Sandwiches and pillar collapse
The sandwich supper has started and so have the disagreements. The German foreign minister has said, "We're in for a very long night." But the expected it all to be over in a couple of hours. Still, it'll take quite a while for the foreign ministers of 27 countries to answer the Germans鈥 questions.
The are trying to sort out some fundamental issues. This is what they are asking:
- 鈥 Is it OK to drop the term constitution and call this an amending
treaty?
- 鈥 Should the EU have a single legal personality?
- 鈥 Shall we drop the from the treaty but
make sure it is legally binding?
And for many the big one:
- 鈥 Shall we treat foreign affairs just like any other subject, instead of leaving nation states to sort it out between themselves?
In the jargon, this last one is, to the Germans, 鈥渙vercoming the existing pillar structure鈥; to the British government, 鈥減illar collapse鈥; and to Eurosceptics, their worst nightmare鈥 although some will rub their hands with glee at the fight to come.
Read my account of the British government鈥檚 red lines here.
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
No legal personality for the EU, ever. Britain (and Netherlands, and other likeminded peoples) must oppose this at all costs. Legal personality is a key step on the path to federation. Therefore I repeat the famous words of mrs Thatcher: No, no, no!
L.S.,
Dude, the European Community, as opposed to the European Union, has legal personality based on article 281 of the (EC) Treaty. Without it, the Community would not be able to make legal contracts at private law. The Community also has international legal personality, i.e. the capacity to enter into international agreements, treaties, etc., based on, amongst others, article 300 EC and aricle 310 EC.
martinned: it is precisely our purpose to keep treaty making/signing rights away from the EU (superior to the EC).
The stealthy 'ever closer union' agenda (Monnet & co planned full political union from the word go) must be stopped at all costs.
Decades of lies and deception must also be exposed. As I stated, Monnet 7 co planned political union from day 1, and lied and deceived every step of the way.
Could some-one please tell me what exactly is objectionable in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in particular vis a vis Trade Unions. . it says: " Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests."
Don't we already have this right in the UK?
Or do I live in a strange parallel universe where this belief in freedom has been spirited away?
It doesn't seem to me to alter the laws on secondary picketing, voting before a strike etc etc - all it does is re-state the case.
Why are people so scared if this?