journey to their grave, and Toyota has decided to drop its plans to build plants in the UK, because they prefer to do it in a Eurozone country (rightly so). The Scots have also voted for plans to get out of London's grip and fully join the EU. And here, while folks are celebrating 25 years of Victory in the Falklands, the government has plans for a Day of Britishness.
why trust the people? They might tell you what they think!
If Mark were to take out of the "constitution" all the articles thaat are already in the previous treaties (Maastricht, Nice, Laeken, etc) which are still valid on their own right, he would find a pretty acceptable document that only the Poles would oppose.
I don't understand why it shouldn't be presented to the European Parliament for ratification. As far as I'm concerned, an MEP represents me just as well at the EU Parliament as my MP represents me at national level. Can anybody explain why an MEP is less representative than an MP ?
Ronald Gr眉nebaum should realize that in many countries who ratified the constitution via their parliament, popular opinion was completely ignored. I am referring mainly to Germany, Austria and Finland where popular sentiments were negative.
Barry O'Halpin, we in the Netherlands do not want any more 'ever closer union'. And if the constitution were subject to a new vote today, it would again be overwhelmingly rejected. And rightfully so. We don't want foreign politicians making our laws for us because we have a parliament of our own to do that. An economic cooperation/union is all we need in Europe, none of this political union stuff. And another thing, Europe better keep its hands off our tax and pension system. And we want our vetos back too.
If there is to be some qualified majority voting, one factor which also needs to be taken into account is net contribution. All countries who are net contributors should have a larger voting weight than any net recipient. Otherwise the net recipients will continue to combine to vote themselves our money.
Finally, what was proven so well in France and Netherlands 2 years ago: the more people knew about the EU and the constitution, the more likely they were to vote no. The no camp was significantly better informed than the yes camp, who often blindly voted yes without comprehending what they were voting for. I on the other hand know exactly what I voted against. I and many with me understood its consequences and did not like them.
What is profoundly obvious is that the people of Europe still do not want Europe, even after all this time and especially with the present level of familiarity. Even the French, one of the driving forces of Europe said Non. The question was on the constitution but don麓t be lulled into thinking that anyone was voting on the semantics of wording of a document. For any national government to be so indisposed to the people they represent to negotiate for something their people don麓t want is simply beyond belief, arrogant in the extreme.
Perhaps Europe can succeed without the consent of the people but it will always be on shaky ground. If governments are so deperate to have Europe then they need to demonstrate how it will help the people. Once they have the support they have a right to negotiate. Such is democracy. Better to have a groundswell of support than a cauldron of simmering resentment.
I am all in favour of trading with the EU. What I detest is the thought of us being part of the Union of Socialist States of Europe (USSE) which is the way we are heading. Slowly but surely our treacherous leaders (of all parties except UKIP) take us deeper and deeper into the Socialist utopia of a 鈥楿nited Europe鈥. The laughable arguments from the pro EU camp such at 鈥榯ravel is easier, we have greater freedoms鈥 etc don鈥檛 wash with me. We are facing state sponsored surveillance form the EU with car tracking. We see our waters almost fished to extinction by other EU states whilst our Scottish fleet is tied up. Most of our new laws are created by Europe, not our elected politicians. We have had to accept damaging legislation on Human Rights, a massive influx of immigrants which are causing so many problems even the Labour Party are starting to recognise that jobs and housing are an issue. We must have a referendum on whether we remain in the EU, never mind whether we should ratify the constitution. This corrupt and sinister political force must be stopped before we end up as nothing more that a county of the USSE and everything our forefather fought for has been destroyed.
It would only seem the EU is remaining true to its founding fathers. The democratic deficit, as is oft said, is not a bug, but a feature of the project. Decisions are made in a Council that is both removed from national parliamentary scrutiny, whilst also binding both parliament and any future national administration; A serious derogation of parliament. It would only be exacerbated by extending EU jurisdiction and collapsing the pillar structure.
Quite surprising then to see, of all MPs, Ken Clarke, admitting as much this week on the 91热爆 in a response to a question regarding the weakening of parliament!
