The treaty Blair wanted
It wouldn鈥檛 be quite true to say that Tony Blair was as fresh as a daisy - but more perky than anyone has a right to be at five in the morning. He鈥檇 just won the treaty he wanted. As he talked, a very senior negotiator whispered to me, 鈥淲hat do you make of it?鈥 with the small smile of a tired man who knew he鈥檇 done his job rather satisfactorily.
Afterwards I bumped into some profoundly Eurosceptic politicans in the lift, deriding Mr Blair鈥檚 words on a positive Europe. 鈥淲ell, that鈥檚 the referendum gone,鈥 one of them said. But the argument is far from over. It will depend how the newspapers and the Conservatives play it.
In fact, Mr Blair knows that he could never stop the demands for a referendum, but he could certainly undermine them. The proposed reform treaty, which won鈥檛 be signed until December, is riddled with italicised print put in specially for the British government.
'Transfer of power'
It鈥檚 quite clear that there has been detailed political work, scouring the newspapers and websites arguing for a referendum, and answering them. The Charter of Fundamental Rights will affect British law? It says in black and white it won鈥檛. Britain will have to give up its seat on the UN Security Council? The treaty says that is not the case. Britain will lose power through the new voting system? Here, it鈥檚 not clever negotiating but Polish intransigence that comes to the aid of the British government. There won鈥檛 be a new voting system until 2014.
Of course, the opposition鈥檚 ammo hasn鈥檛 all been stolen. William Hague issued a statement well before the ink was dry, saying that what we had all seen by then amounted to a major transfer of power. Tony Blair has agreed to give up its veto in more than 40 areas, all of them minor according to the government. Some argue that having a President of the European Council could lead eventually to a directly-elected President of Europe. The European Union gains a single legal personality, in other words the right to join international organisations.
But in this case the devil may be outside the detail, as far as Mr Brown is concerned. Reading through the many comments made by readers of this blog, I come across some very detailed specific arguments. But most of those calling for a referendum take a much more broad-brush approach. They don鈥檛 like what they believe is European Union bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste. They feel that they have never had a vote on a relationship that has got much stronger and deeper since the UK joined. And they want one, so they can say 鈥淣o鈥 and alter that relationship. The absence of a sub-clause or the addition of a footnote will not deter them.
The Conservatives have already called for a referendum. They know this is not an easy argument to keep up, when there is not a chance of Gordon Brown giving in. But they will argue that, like many a Brown budget, it will repay days of careful reading.
Navel-gazing over
As for those who support the European Union, the pragmatists will be relieved and the idealists mortified. The Merkels, Sarkozys, Barrosos and possibly even Browns of this world will be relieved that a union of 27 states can still, just about, reach an agreement.
Above all, they will be glad that the navel-gazing is over, and hunt around for more projects like energy and climate change to show that they are better off acting together. The stage will be set for further Brown/Sarkozy clashes on the economy.
As for the real federalists, they will be bitterly disappointed. The Belgians kicked up a last-minute fuss because the UK had been given too much. There will be protests in the European Parliament that this tiny treaty tears the heart out of a document that was formally and legally backed by 18 countries. Some will grumble about countries like Britain and Poland making the weather rather than those loyal to the vision of the EU鈥檚 founding fathers.
There will, again, be talk of an inner core pressing ahead alone. As the outgoing Belgian prime minister has pointed out, there already is one: the countries that are in the euro, don鈥檛 have border controls and co-operate on policing. They will feel a glimmer of hope that even if the steps are tiny, then at least they are going in the right direction. Who will be the first to argue this is all very well but what Europe needs is a constitution?
UPDATE: And what did Mr Blair get given at his last summit? Mrs Merkel says it was so late "just a few warm words". Her words for Gordon Brown were a little colder, hoping that Britain's next leader would show a similar commitment to Europe.
Sarkozy said he very much regretted the departure of a man 鈥渨ho has looked for compromise in Europe and taken the United Kingdom into Europe". Then he added: 鈥淚've had the chance to speak to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair - I hope and am sure that Gordon Brown, by passing from 11 to 10 Downing Street, will have the heart to have a positive discourse. It's extremely important.鈥
Perhaps the reason for this lack of warmth was the chancellor's alarm at the way the French president had tried to pull a fast one over economic policy. Mr Sarkozy went on to say the word-change on competition was very important and suggested that it could indeed change EU law. So watch this space. I feel this argument isn't over.
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
What an extraordinary and wonderful outcome! It is difficult to comprehend a process that delivers so much - in terms of striking agreement between 27 member states - yet appears so chaotic and informal.
This triumph of Merkel, Sarkozy and Blair, each at different stages of their political careers, makes me wonder how much more could be achieved if the three of them could have been kept going as a ruling triumvirate of Europe.
But perhaps that's the point. Briatin's role can be great when co-operating with France and Germany but is destined to be peripheral because no British politician with a future will dare to be seen as being as equally European as British.
If Mr Verhofstadt's career in national politics is indeed ended, as it appears to be after the last elections, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him getting involved more deeply at the European level.
Hi Mark,
I thoroughly enjoy reading your write ups. Aside from whether or not the UK has gained or lost power from this treaty, I think that the applause must go to Angela Merkel. As the current EU president, she had to be the consensus builder trying to work in everyone's demands and she did it. She clearly is a force to be reckoned with in the international world. I don't think a referendum can be avoided on this treaty. The British public must have a say. And on Tony Blair's last EU summit, I say he fared quite well,not trying to defend himself from giving in too much. Not a bad end for Mr. Blair.
Very well said, Mark. The UK eurosceptics will protest no matter what the treaty says, even when it explicitly rules out their fear-mongering scenarios (eg loss of UN seat etc). They have consistently thrown sand in peoples eyes with discussing things that were never even talked about in EU circles.
I wish they all had the courage just to vote for UKIP and thus try to leave the EU. It would be much better for them, and for the rest of us. Good riddance.
If Mr Brown wishes to be Prime Minister after the next General election, there WILL have to be a referendum on the Constitutional Document signed by Blair.
As time goes by,Mr Blair will not be remembered just for Iraq, if he has agreed to giving the EU, FULL LEGAL PERSONALITY, he will be remembered as the man who gave away the Royal Prerogative. It really was not in 'his gift' to give. Then try and tell the people, Parliament is still "Sovereign" and there is no need for a referendum. Spell out Mark for the people just exactly what comes under "The Royal Prerogative".
With Sarkozy's removal of 'free trade' and 'competition' from the new treaty/constitution, the EU comes full circle. The initial lie, that we were joining a 'common market', can now be expunged and the real intent revealed: the creation of a super-state run, not by politicians, but by third-rate, self-serving bureaucrats.
I know of what I speak, I spent 7 years in Brussels and met many of their kind.
