Respect for parliament
Tony Blair's demands are "not a menu of options" according to Downing Street. But the EU is keeping something from us. Keeping it a secret. They won't tell us what the leaders are eating at their big dinner until the first morsel is consumed. And surely they know that when no real news is leaking out, reporters have to know what leaders are eating.
nearly didn鈥檛 get any supper. They were almost arrested outside the summit, and had their inflatable bulldozer confiscated. They are not happy.
In my interview with him European Commission President sounded shocked that some British people, who killed a king to protect the rights of Parliament, should feel that ratifying a treaty through Parliament was "by the back door". What sort of respect, he asked, does that show to the mother of parliaments? Is he right?
The Danish, who have a list of demands, have been told they will all be met. If they work on the Poles. The Poles object to a voting system which rewards countries with big populations so much. The Polish prime minister has shocked everybody here by telling a radio station that Poland should have more votes because it would have a bigger population if Hitler hadn't killed so many people. One of the unwritten rules of the EU is, "Don't mention the war!"
UPDATE : Breaking news. We've got the menu. The dinner has broken up remarkably early which suggests to me the serious business will be done tomorrow. The starter, rollmop with Frankfurt sauce, sounds suitably international. Then artichoke-filled beef. But I bet it was the sour cherry soup that captured the mood.
UPDATE 2: No real negotiations at the dinner: they just went round the table and restated their positions. Blair made a particular point of the being a problem. The real talks will be "bilateral", one-to-one negotiations. Downing Street says: "These negotiations will be real, not rituals."
But I think my colleague Alex Ritson has a story that could be more important than all the others. He's still checking it, so I'm not quite sure how it'll work out, but he should be on the Today programme tomorrow morning. A clue: will this summit see the end to a free-market Europe, and what does that mean for competition policy?
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
It would appear that Alex Ritson has been scooped by the FT...
Your blogs on Europe are terrific, thank you!
Well, it's a bit disingenuous of Mr Barroso to get all huffy on behalf of parliament. I imagine he knows perfectly well that the outcome of any debate in parliament is more or less a foregone conclusion. It's true that over the last couple of years we've seen an upsurge in backbench militancy, but for something like the treaty/constitution it is exceptionally unlikely that there will even be a decent debate, let alone any concerted attempt at opposition. I think we can be pretty sure that no referendum means no chance of rejection. But this isn't a question limited to the UK. Politicians everywhere in the EU are deeply suspicious of direct democracy because it means they are unable - or at least a lot less able - to control the debate. I think they worry that ordinary people might get a taste for sticking their oar in...
Blair is right to be concerned about any charter concerning 'fundamental rights'. The EU has done nothing but take the rights of the British people away from them - we can't fish where we want (although others apparently can); we can't export what we want although the French and Germans apparently can; we can't sell what we want. And the list goes on and on and on.
"President" (actually private citizen of Portugal) Barroso says the people of the UK should be denied a vote on the resurrected Constitution because the Westminster Parliament is 鈥渢he greatest in the world.鈥 This is the same Barroso who also argues against the Dutch proposal to give national parliaments a 鈥渞ed card鈥 to restrict unpopular legislative proposals from his Commission. If he thinks national parliaments are so great why will he not accept their verdict on Commission proposals?
Barroso also demands nations must give up their vetoes in the Council of Ministers but has declared the Commission itself to have a 鈥渞ed line鈥 concerning its current monopoly right to initiate Europe legislation over 490 million. This monopoly right is effectively a veto on the creation or modification of European law. No democratic state in the world denies its elected legislators the ability to create or modify legislative proposals in the Parliament in which they sit. But this is the case in the EU. But Barroso declares the unelected Commission must have this monopoly right and this to be his 鈥渞ed line鈥 during European treaty amendments.
The reality is that the EU is steadily taking powers from national parliaments. For Barosso to pretend he has it鈥檚 best interest at heart is disingenuous.
L.S.,
I am getting increasingly annoyed with the recent fad of having referendums about everything and anything. Referendums have long been a part of the constitutional system of Switzerland, but they don't fit in parliamentary systems like the Netherlands (my country) or the UK. There is nothing elitist about this position. The point is succinctly summed up by the quote from Burke that I posted somewhere on this blog last week, but also by several of the Federalist papers:
The government of a country is an extremely complex problem. Even something relatively simple as a Constitution for Europe is still so complex that the most heard complaint in the Dutch referendum was that they voted no because the thing was too complicated, and the government didn't explain it properly. Because the government of a country is so difficult, we elect some of the brightest from our midst to work on it full time; government is no sport for amateurs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but parliament should not delegate its responsibilities to the (rationally ignorant) population.
Conor Cradden - don't forget, the new treaty would enshrine the legal right for citizens to directly petition the EU to enact/alter/repeal laws. It brings the institutions much closer to the people, and gives people more of a chance to 'stick their oar in' - something the people and the politicians alike would welcome.
The problem with Barruso, making these comments is he is misguided in his thinking. Parliament is not deciding, and nor are its members, in terms of treaty.
What is being decided, is a pretty secret (its secret because documents are being drawn up in haste, with ZERO public examination), and then transient leaders are 'possibly' going to simply decide away parliaments, in closed session, just like that.
