Tories gird for battle
A few hours ago we got the first real evidence of what is planned for the new treaty. is going to be tricky. The British government wants it out, partly because there are fears it might extend workers鈥 rights, but mainly because it makes the treaty more constitution-like. Ministers think opting out would look silly. So they want some sort of text that says it won't have any effect. But that's exactly the opposite of what some other countries are after, according to . These countries mostly aren't too bothered whether the text of the charter is left in or taken out - the one thing they insist on is that the treaty should make it legally binding.
But maybe has already achieved the same thing by other means? The European Commission has to make the point that "the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has already made an impact on the European courts" and that "new case law is being established all the time". It goes on to say, "The Charter is already featuring regularly in the deliberations of the Advocates General, and is therefore bound to play a part in European Court of Justice findings."
The government expects to be given a kicking over the new treaty, no matter what. I hear from all sides that because of , David Cameron is bound to throw some red meat to Conservative MPs and supporters who feel that they've rather given up being proper . A call for a referendum on Europe is just the sort of thing that will get them stirred up.
A couple of months ago, Mr Cameron wasn't sure. First off, he didn't want to go "banging on about Europe" and worried that it would raise memories of Mr Hague saving the pound but not getting elected, and, much worse, the bitter divisions in the dying days of the Major government. But there was another worry - political pragmatism. If Mr Cameron ever becomes prime minister, the logic goes, he knows he would have to sign up to an EU treaty at some time or another and the last thing he wants to saddle himself with is a commitment to a referendum.
Giving more power...
On the other hand, those who feel strongly about the EU (against it) would be quite happy for him to be in this position. I'm told by an impeccable source that the current thinking is that a Conservative government would find its poker hand immeasurably strengthened if other countries knew Britain would have to hold a referendum on anything serious. The source says that Britain could get the Czechs and Poles to join in and "bring the whole integrationalist process to a halt".
But that is for the future. For now, the Conservatives have decided to campaign hard for a referendum. But how far apart are David Cameron and Tony Blair? Mr Cameron says that he wants a referendum on anything that gives more power to Brussels. Mr Blair has said what is unacceptable is anything that "fundamentally" changes the relationship between the UK and Brussels." Privately, officials have said that anything that looks like a constitution or gives more power to Brussels has to be excluded. Is there a difference?
Well, it will be a battle for interpretation. I don't think anyone is in any doubt that giving up Britain's veto powers would "give more power to the European Union". Equally, I don't think anyone would bother to argue that involving national parliaments more would fall at this hurdle. But what about the idea for a new way of running meetings?
At the moment, (that is, the EU body made up of national governments) is chaired by one of the 27 countries. Every six months the country in the chair changes. At the moment it is Germany. Before that it was . Next in the queue is Portugal. The big countries argue only they can do it well, although they say it quietly so as not to offend the little ones. So came up with the idea that an individual, elected by the 27 heads of government, would become president of the council for two-and-a-half years.
Zero-sum game?
Senior sources argue this is not giving more power to the EU. They say that through better organisation it would strengthen the council, that is the power of the nation states, and so can't be seen as giving more power to the EU.
Think tanks like , on the other hand, say that the president, based in Brussels, with a big staff, would inevitably become part of the machine and would work closely with the commission. Moreover, they say there is nothing to stop the and president of the council being the same person - and that would indeed be a powerful role, paving the way to a US-style directly elected president. So, they say, it not only gives new powers to the EU, it leads to a huge increase in power. There will be many such arguments in the next few weeks, although few may follow them in detail. I will.
It is interesting though that the government will be fighting, as it were, on territory chosen by the enemy. It's a little odd that the government has not tried harder to put across the argument that it's not a zero-sum game. Internally, some have urged them to try to sell the line that in some areas where the UK wants quick agreement, like co-operating against terrorism, "more power for Brussels" could equal "more power for Britain". Blair says it, but only when he has to. Those passionately in favour of the EU are constantly frustrated by the government's unwillingness to put the case, and I can't see Brown being any different.
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
Under pressure from big business, the government has not implemented the Charter of Fundamental Rights because it gives the right for workers to be properly consulted in the workplace over the business practice and financial state of their employer. Managers see this as a restriction to their right to impose top down solutions upon the workforce. What it means is that managers will be held accountable to the workforce as well as the shareholders and their incompetence, bullying and dodgy business practices exposed.
We just don't belong in the "EU" and sometime we are going to leave. I fear that we will end up fighting a War of Independence if we stay in.
I find this whole peice regarding the constitution rather odd.
It maybe reporting the "news" but isn't the whole idea of a push for a constitution totally undemocratic. As far as I've ever seen most of the people in Europe don't want it.