An interesting insight into this is provided by Anthony Coughlan at EUobserver:
I admit the constitution was a start in that it tried to move along the road of empowering the European Parliament and strengthening the concept of subsidiarity. But ostensibly, nothing much will change in my opinion. We鈥檙e lumbered with technocratic institutions more representative of the Fourth French Republic that are neither responsive, nor reactive to changes in representative democracy. Indeed, referendums are now to be avoided at all costs, such are the dangers of 鈥減opulism鈥.
As for the 18 countries that have ratified, I ask how many by referendum? Yes, just two. What鈥檚 more, I suspect if Westminster (along with other countries) had been afforded hindsight, the bill would have been easily railroaded through in spite of public opinion. The EU is simply a sideshow, given that domestic politics dominate the agenda at General Election time. The present government went further towards emasculating the EU issue when it promised a referendum on the constitution.
In short, in Britain at least, governments are not elected by virtue of their EU policy, but their domestic policies. It makes holding plebiscites regarding constitutional change vis-脿-vis the EU all the more important. Not to appease the 鈥淒aily Mail鈥 as Mark says, but to found and legitimize these changes on firm democratic bedrock. The obstinate refusal, stretching back a generation and more, to seek a mandate for this has inflicted irrevocable damage.
As interesting (but dry) as politics and economics might be I would like to underline a strand that is hinted at above.
At the level of human behaviour (psychological) an effective European Union is not going to happen unless and until we have united Europeans, and that seems a long way off, judging by the correspondence so far - and indeed, history.
Mr Brown (or, for Ron Norton, the properly addressed Dr Brown) has called for an emphasis on Britishness (presumably partly
in view of the spectre of the Union breaking up as a consequence of devolution) and as any student of social psychology could tell you, identifying with an exclusive 'in-group' to which we belong leads to antagonism to the 'out-group' (everyone else!). You can't have your cake and eat it!
If we assume European Union is a good thing (and I'm not convinced by the way!) then Jim Walsh is right - Europe needs urgently to communicate with the people and even to make us proud to be European. I may be wrong but I think in the US most people regard themselves as American first, Californian, Floridian or whatever, second (or not at all). I just don't believe you can have a British, French or German European! For the European Union to work, at whatever level, we surely need to be European Brits/Franks/Germans etc.
Oh, and on a more personal note Mark, please don't let your earnest endeavours to do a good job on our behalf rob you of that twinkle in your eye or the sense of humour we know and love! We need to see that too!
So anyway, is Vlaams a language or a dialect?...
Vlaams is at least two dialects IIRC, and then there is Brabants and Limburgs and then some (the Netherlands has even more). The Belgian government counts Nederlands as one of its official language.
At least the Belgians make fun of it, theres a comedy sketch where someone with a regional Flemming accent complains about the subtitling of his dialect for other Flemmish viewers (actualy happens on Belgian TV) and how it demeans them, the sketch ends with him being dubbed.
I really find it sad that the Polish government fail to realise that EU solidarity is a two way street and that they just cant veto every proposal that seems a little bit controversial. The polish government seems so amateurish on these issues, expressing their disappointment with an almost russian rhetoric, I mean "Nice or death" really doesnt set a comfortable setting for further negotiations.
The current polish government doesnt seem to be up to the job of taking care of their own national interests, only to prove that they can endure the pressure of all other member states...what an achievement.
/Mikkel
Copenhagen
Why does Europe as a whole still cling onto their individual identities so passionatly but pretend they belong to a union. Each and every member is not in the least interested in a united Europe but only what benifits it can get without any or minimal obligation.
The USA has to provide for it's defence because the politicians are too useless and backsliding to protest.
I'm British but live in the USA so I can see the game being played without involvment and from here you look like a very sick animal.
Get your act together, become a strong and independent union before it's too late.
There are two things about the EU debate in the UK I have never understood:
1) When it is increasingly clear that the majority of Britons are rightly concerned about the direction being taken by the EU (ie hostile to the amount of power it now has over our everyday lives, let alone the sheer waste, incompetence and corruption it embodies), why are our politicians (all of them) so determined to drag us further and further in? Just who do they represent?