Like the Chinese empire that led the world in the 15th century, we will be ossified by pen-pushers. Not with a bang but a whimper. Sic transit Europa.
Come off it, Mark , the pragmatists have lost , more and more power is concentrated in Brussels. We have lost the power to stop the EU juggernaut in more and more areas, 40 potential veto opportunities have been removed and Sarkozy has definitely made the EU a more protectionist bloc with his removal of the word " competition" from the main body of the " Constitution" ( sorry,Treaty)
I have just watched 91热爆 1 News declare Blair signing upto the Treaty as a success i.e the same line as you have taken. It is not it has been signed by a man who has no responsibility for anything in less than a week and backed by another man who has never been elected as leader of his own Party let alone as Prime Minster. Their claim to represent the people of the UK is false and we should be allowed a referendum as was promised
If they intend to elect a President then the EU is to be a separate organisation i.e. it's still on line to be the federal superstate that the people do not want.This pretense is just another means by which to get the constitution approved by the back door.Being involved in a variety of agreed shared policies for mutual benefit is one thing, but being the victim of diktats from Brussels which overrule British laws is something quite different.Voters won't be happy that there is still no progress on the lack of accountability for expenditure within the EU nor on any efforts to reduce the gravy train costs to the taxpayer.
What a sad ending. No new voting system until 2014, I cant possibly imagine how that benefits Polish interests. Oh well, they stood up to Germany, I guess that means they win, in their own little world.
I cant see any other way out of this standstill then the eurozone moving ahead with further integration.
What was stopped several times in the wars against France and Germany is now coming ever nearer to pass, namely a united and dictatorial Europe that ignores the will of its citizens by pressing on regardless of referendum results in countries like Ireland, France and Holland.
With any transfer of power to the EU a referendum is required. We were promised one and Brown will find it politically impossible not to grant one. Mark is right that the treaty will require days of careful reading to understand what position should be taken regarding it...but heres a guess...I won't like what I read
The very concept of a president and high representative calls for a unified voice. A unified voice will require the little guys to shut up and the big guys to make the policy. So UK you can influence the big two but not out vote them. By the time the next generation of voters get through school without education in modern history there will be a federal socialist introvert closed bloc Europe Mark, hidden trade barriers masked as health and safety regs etc and all.
When is a Constitution not a Constitution..? When its a Treaty...
I stayed up all last night watching our country slide away into a European super state.
I have one simple question - why don't those in favour of more integration want a referendum on just that question.
As they don't it is therefore logical to assume they are not in favour of democracy.
So by 2014 my children will be growing up in non democratic super state, welcome back the USSR.
I note your headline is "The treaty Blair wanted". We now need a referendum to find if this is "The treaty Britain wants".
You seem increasingly desperate to equate the Labour party with the United Kingdom. The treaty wording may be a way for the Labour party to evade it's commitment for a referendum, but Merkel's "few warm words" do not justify the scrapping of the commitment to the referendum.
We must hope the House of Lords blocks any attempt to foist the treaty on the UK without a referendum.
The public are entitled to express their opinions on the steady transfer of powers to the EU which has ocurred since the UK entered. Issues such as the CAP, the Common Fisheries policy, the way in which the EU has ignored subsidiarity in its desire to legislate in areas which could be left to the nation states, the corruption highlighted by EU auditors in repeated refusals to sign off the accounts etc.
We do need a treaty, but one that returns power to the nations and puts in place mechanisms to clean up the EU's act.
Geoffrey Dron
Dear Mr Mardell
It will be impossible for Mr Brown to resist a Referendum on the new Treaty if there is any legal risk that the "undistorted competition" principle would be undermined by the new Treaty. Mr Brown would understand the consequences of such a change better than most!
The "common market" idea has been at the heart of the European ideal for generation.
Yours sincerely
Simon Birkett
I think that the most telling statement was by Sarkozy, who believes that he has scuppered the existing anti protectionist powers of the EU.
Effectively this means that France has managed to get control of UK companies and contracts, whilst denying UK investors and companies the same rights. Now that inequitable situation has been legalised by treaty ... way to go Tony.
Every inch of power gained by the EU is never returned by an equal relinquishment elsewhere. We are slowly losing sovereignty, and eventually will either have to leave, or give up the pretence of being anything more than a regional govt on a par with a county council.
Lets at least have a referendum, and be like the Turkeys who voted for Christmas.
Mark
It's perfectly true what you say about the sceptics' wish for a referendum. They say they want a vote on the treaty but in reality it's only because they don't have the courage to ask for a vote on withdrawal.
If we were to have a referendum on the EU, perhaps it should be on membership rather than a specific treaty, because if we were to go through the motions of a treaty referendum there would be many people reading and voting on a question that isn't actually written down.
A couple of dysfunctionally medieval-thinking conservatives won't stop the will of 500 million people to move together towards a better and progressive future.
The true Europeans will shake the italic and footnote fleas off this guantanamo-style treaty.
The UK Government is so afraid of joining the TRUE competition of the Euro zone and Schengen Area? The UK Government is afraid to face its own voters after denying them the fundamental rights they should have had since WWII?
Who cares? Anyone can leave the UK and get a life elsewhere.
These little pointless hurdles are ridiculous compared to the last 50 years achievements.
There's always a slow thinking kid in every class, and there's always a socially inept loudmouth obtaining results in meetings.
We're used to them.
They just don't last.
Let's be honest, Mark: this new treaty is largely based on the Constitution, but EU leaders won't say that out loud. It's like having a dog who nobody wants. So, we cut off the dog's ears and tail. And if someone points out the thing barks, we say it's not true.
And the Belgians disappointed? I'm sorry, but did you talk to Belgian diplomats and did you hear the reaction of Belgium's Prime Minister? I did, and disappointed they're not.
Well, the neo-Thatcherites seem to have scored many points. The consequences will probably be that, like her nigggling on everything produced the euro as a single instead of a common currency (alongside the natioal ones, as originally conceived), there will be more "two-speed areas" until Britain becomes a "quasi-EEA" member and draws the consequences (applying to become the 51st state of the USA ?)
So let me get this right. We're getting a european foreign minister in all but name, a Grand High Overlord.. i mean president, and giving up control to choose our own destiny in more than 40 different areas, and Blair is passing it off as just 'ammending' a few treaties?
Now that Blair has officially sold us out to get that Grand High Overlord job (just as we thought we were finally getting rid of him too), i just hope Brown follows through on what he's been saying and actually listens to the people and refuses to ratify this backdoor constitution when the time comes.
"Mr Sarkozy went on to say the word-change on competition was very important and suggested that it could indeed change EU law"
It seems once again that the EU leaders are all reading from the same hymn sheet but singing a different song.
From 91热爆 News........