If that was not bad enough, one line of text in these 'agreements' can have a seriously major affect on every 400+ million people in the EU. Small textual changes probably don't seem very diferent to Mister Blair, sat next to Mr Sarkosy round the dinner table. It really does not affect the 'elite's, but rather you and I later on.
I've never yet understood the idea that we protect our parliaments by being good silent well behaved, and let parliament get absolutely wiped out, overnight.
After this 'treaty', the Parliament will actually go from making only around 25% of law in the UK to what? 15%
The one thing truthful, is we did kill a king to protect parliament. Maybe that premise is the right one.
As an aside Mr Mardell, I have to say I find your commentary very unbiased, but I am very ashamed the media of Europe is not holding these people to account in terms of referendums and democracy.
Its rather a shame UKIP and a few small groupings are left to bat for everyone, and even if they are a cooky bunch sometimes, it would seem to me a sad day they are threatened with prison and have their harmless, yet iconic bulldozer removed by force, almost like this is some police state.
The STORY of this treaty meeting is not the treaty, it is that they intend to do this, and not have any voting or referenda at all, because they can't win one. the implication for freedom and democracy is a terrible one, and one the press have taken a leave of absense from.
Even if you are PRO european, You should also be pro getting and having proper and full support of people.
Kind Regards
DS
Surely the reason that Parliament's decision is a 'foregone conclusion' is that our elected representatives, the people who's responsibility it is to guard Britain's national interest, realise that membership of the EU is essential for Britain's future - and that the Treaty, while a compromise, will contribute to this in a positive way.
Does anyone really believe this puppet show will end in anything but more power grab?
It's a scam, a con, a stitch up by the political elite. They have no intention of throwing away their dreams of a new USSR. Blair included, because as much as he denies it, he dreams of being the king of Europe.
Barroso's belief in the significance of the UK Parliament is quite touching, though I am sure he meant to say the UK Parliament was "probably the greatest national parliament in the world". He might otherwise get into trouble the next time he appears before the EP.
His comments also appear in the week that his Vice President Margot Wallstrom has, on her blog, cracked some sneers about arcane voting traditions in the UK Parliament (though arguably the voting system there is more efficient than in the EP).
Barroso's extravagant praise for the Commons (and Lords) does not disguise the fact that the Presidency text is one which, for the first time, seeks to require national parliaments "to contribute actively to the good functioning of the EU". This is a draft mission statement which Westminster would do well to examine very closely.
By the way, Mark, when John Bright coined the phrase, he described England, not Westminster, as "the mother of Parliaments".
The STORY of this treaty meeting is:
- the EU needed reform. After enlargement it needed some rule changes in order to take decisions and coordinate policies more effectively.
- unfortunately, a number of rather grandiose politicians decided to also 'tidy up' the existing treaties and give the document the title of 'constitution'.
(Although, this is not so unreasonable, all clubs need a constitution)
- despite assembling a 'convention' with an unprecedented number of national representatives to arrive at a new text transparently, the resulting document was so complicated that electorates voted 'no'.
- now we've gone back to the original, simpler idea of having a reform treaty.
The British Parliament ratifies treaties. There is no precedent or constitutional basis for holding one.
Actually, Mr Jones, the UK Parliament does not ratify treaties: that is a prerogative power of the Sovereign, exercised on her behalf by the Government.
What the UK Parliament does, in treaty terms, is to pass legislation to amend the legal order in the UK so that the treaty may be ratified and enter into force without conflicting with the law of the land.
After reading the comments on this board and in the main "Have your say", section of the 91热爆 site, I seriously wonder if, given the seemingly pathological English inability to remember that this is not, in fact, 1939, it wouldn't perhaps be better to leave the EU altogether?
I don't know if the UK would seriously suffer from reintroduced duties and taxes and lack of markets etc, but I'm sure it wouldn't be all that great since even a country like Switzerland, where I live, does very well, all things considered.
An automatic consequence, however, of leaving the EU, would be that the UK would have no more influence there anymore, und thus be less able to torpedo its neighbours in its eternal fear of 1939 while it itself slowly sells itself out to the USA more and more each year.
As for the Poles and their seemingly insane president, it would perhaps be a good idea if they were to leave the EU with the UK.
Defend the local dimension to EU lawmaking!
There is/was much in the Treaty that was beneficial to UK local government and therefore to (local) European governance as a whole.
As a result of intensive lobbying by UK and other local government associations (LGAs) the draft Treaty formally recognised local self-government (ie limits to national government interference in local matters); the need for the EU to take into account the local impact of new EU law (70% of new UK law starts in Brussels); the need for new EU law to be proportionate to its objectives; the need for better consultation of those who actually implement new EU laws (ie local authorities); and the right of the EU Committee of the Regions to monitor the above (the CoR is a kind of local European Parliament).
In short, no new fridge mountains!! Local authorities have to implement new EU law,however daft or sensible, so please consult us in its drafting!
We do not necessarily need a new Treaty to secure the above, they are tenants of "good governance", but if there IS to be a new Treaty, let's keep these democratic safeguards!!
Richard Kitt
LGA Brussels
Barroso has suggested that because the British have such a fine Parliament we should be denied a referendum. If our Parliament was so damned good it would not have allowed its powers to have been striped from it in the first place and a referendum is necessary exactly for that reason. Our Parliament it has failed in its duty to protect our sovereignty and it is therefore time that the people were given their opportunity to tell politicians exactly what they think about the EU project.
>
>