2) If the EU is not an aspiring "super-state" (as we are constantly being told), then just what is it for?
The time is long overdue for an honest debate in our participation, and a fair and binding referendum on Britain's membership.
Thanks for all your interesting comments on this my first blog day. In response...
James, I too miss my wide eyed innocence: but I will try to come up with more culturally na茂ve thoughts on any country I visit. And with the change of Government we might be seeing some interesting developments in the Province of Flanders.
Ron Norton, I do use surnames sometimes partly just to ring the changes, partly because it feels more natural. I probably wouldn鈥檛 do it on the TV news, but I feel here or in an essay its more natural - I wouldn鈥檛 shout across the office: "Mr Brown is making his speech now!". During the French election some said I was being sexist for using 'Sego' and 'Sarko' (using the woman鈥檚 first name).
James Parry makes an interesting point about the
Conservative position. I鈥檓 going to write more about this soon.
Finally Steve... It makes me really really cross when people say things like "We will never get unbiased reporting from you because your (sic) pro EU" - and then don't give any evidence. Particularly as most of the above was rather detailed, explanatory stuff. I am very happy to defend, explain and yes even apologise for anything I write or say but by definition can鈥檛 reply what amounts to general abuse.
First Mark, thanks for he blog. I thought that it would dilute the weekly diary but, I find that it enhances your more thought out comments with a more off the cuff opinion. With regard to the EU, I was born at a time when Europe was on its knees in every way. The EU has given a form of stabilty and growth that could not have been imagined in those years. A larger constitution is inevitable. It is the progression of all the other treaties that have taken place over the years and with out it little or no further growth will take place. That may be viewed by some as no bad thing. However to truly be a Union of European countries growth will have to continue and so to will a new constition. Who knows we might even get a decent bunch in our parliment,as a result of such change. One can but hope!
It is pretty amazing how many of the people who commented seem to prefer being ruled by Washington than by Brussels
As an American, my perspective is that the EU as it currently stands is crazy. It is undemocratic, too complex, and can hardly get anything useful done. The blame for this, it seems to me, is not the closer EU supporters, but the naysayers. The anti-EU people have put in so many restrictions on the EU to maintain "national identity," that the EU can't function properly. Undemocratic representation and giving each nation veto power are concessions to those people who don't want a European Nation. I'm not saying the US is perfect (we've screwed up with the two-party system and electoral college), but some good lessons can be brought from the US to Europe. For one thing, a loose confederation is almost certainly doomed to failure. America had the Articles of Confederation for over a decade and it was a disaster, even for states with similar cultures. Every state had its own currency, nothing ever got done in the Congress, individual rights were NOT protected by the states, and some states even came close to going to war (Georgia and South Carolina over a border dispute)! The Articles failed horribly in the US so why would a Articles-like union work in Europe? To remedy this either abandon the union all together and go back to war, feuding Europe which existed prior to the end of WW2, or get your act together and get a constitution. Keep certain things in control of each nation but give other things to the union and make the MEPs completely democratically elected. A democratically elected MEP will serve the people as well as a regular MP. Finally, I've noticed that many EU naysayers have been complaining that their national leaders aren't following the will of the people in this issue. If that's so then doesn't that prove that the governments of your respective nations won't represent you? If that is so then what is the advantage of keeping your national government, they won't represent you anyway. You might as well try a democratically elected European government, it can't be any worse. Besides, the definition of insanity is trying the same thing multiple times and expecting different results. Europe has being trying to get along with each other without a union since the fall of the Roman Empire. I leave you to check history and see how that has worked.
* Oscar Lima wrote:
In fact, the UK is now considered more of a burden to the EU, rather than a constructive partner; a bit like Poland, albeit without the excuse of being dirt-poor.
Hmmm, I guess you don't want our money then?
Personally, I'd prefer that the UK held a referendum on whether or not to remain in the EU. Meanwhile, I'd like the EU to expand to include Turkey, Kazakhstan and Russia, etc. This will speed up its disintegration.