"Tony Blair insisted that Europe's level playing field for business would remain unaffected."
Who are we to believe here? Of course they are both pitching to their own respective constituency audience but they can't both be right in their assessments. When will the French et al realise that protectionism and propping up failed nationalised industries is precisely the wrong way to deal with the challenge of globalisation?
It's embarassing to see the anti-Europe lobby continuing to dictate the agenda in the UK. The 2002 election should have ended this: Hague's save the pound strategy didn't interest anyone. But Fleet Street has continued to set the tone.
While Blair found the commitment to send troops to their death in Iraq and Afghanistan, he couldn't find the commitment to civil rights (wasn't this one the reasons for invading Iraq and Afghanistan?) that a constitution would bring. Having promised a referendum on the proposed constitution he should have had the courage to hold it and go on the offensive to explain why more Europe is good for Britain. Instead he chose to sit it out by hiding behind the French and Dutch results and ask for yet more concessions without a mandate to do so.
As for democracy: it's hard to find a country with more quangos and centralised structures than the UK. Hospitals, schools have been removed from the control of elected authorities; council funding is essentially dictated by Whitehall.
The proposed treaty is awful fudge to save Blair's face but it will at least usher in majority voting essential to tackle long-standing problems such as the Common Agricultural Policy. We can hope that some of opt-outs will be removed now that the deal is done: we don't need an opt-out to a charter we have already signed.
Gordon Brown was frightened to death by the Sarkozy competition clause because it meant he might have had to actually support British companies. What a turn around that would have been..
Of course Brown's pals in the City would have hated it. It might have curtailed their efforts to completely de-industrialise the UK by flogging off all our companies to - ironically - other EU countries..
Hurrah! At last they've agreed to reform, which has been very much needed. Lets face it the old voting arrangements just weren't practical, being that they were invented durring the way back when there were just 12 members of the European Community.
Also I am very pleased to see that more resposibility has been given to the European Parliament, with time I do hope that the EP can be given more and more say, which will help the EU better achieve democratic foundations.
It is a shame however about the Treaty of Fudamnetal Rights, it seems a shame that we looked to reject the whole thing rather than looking towards the possibility of entering a legal reservation to the clauses that weren't appropriate to our labour laws.
Well, what a surprise, a 91热爆 reporter showing pro-EU bias! Wake up and smell the coffee, this is another nail in the coffin of democracy. Our sovereignty in major areas has been removed and the so-called red line areas will also be swept aside eventually in the same way as always when we have an opt-out. It is time for a referendum on our whole future in the EU, but we will never get it from our snouts in the trough, gravy train politicians.
What I want to know is whether we are destined for a free market economy where the consumer is king or a cosy jobs for the boys state controlled monopolistic economy where jobs are for life whether the consumer needs their work or not?
No I am not a right wing capitalist just someone who believes you earn your income by providing services that are required by the consumer. When that work is no longer needed then the state retrains the worker to do something that is needed.
Good informative and balanced piece Mark. You're right - the euroseptics (sic) are so rabidly, obsessionally, irrationally against everything that could ever come out of the EU that they'll never be happy. So let's leave them in the 19th century and move on. One of the many things they choose to ignore is that it's national vetoes which prevent any progress on issues like the disproportionate benefit France gets from the CAP. And if anyone thinks a coalition of 27 states can be run with a raft of vetoes in place they're seriously deluded.
The Conservatives took us into the EEC with no referendum. The Conservatives took us into the EU with no referendum. To call for one on this relatively minor treaty (certainly by comparison with Maastricht) smacks of hypocrisy.
There will always be a sizeable and vociferous minority that thinks the EU exists solely to do the UK down (in spite of all the evidence to the contrary of the last 34 years) but then there was a sizeable and vociferous minority that opposed the creation of the USA for decades after it became a reality (and there are still some rednecks who oppose it to this day)...
The EU will direct foreign and defence policy. This INEVITABLY means giving up the British seat on the UNSC.
Free markets.
It is important to know if it is only the introduction ie Article I that has been emasculated or if the references to
an "open market economy with free competition" have been removed from Part III, articles 167,177,178 and 185.
It is no good for the 18 countries who have "stayed loyal to the vision of the founding fathers" should feel affronted if the peoples of those 18 countries weren't asked their opinions in the first place.
For the countries who are held to be loyal to this mess are those who have been frogmarched into it, I'm sorry, but their opinion can't be held as being in the vanguard of the EU bulldozer.
They're as much victims of this elite-driven monstrosity as we are.
Whatever this treaty means in all its detail - if the language is not totally impenetrable - it is clear that European politicians have taken us yet another step down the road to the European Super State. Our [UK] leaders seem to believe that if they can give away everything slice by tiny slice, we will not notice and yet we vest ever greater powers in an unelected bureacracy based in Brussels. Politicians love this ludicrous, undemocratic juggernaut because it provides them with lots of perks and high paid jobs in retirement. And on the rare occasions that an electorate has to be consulted the same question can be asked repeatedly until the right answer is given. It is my experience that the further government is from my front door, the more unapproachable and incompetent it becomes. Brussels is way too far.
We may have saved our four red line issues but majority voting is the Trojan Horse. The EU integrationists have won with this deal. Come 2017, with majority voting, they will be able to get all the control they plainly desire. Bye bye Great Britain!
Once again the EU has been shown to be an almost entirely Franco/German dominated drive towards a Fraco/German model of a European Superstate. German currency, German social legislation, French "economics", Napoleonic jurisprudence and a German national anthem. The idea that the UK can ever have any real influence in this little club is quite ludicrous and Blair was naive and stupid to think that we could. At best all we can do is slow its progress and get battered and bruised in the process.
How come no one from your blogs mentions the possibility of Great Britain leaving the EU? If you are so much against the EU, why dont you leave it?
If I am a member of a club whose rules I do not like I will leave it immediatly.
But as always Britain is not interested in Europe. It is only interested in how to do buisness with the greatest trading blog in the world while following the orders from across the ocean and getting it's soldiers killed in someone else's war.
I believe Mr. Mardell's analysis to be quite incisive, particularly with respect to the nature of the referendum debate. As far as I can see (from the comments posted on the Have Your Say page) most calls for a referendum are based on a broad dislike of the EU and mistrust of politicians-rather than concentrated argument; which is a shame as there are a number of valid arguments against various aspects of the EU.
Nowadays it is fashionable to criticise politicians for not offering 'real' answers to interview questions, yet when Blair offers specific answers and arguments it seems the majority of people are unwilling to engage with them. In the spirit of hyperbole I would suggest that the debate regarding the treaty is symptomatic of the failings of our democracy.
The treaty Blair wanted but is it a treaty the voters will want?
Have the leaders once again become so engrossed in reaching a deal between themselves that they have lost sight of the fact that it is the people of Europe who stopped the constitution?