I don't recall the British people for one ever asking for it for example. The referendum in 1975 in no way whatsoever gave governments the right to proceed as they have over the last 30 years.
Wouldn't journalists be serving the public better by actually holding politicians accountable and pound away at the real reasons for trampling the wishes of the masses underfoot.
One thing is certain, improving the life of the citizens is the last thing on politicians minds.
Surely a journalist worth his salt would keep grinding away at why national governments and leaders keep cedeing powers which are not theirs to give away to an the undemocratic and totally unaccountable EU.
I for one would like Mr Mardell to use his position for the purposes its intended, as a watchdog.
There's little effective oversight into the goings on in Euroland anywhwere else.
Since voting is totally ineffectual on its own he would be serving the public who pay his salary to hold some toes to the fire and help stop this juggernaut and consign it to the scrap-heap.
Wishful thinking but real jounalism seems to be something that happened in a bygone era.
Well it's good to see that there's already some reasoned debate and balanced thinking about the best way forward for this country (and indeed for Europe) in today's "press".
With that, and the 91热爆's virtual non-coverage of this (and other related EU-type news), what do we expect in this country in terms of a realistic and rational discussion on our future?
Last night's 10 O'Clock News had a piece about South African train surfing before the EU constitution item. I wouldn't mind but that item has been mentioned ages ago and certainly didn't seem to warrant being that high in the running order.
Mark, can't you have a word with the editors of the bulletins (well, at least the 10) and see if they can start giving you a bit more air-time???
It seems to me that most people in the original Countries of the EU do not want a central government. The newer countries appear to accept this as a way of getting freebees. When the freebees stop they will want out as well. Open borders are a mistake as we in Britain have found out. The UKIP will take us out of Europe and into a Common Market, thats as far as we need to go. Why lower our national wealth to accommpdate less well run countries, George Brown, the Tax Man, will appreciate this and I dont think he wants to have his authority demeaned by this latest escaped of Blair.
It shows quite staggering arrogance on the part of the european politicians to convert the constitution into a treaty so that it can be passed without any further referendums.
After the rejection by the French and Dutch voters they have obviously decided that we are too stupid to be trusted to vote and pose risks to their pet project - the Belgian retirement home for failed politicians.
What part of "no" did they fail to understand? Somewhere along the line the concept of democracy seems to have gone missing.
I find it ironical that tthe same people who complain about "unelected Brussels officials" seem so frightened by the prospect of an elected president
(...) 'their pet project - the Belgian retirement home for failed politicians'
Talking about failed politicians.
Remarkable that John Major wasn't elected Commission president then, was it?
I respect your opinion, but calling the EU a 'Belgian -- Belgian nonetheless!! -- retirement home' shows that you don't have a clue.
It seems many Britons are forgetting about the perks of being an EU member. I'm quite sure that France and Spain for example wouldn't stand be idly when their countrysides are being bought up by sun-hungry retirees and refugees from the rat race. And the free market isn't exactly free either. On a more personal note, I do think that Britain is culturally quite different, something I see every time there is news of a stag party gone wrong. Luckily, Slovenia has so far been spared of the stag party scourge.
History repeats itself.Two EU members Italy and Germany were united by the use of force or trickery against their previously sovereign predecessoir states ( Bavaria, Naples etc).Each time Garibaldi invaded places like Sicily a rigged referendum followed ( 99.99% favourable votes being the norm).Now the EU wants to trample democracy under foot so as to create a European State.Without UK approval they CANNOT do it: a referendum is not even necessary.Just say NO Messrs Brown, Blair and if you stick to your guns we will be spared this perversion of democracy.Also if theyere so keen in Brussels on Fundamental Rights surely the Eiro enthusiasts can hardly object to a refereendum.But we know they are elitist hypocrites so what do you expect from that lot?
It is essential that we the people can make our views known about any transfer of national power to the EU. It seems to me that what is being suggested is far from democratic. Personally I used ot be in favour of the 'European project', it certainly has removed the threat of war among European nations, which was the original intention, achieved by economoc means. Now I am sceptical about its future.It has grown into something which will be virtually impossible to govern given the variety of its member states. Leave politics out of it and concentrate on economic matters.
I think its extrememly cynical to believe that the politicians who are working on the consitution don't believe that it would improve quality of life for the ordinary citizen. Why else would they be insisting on the Charter of Fundamental Rights? That document is supposed to ensure that everyone accross Europe, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, or job, is treated with the respect that they as human beings deserve. Shouldn't that be applauded?