Regarding posts 19 David, 25 Luka and 27 Oscar. These seem to have the common theme that the UK should leave the EU if it doesn't want to be "constructive."
Is it not the case that the EU over the last 30 years has been about 65% paid by Germany, 30% by the UK and about 5% by Holland, Denmark and Sweden?
I believe Britain's total net contribution to the EU since 1975 has now reached 拢62.0 Billion!
Actually I think there is a David Monkcom who is an Irish EU official. I don't know if he is the same one as post 19, but the salary of the EU David is effectively paid by the British and German taxpayers, and Ireland has recieved the best part of 拢25 Billion from the EU from 1975 to now.
So I would say Britain has been 拢87.0 Billion more constructive with respect to the EU, than has Ireland. As David says, they sure would miss us.
The world has moved on. The UK is the fourth largest global economy with very significant trade, family and cultural links outside Europe. We are perfectly capable of an independent future on our own, just like Australia, India, Brazil, Japan, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Canada and many other nations. How ridiculous to say this is a "Queen Victoria" attitude!
And we could have found a better use for our 拢62.0 Billion.
"The world has moved on. The UK is the fourth largest global economy with very significant trade, family and cultural links outside Europe. We are perfectly capable of an independent future on our own, just like Australia, India, Brazil, Japan, Russia, Norway, Switzerland, Canada and many other nations. How ridiculous to say this is a "Queen Victoria" attitude!"
And the world will keep evolving, meaning the UK economy will be surpassed in size by countries such as Brazil, Russia and India. Germany is an even bigger trading power than the UK, but still see advantages in politicizing the union.
The UK have a choice, stay a puppet state of the US or seek real influence in Brussels.
Mark.
These 62 billions are the price you paid for getting that "super-EFTA" you wanted. As Chris from the US wrote, we are still in the "Articles of Confederation" - I wonder if the Americans at the time griped about the weakness of Philadelphia in the face of foreign aggressions....
* Max Sceptic wrote:
Hmmm, I guess you don't want our money then?
Well Max, if this can comfort you I'm paying my taxes to Her Majesty's Internal Revenue, thus contributing with my share to "your" money.
In fact, I live and work in the England because Britain has a shortage of skills in the area I work in (scientific research and higher education).
In my workplace, out of 15 qualified staff 5 are British, 7 non-UK EU citizens and 3 are non-EU citizens. It was pretty easy for me (and all the EU folks) to move here thanks to EU legislation. If the hassle for me to come here was greater, I would have probably gone to the US, Canada or Australia where I would be payed better.
The US is not only about money. You must take into account the EU-skilled labour input into the UK economy in your "sceptic" book-keeping: you will soon see that the UK is not only giving but also benefiting from being in the EU. Or do you prefer those good old pre-73 days.
To move on, the European administration does need to be more accountable to the public, and in addition needs to be more visible to its populace. However, in the UK in particular it will have to overcome the ingrained media predjudice.
I follow closely the UK TV coverage from Germany, and real happenings and achievements in Europe by the European Administration are never reported except when there is something negative.
While the 91热爆-TV, ITV, Sky and Fox news teams lead public opinion that Europe is not important by giving it so little coverage, is it no wonder that there is so much anti-Europe sentiment present in the UK.
Just watch the 91热爆 coverage of the US Presidential elections, and compare it to coverage of European Parliament elections.
While British TV continues like this, sections of the British public will continue with the misconception that they can do without Europe, and that it is not a good thing for them to be part of it.
In my opinion, it is just laziness on the part of the editors: a sound-byte from an English-speaking US presidential face is so much easier to televise than a conglomerate of multilingual Eurocrats.
Interesting point from Oscar there about the "pre-1973 days". Britain only felt the need to be in Europe because the country felt weak and that "trade" with Europe would strengthen us. Subsequently we have learnt that we can strengthen ourselves without becoming subservient to the Franco-German "motor" and so are now more independently minded.
Across the world small countries are becoming more independent, yet many in Europe think that to survive we must throw our lot in with our neighbours whether we like them or not. This is a defeatist attitude.
Mark,
I was pleasantly surprised that you responded to my question about the use of surnames.