Finding a compromise to win over the Polish government may turn out to be easier than finding a compromise with the electorate.
Sarko's strange intervention may signal that he understands this point if he is giving in to the French voters' fear of globalisation. It may be bad economics but it could be good politics.
Congratulations to Europe!!!
Once again we made huge step back, around 60-70 years back. With UK and Holland more 'out' and Poland more 'under' we are again ready to accept Austria anschluss and 'Czech for peace' treaty from Munich. Where are all those socialists who scream about egalitarianism? Is it not the case when we talk that all nations are equal? Money makes this world around...
What the EU needs is cohesion among the countries.Someone needs to step up with a mindset that will benefit all of the EU not just self interest in their own country.Then an amazing power will erupt as a nonstoppable force of economics ,wealth and high gains against substandard living. A plan not a treaty is needed and better yet trust among its members,then finally operate fully and calling its own shots in the global scene.
A good job well done. Unfortunately, it will do little to win over the Euro-septics, whose response is simply to rail against anything pan-European. It's high time the little Englanders grew up.
Politics is the art of the possible. As someone born in Britain in 1946, in the second half of the 20th century, I feel I have lived through the best period of British history for the majority of its people. But as a person classified as "severely mentally ill" even I can see that the first half of the 21st century is going to be a very different affair, with climate change, the dominance of the Chinese and Indian economies etc. We are evolving into a very different world - and evolution is all about adapt or die - while hopefully maintaining essential human values in our adaptation. It strikes me that Tony Blair, on his final full day as party leader, and effectively as prime minister has done his bit for us all in trying to combine the best of British with the best of the rest of Europe. Let us give the man some praise!(despite his awful error about Iraq) After all, he has said it is now up to us all. Each one of his all has to do our bit to create an even better 21st century Britain and World. I often wonder if it is me who is severely mentally ill or whether I am living in a severely mentally ill society, as I hear so many of my felow citizens just sitting back and moaning and blaming the politicians. Let us all go for it!
Mark,
Thanks for your interesting blog. You were going to check what it was that Margaret Thatcher was defeated on in the mid-1980s. In fact there were three European Councils at which the Presidency overrode minorities, and all involved the UK:
Three countries - the United Kingdom, Denmark and Greece - were defeated in a formal vote on the convening of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) at the Milan summit in June 1985, which ironically led to the Single European Act. Equally, the UK objected to the convening of the subsequent IGC on economic and monetary union and the adoption of the European Social Charter at Strasbourg in December 1989. Finally, Britain also found itself isolated and defeated over the setting a date for the second stage of EMU at the 鈥楻ome II鈥 summit in October 1990. This latter event proved a catalyst for Mrs Thatcher's downfall.
So far as I can recall, there have been no examples of the European Council agreeing to actions or adopting conclusions in the face of a hostile minority since.
It looks like a good result for the UK, but as Mark suggests it doesn't answer the fundamental point: that "New Labour" have singularly failed to make the case for Europe in the last ten years.
Speaking as a pro-European in favour of joining the Euro, this is a crying shame: it is clear that we need to do this every decade or so in the UK, and by trying to pull a fast one with an "amending treaty" to avoid a referendum, Blair and Brown will contribute to further public alienation from politics in general and disillusion with the EU in particular. As ever, "New Labour" is about risk reduction as opposed to real leadership, which is a grave disappointment.
As the other 91热爆 article reports, the core of the Constitution is still intact.
Therefore we must demand a referendum.
Who says there must be an "ever closer union"? Certainly not the British electorate.
Why should British citizens - living under what is often (and rather laughably, these days) called "The Mother of Parliaments" - have less rights than other Europeans? It's consistent with Blair's position on rights (viz., we shouldn't have any) that he engineered this, but then that's what makes it a joke.
And the EU would be a lot less of a joke if everyone dropped their demands for this and that opt-out.
Finally, do you know that of the seven comments posted so far, only one shows up?
Blair still kicking the working class of Great Britain
So what of major significance has been accomplished?
Has a common defense policy been worked out? No.
Common foreign policy? No.
Common energy policy? No.
Has a concept of free competition within EU been preserved?
No, but the right to de facto state protectionism has been.
Oh, and the full implementation of the new voting scheme (the most difficult item on the agenda) has been conveniently postponed till 2017
Your blog could be summarised as 'Blair worked really hard for Britain and got lots of concessions'. To prove your point you say the federalists are bitterly disappointed. Alistair Campbell would have been proud of you!
Congratulations to the negotiators. It looks as if the real winners will be the people of Europe both already within the Community and those applying for membership.
The Eurosceptics will no doubt wheel out "surrender" but only because they hate the idea of the EU so much.
But in realistic terms the reforms have streamlined the EU to make it more efficient.
Calls for a referendum are predictable but pointless. The Tories never offered a referendum for Nice, Maastricht or Amsterdam, which all contained far more than this reform treaty.
And as for the 40 vetoes. What exactly are they? Most will probably be on things Britain actually want to change but were stopped by other countries using their veto.
GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE GOOSE?
As the EU is moving towards the concept 'majority voting' 鈥 the British electorate deserve nothing less.
As citizens & subjects of the United Kingdom, it is our right as the majority (over vested interests of political minorities) to vote over the EU.
vikingar
KRAFT DURCH FREUDE:
An interesting development:
1) delayed impact of change (until 2014)
2) changes which make add to the attributes (over a longer time) which could constitute a super state
Either the changes to the 'Treaty' are minor & insignificant which just makes 'administrative' sense for the EU or they do not.
If minor & insignificant, why all the fuss, why all the posturing by politicians, why the denial.
Since 1970's the transference of rights & influences from the UK to the EU has increased (not decreased).
It's time for the British people to decide. Then either way, we can live with the consequences.
Changes by stealth & deceit (no matter 'noble' intentions) is the recipe for disaster over the long term.
btw - the 91热爆 'At-a-glance: EU treaty proposals' mentions the drop in the plan to legislate the EU motto '"Strength in Diversity"
A familiar saying? 鈥. I recall 'Strength Through Joy" being the corner stone of some European political party, in annals of European history [1]
鈥.. esp when an encroaching constitution/treaty is being pushed through by a former East European German Socialist
In Europe, not run by Europe
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1]
Bring it on. Smash those pathetic, weak, dusty Euro"septics" into the ground, and send them packing back to their nursing homes for tea. What a pathetic, negative and lethargic view that so many of them have got. Keep arguing amongst each other for the next 100 years, and watch Europe (and your living standards slip into obscurity). European dominance ended in the 20th century, and no manner of poring over 18th century colonial maps is going to bring it back. Get with the programme, or find a nice beach to retire to.