The reason I raised it is because all my life (I am 61) the use of surnames only, was mainly used by people who, for what ever reason, were deemed as superior. School, teachers to pupils, The Army, NCO's etc. to a lower rank.
I was taught, the way you address someone should reflect their position and standing, and to do otherwise is insulting, whether they are friends or any other member of the public.
If there is no agreement in June there will not be a two-speed EU as some fear. That is already the case today. Indeed we have a multi-speed EU. There will only be those who are in and those who are out. Just as no State has been forced to join the EU then no State will be forced to stay in the EU. There is little doubt that the unanimity requirement will not stand in the way of the obvious political will of 23 or 24 (France is one of these) states to significantly move the project on. Poland and the United Kingdom could of course leave the EU and negotiate membership of the European Economic Area.....
A graphic for votes in proportion to the square root of population would be instructive and easy as follows. For each country allocate a number of small icons of people, one icon per 74 000 population (approx). Arrange these population icons in a square, or as close to a square as numbers allow. Then colour in the icons down one side of the formation to indicate that the number of icons down one side is equal to the number of EU votes. For example, Greece has 10.5 million population, thus 142 population icons, which can be roughly arranged into a 12 by 12 square (144 spaces) and the 12 icons down one side represent the 12 EU votes of Greece.
To make this more instructive, I would colour code the normal population icons blue, and I would put the 'EU vote icons' down the left hand side of the square and colour them red. This would indicate that the EU is run by leftie communists plotting to steal our money and sovereignty. But I daresay the guardian-readers you work with will dissuade you from making that reasonable innuendo. Perhaps the icons representing EU votes could be just like ordinary population icons, except each holding a gravy boat. Been to any good free dinners lately?
I lived in the UK for 12 years, and enjoyed my time there. But there is something about the interaction of media, people and institutions that makes intelligent assessment and balanced judgements on issues, such as the role of the EU, almost impossible. Every discussion seems to be reduced to gross distortions and selective facts by newspapers and TV. I share Blair's assessment of the British media - if the role of the media is to report THE TRUTH (remember that) then one that is ruled by opinionated media-moguls, or caters to every national prejudice to sell its wares, is a failure.
The costs of the EU long ago exceeded the benefits. The EU's external tariffs are now 0% for services, ~1.9% for manufactured goods and ~10.9% for agricultural goods. More and more people work in services where the EU allows national restrictions on what should be the free supply of services anyway. Therefore the EU common market becomes less and less real as more people work in services. The benefits of being inside the EU customs union are fading away as the GATT & WTO have reduced world tariffs to levels not so far from the 0% within the common market. Meanwhile the economic costs of the fees we pay to Brussels, the costs of their ill-thought-out regulatory burden, and above all the loss of our ability to elect a government to make the key decisions that affect us have grown to become intolerable. The EU is failing to deliver benefits to justify its costs but the elites push on with their undemocratic project for a multinational federation. The EU fully deserves to be in crisis.
Membership of the EU has completely changed our constitution as it's quite beyond the ability of our MPs to find enough time to study every one of the huge number of the EU's directives that flow out of Brussels on a weekly basis. I do not believe the EU's constitution needs to change, but ours certainly does. The way to do this is for the UK government to put any of the EU's proposals that are controversial (eg 35% of MPs say so, or 1 million voters petition against it etc) to a referendum. Probable maximum: 1 batch of EU referendums per year. And that should also include referendums on those decisions that have already been agreed on (ie in the past) by the EU's members which once were acceptable, but are now proving to be a mistake & are therefore now unpopular. Then the EU Commisison would seem to be like democrats, rather than the anti-democratic control freaks that they appear to be at present.
Thanks for all your interesting and stimulating comments. I particularly enjoyed Tony's arguments for a referendum: more cogent than many a politician.
And I swear that I was going to recommend George Wright's post before I got to the end and read the personal note. But thanks for the reminder: it's one of the things that slightly worries me about a blog, the temptation to stick out volume rather than think about presentation. But I will try to keep the twinkle in at least one eye while keeping the other one firmly on any developments on the new treaty.
On your substantive point: it always slightly surprises me that British people aren't more understanding of the EU given our history as a state formed by the union of four (three-and-a-bit, now) unequal parts. (No, this is not "91热爆 man defends EU," I just want to throw some fat in the fire.) While most people from Florida would indeed see themselves as Americans first, don't many Welsh, Scottish and English people call themselves that, not British? And I have a couple of friends here who would be quite cross to be called British - they see themselves as Irish, even though that's not what it says on their passport. So you can have a Yorkshire English British European.
I suspect politicians and commentators are more hung up on issues of national identity than most people. I tend to say "Londoner" when asked what I am, but I am more defined in my own mind by being a father, journalist, wearer-of-glasses and so on, than by a point of origin.
To follow up on Ed's comment:
Subsequently we have learnt that we can strengthen ourselves without becoming subservient to the Franco-German "motor" and so are now more independently minded.
I've lived in the UK for almost 3 years now and I notice that people have an innate obsession with Franco-German things and an irrational fear of being "subservient" to them. Can you explain why? The UK is as well represented as any other nation of its size in Brussels. If the UK's attitude is a passive waiting and let the "Franco-Germans" come up with proposals that you then either criticise or flatly reject, then you can't complain about subservience: you may wish to call this "British-pragmatism", but you can't qualify it with leadership. What is your model of free-market: the Commonwealth? To lead you need to propose and accept some sacrifices, which in the long-run you believe will be outweighed by the benefits, but this is not what the UK has done for the EU. Blair's New Labour was voted in, on a ticket for joining the Euro, but he then swiftly changed his mind, under not so hidden pressure from financial and media groups that share with Britain only the fact that they speak English (and own many media outlets here). Maybe to understand theat feeling of subservience coming from somewhere, maybe you should look on the other side ;-)
As Mark says (post 44), I am indeed an EU official, though British not Irish, and I try to do my bit to improve communication between "Brussels" and the European public.
To my mind, having a European Union makes fundamentally good sense: but there are many deficiencies in the way it works at present.
I would like to see the peoples of Britain and all other EU countries have a truly informed debate about the EU: what we like and dislike about it, what we want from it, what we want to achieve together via its common policies.
I think such a debate would shed a lot of light on the question of UK membership. This blog promises to be a very interesting forum for that debate. Thank you, Mark Mardell!
George (34) wrote: 鈥淚 may be wrong but I think in the US most people regard themselves as American first, Californian, Floridian or whatever, second (or not at all). I just don't believe you can have a British, French or German European! For the European Union to work, at whatever level, we surely need to be European Brits/Franks/Germans etc.鈥
I agree George. It鈥檚 clear, even reading the warm EU Eurobarometer polls, that the EU does not currently enjoy an overriding European demos. Moreover, it does not enjoy a genuine European political sphere of debate or genuine trans-European political parties to help facilitate the growth of such a demos. The ostensible symbols of statehood (flag, anthem, passport etc.) have been implemented, but the visceral instincts are still predominantly national, or sub-national. It鈥檚 a key foundation in underpinning current and future integration in my opinion.
Chris (42) wrote: 鈥淭o remedy this either abandon the union all together and go back to war, feuding Europe which existed prior to the end of WW2, or get your act together and get a constitution.鈥
Is it really necessary to evoke such apocalyptic hyperbole? The EU has done a sterling job acting in conjunction with NATO and facilitating a lasting peace. But let鈥檚 not get carried away into thinking the EU will disintegrate into conflict if it doesn鈥檛 secure a constitution.
Chris (42) also wrote: 鈥淭he anti-EU people have put in so many restrictions on the EU to maintain "national identity," that the EU can't function properly. Undemocratic representation and giving each nation veto power are concessions to those people who don't want a European Nation. 鈥
Surely the DNA of the organization was determined both in the 1950s and by Monnet drawing inspiration from the French Republic of the time? It was a concept both immune and suspicious of democracy (or 鈥減opulism鈥) and set about empowering grand civil servents (Commission) to exercise powers that the member states had delegated to them (States). This organization鈥檚 DNA as is often said, is not a bug, but a feature. It is neither conducive, nor responsive to representative democracy.