I always find it amusing that when the EU really slogs it out for compromise, nobody is happy - the eurosceptics think too much has been done, the euro-enthusiasts think too little.
Hopefully the EU will continue to function until 2014, when hopefully they can come to some final agreement on the important matters... One way or the other.
I don't know anybody who wants even to be part of this European Union. It's a complete waste of money unless you're an MEP...
The rest of the europeans have been waiting for decades now that the UK finally makes a clear decision (in or out) instead of a constant moan ; and quite, frankly, we are fed up of the UK trying to boycot the creation of a unified Europe that has some political influence in the world.
No contry is forced to stay in and agree to a project they obviously don't believe in. But the UK should not be allowed to block everyone else aspirations.
When will the UK finally be kindly invited to get out of the EU? Hopefully soon, for its own and the others' benefit.
I'm surprised more hasn't been made of Blair's insistence of opting out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Why won't "Blair wins right to torture" be the headline in the newspapers? It seems to me that that's what he wants, or at least the right to run a totalitarian police state with scary powers to trample on individual liberties.
I, for one, am deeply scared that he has gone to such lengths to ensure that the British people are not protected by the Charter.
Us confederalists are somewhat relieved by the draft treaty. The EU legal personality was the important thing in my eyes, and it appears to be accepted. Combine this with a commitment from member states to persue foreign policy first through Europe, and our position is strengthened.
I did want to see more mentioned on the front of a common asylum and immigration policy, to strengthen our somewhat porous borders. As ever I'm also dissapointed that the European Space Agency hasn't been integrated into the EU framework...
Still, come the next treaty we'll have a generation of voters who've grown up with the concept of the EU as a beneficial world actor, and that can only be a good thing.
"There will be protests in the European Parliament that this tiny treaty tears the heart out of a document that was formally and legally backed by 18 countries."
And these protests will be as false and stagemanaged as the whole European Council meeting itself. Why? Because, as well the federalists know, the mandate for a treaty given by this meeting gives the EU almost every key federalist objective that was sought by the draft constitution.
Blair has agreed to give away vetos in over three dozen different areas. So yet more power has been handed to the EU. Even his 'red lines' are not enshrined in any protocol, just a gentleman's agreement.
We were told that no further power would be given away without a referendum of the British public. As so often during Blair's premiership we have been lied to shamefully. A fundamentally dishonest government has reduced still further the ability of this nation to govern itself.
Every time I read this blog, I feel a wave of disgust wallowing up inside. The central point is that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are wringing concessions out of all the European countries, while the British people don't want even these compromises. Why should the other European coutries then give in to the British?
From our perspective, we have to bend over backwards to accomodate the British leaders' demands, only then to hear that whatever concessions we will make, it's not enough for the British people who, it seems, are just waiting to tell everyone else through a referendum just how much they despise all of Europe.
Is it not time for Britain to leave the Union and let everyone else get on with it?
Mark, please don't try to fool us. Merkel has already said in the corridors that this treaty is just about the same as the constitution.
We are not fooled by this charade. Sure it still has to be officially drawn up by an IGC (European Council cannot make a treaty) but they won't change it much.
Do politicians really think we are stupid? This is an abject surrender to the forces of anti-democracy (EU).
Yes, I am bitterly disappointed. The Union finally has a legal personality - but one that's not allowed to do anything. We're getting officially a Foreign Affairs chief - who cannot do anything. The veto remains, the decision making is still deadlocked. Yet another waste, in which the small minded, shrieking voice of europhobia was allowed to triumph over what we need for a better world.
Mr Blair and Mr Brown know full well that the support for the treaty, and for greater integration with Europe in general, is at the most marginal. The outcome of a referendum would be difficult to predict but would quite likely be "no". Support, such as it is, comes from business but not, I suspect, from the electorate. How can they refuse to hold a referendum on this issue and claim they believe in democracy?
The 91热爆 is Biased and your reporting is a prime example.
A referendum was held in which two countries France and the dutch rejected it.. HOWEVER even though it was rejected by the people here it is again albeit it thinly disguised.. So the story is about how democracy has been turned upside down and a fake circus replacing it..
But then you know this because your playing your part..
So to remind you then of the true facts.. Democracy has been subverted with lies and spin. Merkel herself stated she would accept calling the constitution another name..
The 91热爆 have sanctioned the subversion of democracy And is also known to those in brussels as reminded by 91热爆 reps.. ITS THEIR 91热爆...
Because after all what does the 91热爆 get out of this? To become the premier TV station within the EU Think of all that licence money.. Let alone your nice life.. Paid for by the gullible public.
Did Tony write that blog for you, Mark?
The globalists have nearly won. They have nearly succeeded in their goal of a one world government.
What I continuously ask myself is "Why the UK does not go out of EU if they fear it so much?"
Excellent entry, Mark, as always.
I would like to ask you how likely it actually is for an 'inner-core' of several europhile member states to form and proceed without the others towards a more federal system featuring, for instance, a common defence policy. Or at least a foreign policy worth mentioning.
I really don't know why you go along with this game Mark. The whole show is so obviously stage-managed:
* all the red lines (blatantly there just to distract attention from the concessions)
* Barroso warning Blair not to be a wrecker (I wonder how much Blair paid him to say that?)
* Blair saying he was willing to walk away from a 'deal' (yeah right)
* bogus drama about avoiding a 'need' for a referendum (to be determined by G Brown, who has a large majority in parliament)
All a complete smokescreen. And how much discussion is there of what has actually been agreed, and what sigificance it will have? None.
Come to think of it, perhaps I do know why you go along with this charade Mark.
Ultimately the problem lies with what is done with the power rather than who wields it. If it is used to impose will rather than liberty then much will be lost. Nearly 3 decades of entrenched political regimes has done much damage to the average UK citizens empowerment. Time will tell rather than votes perhaps.
Hi Mark, I hope you have recovered from your night shift. As someone who is involved in Europe a bit longer than you, I thought I鈥檇 give you my two euro-cents of wisdom.
Here is my list of winners and losers.
Winners
Merkel/Germany: Managed to end her Presidency with a success. Established Germany as an honest broker, but also defended German interests. Stayed calm in the face of Polish revanchism and has the possibility of sweet revenge in next year鈥檚 budget talks.
Sarkozy: Brought France back in from the cold and can claim to have had the original idea that saved the essence of the constitution. Managed to dent the armour of the EU neoliberals.
Spain: Courtesy of Poland guards its disproportionate voting rights, but may actually be able to use them (see losers/Poland below). Will probably provide the EU foreign minister.
Juncker: Clearly established as the heart and soul of Europe. Looks unassailable now. Next Commission President?
Lithuania: Brokered the deal with the Poles. Will be rewarded, together with Estonia, with early entry to the Eurozone.
Commission and Parliament: Always stronger when the Council self-destructs.
Malta/Cyprus: Silently moved to the Euro. Two more former British colonies where British tourists will be confronted with the horrible sight of the Euro at work.
EU citizens: Will have a way forward now and may see some positive results delivered in the long run.
Losers
Poland: Behaved bizarr and erratic all along the way. Lost lots of friends and probably made a good deal of enemies. Disproportionate voting rights will amount to nothing as nobody wants to build a coalition with them (contrary to Spain). Not even the other Eastern Europeans would want to be seen near the weirdo twins. Will lose out financially if the Germans decide that they had enough dirt thrown at them.
Tony Blair: Missed his very last chance to substantiate his claim that Britain is at the heart of Europe and that he is a good European. The man who wanted to be the English lion roaring for Europe ended up as Murdoch`s poodle barking up all the wrong trees.
The British people: Ironically, both Europhiles and Europhobes get a bad deal. Europhiles will not enjoy the fundamental rights until they have been established also in common law whose huge disadvantage is that it cannot invent new legal principles other than through a painfully slow and evolutionary process. How in the face of international terrorism, non-cooperation in home and justice matters can be beneficial is beyond me. Europhobes can bury their illusion to get the UK out of the EU through a referendum. Due to the nature of the British election system UKIP will never win enough seats to make it happen.
The Council: Firmly established its reputation as Europe鈥檚 kindergarden. Lost once more credibility, which makes Parliament and Commission look more professional, thus shifting the long term power balance in Brussels.
EU citizens: Had the chance to bring more democracy to the EU through the constitutional treaty, but messed it up by answering questions during the referenda that were not asked. Allowed the Council to revert to the old inter-governmentalism and horse trading that is undemocratic and disconnected from the citizen鈥檚 reality.
Tony Blair just guaranteed the Conservatives a landslide win at the next General.
The fundamental problem here is that in the UK we have a government which has the lowest support of the people, just under 36% of those that voted, of any in the Western World. Whilst the institutionally rigged nature of our electoral system this minority almost dictatorial powers over the majority it doesn't follow that they represent the thinking or the will of the majority. They clearly don't. Whilst this has been true to a small extent of almost every government since the war except the Fist Atlee government this inbuilt disconnect between the Government and the people is now reaching critical proportions.
When we feel that we are being further and further removed from fair representation and influence in decision making over our lives , and it is a minority group that is disenfranchising us ( not just the EU but the Midlleothian issue too) its no wonder many want to say enough! We want decision making over our lives to be more directly accountable to us who work and pay for its consequences.
Promised:
A referendum
No more transfers of power.
Result:
No referendum.
More transfer of power.
And politicians complain about the cynicism of the press and the electorate!
There's one easy way to get this country out of the EU.
If Blair is made President by his buddies in the EU then his unpopularity over here will certainly see the most realistic prospect yet of the UK becoming a prosperous European Nation like Norway and Switzerland - ie in Europe but not stifled by EU buraucrats and their rules.
"Above all, they will be glad that the navel-gazing is over, and hunt around for more projects like energy and climate change to show that they are better off acting together."
Mark, you say this in a way that belittles the magnitude of resolving such mammoth challenges as sustainable energy and climate change, not least of the dire need to do so as soon as possible.
The consensus is forming that such matters will be the making or breaking of modern day life as we are used to having it.
No better time for a more effective Union.
I think we are getting a new Consitution by a thousand ammendments.
This is much more about direction than it is about detail. Like the metaphorical frog, we sit in the saucepan of water gently being boiled until dead. Slowly but surely our rights are removed - so much so that the great bulk of new law arises from the EU and our own politicians bemoan the outcome when our judges implement the law as they get it from Europe. It takes some doing when Tony signs deals like this one minute and the next he and John Reid are carping about laws that prevent them from protecting the us from terrorism. It makes you shake your head in wonder.
Opt outs for fundamental rights Policing and Justice, great, but our sovereignty is safe. So come on criminals Britain is now a safe house, and do not complain when our Nation State makes draconian decisions, after all you will still be able to move to a free Europe!
So what is wrong with a directly elected president ? The way to make the EU efficient is to make it genuinely democratic.
I follow politics daily, yet I cannot understand what this treaty is supposed to do. The EU is typical of any large scale bureaucracy - no one really knows what is going on, and that leads to corruption.
We have twenty seven countries - all with different cultures - all trying to copy the USA, which was founded on completely different circumstances.
I dread the future. Only the political elite and very rich will benefit.
Unless the EU allows transparency, it is doomed in the long run. How it will be brought down is the worrying bit.
Another dirty night's work by Blair and Co.
Blair signed up to Charter of Fundamental Rights when he signed the doomed EU Constitution in Rome in 2004. Then, in order to sound tough and uncompromising (to the British electorate), he makes a 'red line' of it this time and refuses to sign up to it. The polite word for this behaviour is 'hypocracy'.
A list of the items that Blair refused to sign up to today which he signed up to in 2004 would be enlightening. Hmm, let's see, the business about a EU Foreign Minister speaking independently of UK foreign policy for one.
Who gave him the right to sign away our sovereignty, anyway? No, seriously, I would really like to know where that exists in our Constitution. Come on, let's have an intelligent informed discussion here.
So once again the British Citizen loses out as the UK Govt give in to the whingers who bemoan the right of individuals to work have a better work life balance and more trade union power. We will continue being made redundant by multi-nationals because we have poorer employee rights.
I would mind paying for the EU less if I and the rest of the UK reaped the same benefits as our European cousins.
As it is, once again, a UK PM has ensured that UK citizens - particularly UK workers - are denied parity with their EU counterparts and are entitled to less benefits and rights as the rest of Europe.
And, once again, our right-wing media will hail this as a victory. And our PM will look smug and act as though he's done something good.
Apparently, 'ensuring the UK's national interests' means once more keeping those working hardest for it at the bottom of the heap.
We pay more than our fair share into this organisation. It's only fair we should get the same rewards.
I do not understand what is it that scares people so much about giving power to the EU. Either way it is someone else deciding what laws get passed. All I think is necessary is that the elected people in the EU have more power.
The eurosceptics on one hand complain about the democratic deficit but on the other hand are scared of having an elected president. How hypocritical! (Of course what they are really scared about is the legitimacy that such a person would hold.)
So the politicians have signed yet another treaty transferring sovereign powers... and again the people are denied a say in the way we are to be governed.
One day when the s*** hits the fan as it most certainly will do, the politicians will say 'we should have seen it coming, but we didn't'
We will start by burning the EU flag, then anti EU graffiti... what then? Petrol bombs... and we know who to blame don't we.
It's called democracy you idiots.
So bloggers here do not like what "they believe is European Union bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste".
That is almost certainly valid with respect to the EU but I'd suggest that they direct their concerns much closer to home first.