A fully constituted federal state is one solution, but surely is there not an obligation to consult the governed and seek a mandate? I grant the current halfway house is blurring matters, but given that there are 27 countries (many still vigorously engaging in realpolitik) and currently no overriding European demos, this is sometimes the price of democracy, or 鈥渃oncessions to those people who don't want a European Nation鈥 as you write.
In reply to Ronald Gr眉nebaum:
"The biggest joke must be the position of the Polish government. Not only does Poland owe its EU membership to the insistence of the Germans, they also provide Poland with its biggest market. It is already pretty rich (and not very democratic) that Poland has such disproportionate voting rights, but insulting Germany as the "enemy" should have consequences."...
I do not always agree with the Polish Government or many other governments for that matter (and thus politicians in general) however, what consequences are we talking here about Ronald? Freedom of speech means that sometimes we may not hear things that we agree with. Are you saying that in your version of EU there should be "some sort" of consequences simply because someone dared to voice however misguided, distorted or taken out of context point of view, emotional outburst, figure of speech or a simple spirit of the moment verbal mistake? Also you say that Poland owes its EU membership due to the insistence of Germans? Really? I guess all the changes Poland unleashed on itself and its people in order to EARN the acceptance into the EU (not to mention having to meet certain demands and crteria set by the EU for prospective new members) since shaking off the old Soviet shackles (not to mention the fact that this was done by Poles alone and that Poland effectively started the process of the breakup of the old Warsaw Pact thereby one could say, indirectly contributing to the process of successful German unification and overall through the subsequent disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, a more democratic and free Europe) had nothing to do with that at all? I find it interesting if not unsurprising. You think German unification would have taken place if the whole Warsaw Pact was still knocking on Germany's door? Oh how quickly do we forget. Supporting Poland is the least Germany could do to assist Poland in its attempts at seeking the membership of the EU. In addition, some could say more importantly, I guess the idea of Poland being in the EU and thus serving as a convenient strategic buffer between Russia/Russian influences (what's new?) and Germany had nothing at all to do with the "insistence of the Germans for Poland to be accepted into the European Union"?! Please give me a break! No one forgets the German support on the issue but equally it has to be remembered that Germany alone did not just out of purely "goodness of its heart" graciously and alone make it possible for Poland to simply walk into the EU without considering the attached strategic and economic considerations and without the Polish own effort, changes and transformations. European Union should be just that. A Union based on fair and EQUAL rights in all aspects - including VOTING for all of its members and not on some indirect form of subdivision between the usual "old Europe" and "the rest" of Europe (within the EU) with more (voting) power for some members of EU and less for other "lesser members". What are we trying to create? Another so often ineffective version of UN?! It is no wonder that average people all over Europe are skeptical and in some ways negative to many ideas of the EU. I feel that Poland however perceived as imperfect by some, EARNED its accession into the EU on its own merits and achievements especially taking into account the huge and difficult transformation the country has gone through after many years of being in the Soviet sphere of influence. The day that EU becomes a true Union without any real or perceived distinctions between "old and powerful Brussels Franco German dominated Europe" (as can be perceived when seeing that it is proposed to reduce one member's voting power and to increase the other's! Why not have equal voting power for all members? Would that be such a radical and impractical idea? Or is the notion of Poland having equal voting rights with Germany, France and others just too hard to swallow?!) and the rest of the "lesser" perceived Europe is the day that the EU will truly become a unified EU, one body of European people thus progressing ahead and probably gaining wider acceptance to the average person on the street.
Oh, how Mark summed things up beautifully and acuratly very recently .. "Scottish and English people call themselves that, not British?" .. only the Government describes us as British.
Sarkozy's name is Nicolas, not Nicholas.
I am UK born Britsh national, and I for one am sick to death of the anti-European propaganda that is circulated by the majority of the UK press. If the UK is to have a vote then population has a right to an informed opinion rather than just absorb the permanent cynicism of the EU that surrounds us.