Bureaucracy, inefficiency and waste are the hallmarks of a country where approximately 50% of the people living outside of London work, either directly or indirectly for the Government.
Sooner or later, we English will painfully find that the world does not owe us a living.
And we should'nt be looking to politicians from another country (Scotland) to save us either!
Unless I'm missing something, neither this blog nor any of the website stories it links to make clear that no draft was actually published at the summit. A trawl of the europa.int website and the .de council site seems to indicate that nothing more than Frau Merkel's conclusions in a rather rambling 32 page "94932.pdf" file, which has guidelines for the drafting by an Intergovernmental Conference of the draft treaty proper by the end of 2007.
I'm surprised that none of the 91热爆 articles talk about this "draft of a draft". It might make the whole issue esier to follow if the website cut through some of this gobbledook and also linked to the document from the Janet & John version on the website.
Blair wants agreement, but English people do not want to be part of EU , and have never had the choice
I think decades from now when the UK is a fully ensconced slave state inseparably intertwined with the EU superstate, people reading history of these times will find it remarkable that the EU started out as a trading bloc and nothing more and insidiously morphed into a monsterous anti democratic bureacracy without much real protest or resistance. They will wonder why no major political party nor the public at large through petition demanded a referendum to give the population as a whole some say in what their fate would be. I also think they will find this even more puzzling having had so much experience with tyrannies such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, having fought so hard and so long to preserve their sovereignty and freedom, it will be inexplicable to them to understand why it was give up so freely. I watch this history being made from a safe distance on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and I must say I am at once bemused and bewildered by it. As a competitor in world trade, it's a lead anchor. Small wonder so many Brits are choosing to leave to live abroad.
Ronald Grunebaum: 'Europhiles will not enjoy the fundamental rights until they have been established also in common law whose huge disadvantage is that it cannot invent new legal principles other than through a painfully slow and evolutionary process.'
The point is WHO 'invents' these new legal principles Ronald. You may dislike the process of the common law but the fact remains that it is the way we do law here in England and have done for a thousand years. It hasn't served us too badly thanks. The problem with your attitude is that it dismisses even our right to discuss these things.
Those who argue for a more unified Europe, and are pleased with these constant treaties giving more power to Brussels without any public discussion and mandate may like to answer one question which is worrying me:
The EU's "European police force" (Europol) has seen fit to confer on its officers total immunity from criminal prosecution, no matter what they do. Can they name one non-totalitarian country which has law enforcement officers placed above and beyond the law in this way? If the EU is such a benign, shining example of our democratic future, why is this necessary? and what does it say about the mindset of those who think it is? The lonely voices warning of impending danger in the 1930's were smugly ignored. How much suffering could have been avoided if people had listened? We once again live in very dangerous times. We really do need to push for a proper voice on further integration before it is too late.
If this is not a constitution, then what is it? They changed the name, changed the wordings, yet come up with a document that is exactly the same. It is a total surrender. Every country will now be subject to what is essentially the rule of a foreign power. Another 50 or so policy areas moved from the national parliaments to the unelected crowd in Brussels.
In one important area it goes even further than the constitution did. It changes the European Court of Justice into what is effectively a Supreme Court with powers to scrap any member state law.
And then the European Council tries to pretend it has the right to give a mandate to the Intergovenmental Conference. A mandate which essentially says: you (IGC) are not allowed to change what we made. Those who know how the EU works (myself included) know this is effectively a coup d'etat. The IGC which represents the member states used to be sovereign (ie not under EU jurisdiction).
To all the EU-philes who call the opposition 'xenophobes' I say this: where is your mandate to subject your country to supranational rule. I dare say no politician has such a mandate. Politicians who gave parts of their country's national sovereignty away used to be called 'Quislings'. Why should it be different now?
To the EU-philes I also want to say this: in your opinions the definition of progress is 'progress towards superstate'. And then I return with my first remark: where is your mandate?
Mark, I really like your blog but please don't be naive. As I said, this new treaty is effectively the same as the old constitution. And that's a simple fact. Those who read and understand bits of it, know this to be true.
I have already fired off this analysis to my Dutch politicians and demanded a referendum.
Tony Blair is colour blind... all his red lines are green.
Roger Hayes
Hi Mark, me again.
I forgot one major loser: Turkey.
As Tony Blair has now firmly established the logic of the red lines, incl. the "threat" of a national referendum, he has given France the right to block Turkey's accession to the EU. The mandatory French referendum on this will be the final decider, whatever the Council may propose and wish for.
Not in the interest of Britain, I think, but this is the fallout of the UK tactic to be in and out at the same time. Others can play the game just the same.
Having read the howls of the eurosceptics here, I can only suggest that you use the democratic mechanisms available to you. Vote UKIP if your wish to get out of the EU is so strong. Otherwise, just shut up. And don`t blame us for your deficient electoral system. If you want the Europe of the nation states, you need to decide on national level. Simple, ain't it?
Re comment number 3
Sunny Dutt wrote "...Angela Merkel. As the current EU president, she had to be the consensus builder trying to work in everyone's demands and she did it."
No she didn't. She ignored the demands of the people who want a referendum. Sunny take five minutes of your life to look up the word democracy... it is about what the people want not about consensus amongst elite politicians.
The only thing Angela Merkel has done is sew the seeds for conflict.
Roger Hayes
A surfeit of national sovereignty is what allowed France and Germany to gang up against the euro stability pact -- allowing them to finance their budget deficits by inflation rather than taking politically courageous but unpopular decisions to set their houses in order. It would have been far better had those two countries been compelled to balance their books by the authority of the European Central Bank, not the other way round.
Likewise, a European "foreign minister" is pointless without a single European foreign policy. And that is a very necessary thing, if we do not want outside actors like George W. Bush and others of his ilk to play all sides against the middle and commit the world to ever more dangerous adventures.
The original constitutional treaty did not adequately address these problems, far from it. The new effort does not do so either. That said, although it does not create a European identity -- which is what is really needed, whatever conservatives and nationalists say -- it has the merit of being more easily changed than something called a "Constitution". Call a document that and it becomes sacrosanct, like the American constitution in the US, which for all its genius is now about due for an overhaul.
There has been fraud on a vast scale within the European Commission but few have been imprisoned. This has cost the UK taxpayer billions. Will Brown approve of this lack of control which exists within the Commission? Will he just 'turn a blind eye', so that he can push through constitutional reform and banish the Lords?
We English have been kicked from pillar-to-post politically speaking, now to such an extent, that England is mostly run by people from another country, namely Scotland (which has has its own Parliament and legal system).
Given this sad state of affairs for the English, it does'nt take us long to see where the difficulty lies with us English and Europe.
Fundamentally, we English are deeply suspicious, especially given the above, of any percieved 'democratic deficit' within the EU.
So, we English look at the EU political structures and immediately are uncomfortable with the power of the EU 'civil service' namely the unelected European Commission, being able to propose legislation.
That, to English eyes, is not right at all, but 'Old Europe continentals' appear broadly to accept this state of affairs.
Anyway, I believe that is the nub of English concerns, along with an EU Audit Commission that is patently failing to do its job properly.
Chris (79): You have fundamentally misunderstood Norway's position in relation to the EU. As an EEA member, they are legally obliged to implement all EU emanating market, labour and environmental law, but with no seat at the council of ministers, no commissioner, and no MEPs, they have no say in the creation of this law.
Why do you want to move into this position of being dictated to by others?
If there was a referendum, and the British people voted against the proposed treaty changes, how would one know what they were voting against? It could be because a majority wanted to see a more powerful EU.
The EU is not Europe. You can like Europe and despise the EU - just like I do and do millions of my independent-minded fellow UK citizens. The Common Market was just the start of this con trick. Over 30 years it has been adulterated into this oppressive, centralised, undemocratic super-bureaucracy, totally without our consent. The British believe in freedom and resent outside interference. Successive Prime Ministers have lied to us. Without EU entrapment, we would be in an even better position to set a positive example of a just, freely governed and dynamic nation. That is why we are denied a referendum. Professional politicians are petrified by the thought of real democracy and the threat it poses to their careers.
First there were 6 red lines, then 4, then a bit of fudge over foreign policy (there are some areas where there is no reference to the member states).
To get this Treaty passed, there'll have to be a referendum in Ireland and Denmark. Why not the UK, too? Why are we denied a voice?
We lend our politicians our sovereign power to exercise on our behalf but that is all it is, a loan, it is NOT theirs to give away without reference to us.
Can people still be hung for Treason?
This treaty facilitates countries leaving the EU. It would be silly to organize a referendum about adoption of this treaty. Organize a referendum to leave the EU after this treaty is adopted.
Mark,
I think your point on the eurosceptics is right. It is almost becoming a case of 'referendum or die'. But how can a referendum be held on such a complicated issue? Referendums must be held on simple Yes or NO issues (e.g. UK in the EU or not). How can you ask the public to vote yes or no on the myriad of points in this treaty / constitution / whatever?
However, taking in the wider EU picture, the UK has got exactly what it has been demanding for years - EU enlargement! This treaty was all about the EU functioning more efficiently and effectively having now become 27 members (one of the points the eurosceptics keep on bleeting about). The other EU members have every right to say: we gave you what you wanted and now you do not want to make it work or help pay for it!
I think that this treaty can be seen as a new beginning. As a British person I am fed up with the isolationist and segregated mentality of the rest of our little island. We may be cut off from continental Europe by a small strait of water, but we do- like it or not, share a destiny.
Britain cannot stand alone as a world power in this new world we live in. We cannot hope to persuade the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians of anything that we do not wish them to do, not on our own...
Indeed, the only way we can make a difference in this world of ours is for Europe to speak as one voice, I just don't understand why people are afraid of such fruitful co-operation. It is perhaps the xenophobia brought on by two world wars and the loss of an exploitative empire: it is sad, purely and simply.
Chris (79) - you say Norway is 'unstifled by EU rules' - Norway is the most 'stifled' of any European country - as an EEA member state, they are compelled to implement 100% of EU emanating Environmental, Labour and Market law. Yet with no Minister on the Council of Ministers, no Commissioner in the Commission, and no MEPs in Parliament, they have no input, no say, and no veto on those laws they must implement. Anyone who advocates that position needs to explain why they want to move into a dictatorship.
If the EU is so wonderful, let the British people decide. Or are we only good enough to vote these MPs into their pay rises and cushy pensions?
A great outcome for Europe, slightly marred by the fact that the "ammendments" to the original constitution had to be incorporated to keep the minority of reticent nations on board. The arguments for an economic union v a political union will continue for a while longer but we are thankfully on the right path.
Roy Elmer #95
"We (Britain) cannot hope to persuade the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians of anything we do not wish them to do, not on our own...."
So then by being part of a larger entity and using the threat of brute strength they will be persuaded. By size, not reason? Then how then do you explain that the US waited six months until early spring 2003 for little olde England to get its act together, to go to the UN Security Council and try to persuade the French, Russians, Germans, and Chinese that it was right to invade Iraq rather than to have invaded in the fall of 2002 as the Americans wanted to? So today, Britain on its own cannot persuade America to do or not do anything? But that certainly doesn't stop it from spouting an awful lot of hot air trying. Remember, the dodgy dossier was British, not American.
Anyone who thinks this does not transfer sovereignty to the EU, or lay the foundations to make the move unstoppable is either a liar or a fool.
Plenty of "useful idiots" cheering on the Titanic.
One day people will wake up and realise their "leader" is nothng more than a Town Clerk and they have lost control of their lives and wealth to the unelected EU Super State dictatorship.
Tony Blair can now add "Traitor" to his long list of failings.
Why did we go to war twice in the last century to bring freedom to Europe.
Europe is now being run by unelected and unaccountable politicos who think that they know best and the people will get it whether they want it or not.
The constitution was rejected so lets bring it in by the back door.
I think its time Britian got out of this shambles.
We'd be better off and would have the rights that governments have given up since we joined the EEC.
Instead of a refurendum on the constitution/treaty.....lets have one on British membership.
Molly Dee wrote:
"There has been fraud on a vast scale within the European Commission but few have been imprisoned. This has cost the UK taxpayer billions."
This is plainly wrong and you have no evidence for this tabloid allegation.
Of course, there have been some fraud cases, like in any other organisation that spends public money. But nothing has been on a vast scale. Actually, the most prominent case concerned Md. Cresson's dentist who worked for her as a political representative in her hometown, but was paid as a Commission expert. The fraud amounted to ca. 150.000 euro. The man is dead now and his heirs paid the moeny back.
Fraud is mainly committed in Member States which disburse the Community money, but make no or little effort to control the expenditure. As Member States do not allow any audits we simply don't know how much money is wasted and by whom. But smearing the Commission is not fair. It just shows that people want to keep their bias and are not interested in the facts.
Malcolm:
You are not correct in interpreting the law. The "The European Communities (Immunities and Privileges of the European Police Office) Order 1997" says that the police officers are immune from suits in regards to import/export regulations inside the EU (which are almost non-existent anyway) and they do not have to pay tax on their dealings, which makes sense why would you be paid by the government and then pay tax again. It keeps the administration costs down in my opinion. They also enjoy diplomatic protection which means they are not bound by the information disclosure laws, ie the EU police secrets are not bound by the national laws. If they shoot you unlawfully or do another criminal act you can be assured they are not immune from prosecution.