The biggest problem the EU faces in the UK is that the majority of the population in the UK who take an interest in the debate are the small business men who are appalled at the loss of productivity and the rise in labour costs that EU imposed legislation is going to cause them. Never mind the fact that the usual winner in such matters are the rights of the individual. Never mind the fact that most Europeans in our EU neighbours enjoy better public services, a healthier work life balance and far better infrastructure than we do.
In the UK we perpetually moan about the fact that we have the worst public transport, longest working hours, fewer Bank Holidays, a decaying Health Service, not to mention the anti-social behaviour that has recently been noted in the 'Worst World Tourist' poll. With all of these problems, we don't reach out and try and learn from our neighbours (God-forbid they could teach us anything!).
I work in the retail industry in the UK, and for the last 10 years we have opened our doors on Sundays. No staff like to work it, nor do they like it work the Bank Holidays that all retailers in the UK tend to open now. We were sold a myth 10 years ago that in keeping our doors closed we were lagging behind Europe and the rest of the world. The penny has now finally dropped amongst my colleagues that we were lied to by the bosses. While we open our doors 365 days a year in the UK, our European neighbours keep their shops firmly closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
I appreciate that is nor a policitcally structured arguement, I'm not an expert on politics. But I do know that the benefits to the individual of belonging to the EU are massive, and we never hear about them. I would give up my life in the UK and happily move abroad to an EU neighbour, indeed I have the freedom to do that. But I would prefer a better way of life for the UK and believe that that lies within the EU
Jim Walsh wrote:
"However I think the Union needs to spend more time over the next few years in a communications exercise promoting its positive aspects before putting the treaty back on the table."
What positive aspects would they be Jim?
You mention free movement of people, you don't have to be a member of the EU to do this, Norway manages very well. You also mention the euro and not having to bother changing currencies, I don't find this much of a chore and if this is the price of maintaining our sovereignty and being able to make our own laws and determine our own foreign policy and control our own immigration it is a small price to pay. As far as Human Rights is concerned you are welcome to it. It is just a blank cheque for Human Rights lawyers like Cherie Blair.
The best way to end confusion regarding treaties and constitutions is for the UK to leave the EU
鈥 At 01:01 PM on 12 Jun 2007,
鈥 David Monkcom wrote:
"If the majority of British people really are so wholly opposed to anything but a loose free trade area, then their government should take the UK out of the EU and let the rest of us get on with shaping the EU's future, sadly without you. "
Sounds good to me, and when we see the mountain of regulations coming out of Brussels and reports of more corruption and billions of euros wasted we can sit back and smile while sipping our beer from our pint glasses.
I don't think you can compare the USA to the proposed Socialist States of Europe.
The US was built from the ground up and each state has more autonomy than each country in the EU, even though we are not supposed to be in a federal state. The SSE has been formed against the will of the people, as someone said, only two of the countries who signed up to the constitution had a referendum. If every country was given a referendum giving the the choice to leave the EU I should imagine the UK would vote to leave along with Denmark, Sweden, Holland and Germany. Everyone that posts on this blog should read 'The Great Deception' by Chris Booker and Richard North, then you will realise why the people of this country despise the EU.
So much to address:
1) No, the defeat of EE communist regimes was done by the Americans and the Brits.
2) Ronald should remember that we had to be accepted unanimously by all 15 European nations, not just the Germans.
3) Why are politicians debating behind closed doors? I want to be allowed to vote (I'm 19).
4) Mikkel Jensen prolly forgot about the Baltic Pipeline.
William Haversham (64): "being able to ... determine our own foreign policy"
Really Mr Haversham?? And there was I thinking that our foreign policy was determined in the White House...
I am so tired of people talking about solidarity in EU and how Poland dose not understand it. Right after they say I pay more so I should more voting rights. As far as I know Poland veto only EU-RUSSIAN energy agreement and that was only because western Europe was willing to sell their mothers for Russian gas. Germany definitely was not thinking about solidarity with new members when they agreed to Baltic gas pipe. France is not thinking about solidarity when it veto any CAP change. UK has no idea what solidarity means when comes to their cash. There is no such thing as solidarity in EU and this is why Poland is right to stop new treaty.