I agree that it is arrogant to try and push the consitution through when it has been rejected in referendum's already - but don't forget that we elect these politicians to do what they believe is best for the country. Therefore, if they believe that strengthening their ties with other European nations benefits us, they are well within their rights to do so. John S is right that an elected President would surely improve accountability at the EU level - shouldn't we in the UK be fighting harder for a treaty that achieves just that?
I find it incredible that every time the EU is mentioned in Britain immediately it becomes a case of the EU usurping powers and the "we didn't sign up for this" etc... The British people backed the initial idea and have elected (and re-elected) government after government for decades, when, if it really were the case that the "democratic" voice of Britain was being ignored by the government then people have surely had the opportunity to express their dislike. UKIP, the anti-EU party in Britain received just about the same amount of votes as the Lib-Dems (the most pro-EU) at the last EU elections. The two other parties are somewhat sceptical to greater or lesser degrees but still intergrationalist. Given this apparent abundance of political capital freely available is it not amazing that really no one from the serious parties have either picked-up the issue or been successful with. That's probably because they don't respond to blogs for a living, don't write newspaper articles for a living and don't get to grumble and moan in the local for a living, rather they live with the consequences and actually are meant to run the country. We have yet to hear from the No camp what the great alternatives are for Britain in regards to an economy that represents 60% of its exports, perhaps the only part of the world really attempting anything on global warming, or a European platform from which Britain can check its long decline in world influence. Political leaders see everyday that Britain would be isolated, pushed around and economically less successful, and they act accordingly.
An elected Council preisdent would indeed give member states more power and enable them to set the agenda. Put in some text that it CANNOT be the same person as the president of the commission. I really can't see the two roles getting chummy as these would be two rival power bases run by two rival egos - good for democracy and debate.
'What part of "no" did they fail to understand?' - well, what part of 'treaty' do you fail to understand? The 'No' votes were on a specific document that has now been abandoned. There is also plenty of evidence that people's vote was swayed by other issues (as they always are in referendums or local elections), such as inflation blamed on the Euro in Holland and free competition in services in France, and unpopular governments in both.
Just think how many people went to the polls in recent local, Welsh and Scottish elections and voted to 'wipe the smile off Blai'rs face' rather than on local issues.
'We just don't belong in the "EU"' - truly, the eurosceptics have all the best arguments...
Only the Labour party could care more about corporate profit than the rights of its citizens. The Labour party are totally morally bankrupt and it's no wonder they are despised by the nation.
I find it funny that most people believe that a referendum is absolutely necessary for a constitution.
As we British don't have a constitution I think we find it hard to imagine how important such a document is in a legal sense.
Moreover, I can't believe the pig-headedness of our government that they do not want to accept the bill of fundamnetal rights. While the British are tied by the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention of Human Rights 1950, the EU institutions are tied by nothing to ensure basic human rights like rights to a fair trial or fair representation.
While the Court of Justice tries to implement principles of human rights as far as they can, they have admitted without the fudamental rights bill, EU institutions like the commission will never be held fully accountable.
Yet not a worry for the British, our press never complains about Commission and general EU accountability!
You want to correct the democratic deficit in the EU? Then give us a directly elected executive, instead of the distant, unaccountable Commission. You want people to be better informed? Have the media cover it more, not just hiding it in the back of bulletins laced with UKIP propaganda.
What's wrong with the idea of more power at Brussels? It's no more remote than London, and with the weight of a continent behind it, it actually has a hope of making a difference. Born and bred in Somerset, I'm not "English" or "British", I'm European - I was never asked if I wanted my government in London, so why should I give a damn how much power it has?
John S:
I've found it's the result of conditioning through media coverage. I hear people talk about not wanting to be governed by other nations, and yet here we English are, about to recieve a Scottish Prime Minister. Britain is the perfect example of a multi-national state which has worked. Of course I'd personally like to see it end on account of it being an inefficient duplication of services provided at the EU level.
UKIP are mentioned as those who'd hold a vote on exiting the EU; yet I've never seen them call for a public vote on the Act of Union between Scotland and England... something with far less legitimacy than the various EU treaties.
I think people will ultimately be happy under a confederal system.
As Steve Saint writes.
"I find this whole peice regarding the constitution rather odd.
It maybe reporting the "news" but isn't the whole idea of a push for a constitution totally undemocratic. As far as I've ever seen most of the people in Europe don't want it.
I don't recall the British people for one ever asking for it for example. The referendum in 1975 in no way whatsoever gave governments the right to proceed as they have over the last 30 years.
Wouldn't journalists be serving the public better by actually holding politicians accountable and pound away at the real reasons for trampling the wishes of the masses underfoot.
One thing is certain, improving the life of the citizens is the last thing on politicians minds.
Surely a journalist worth his salt would keep grinding away at why national governments and leaders keep cedeing powers which are not theirs to give away to an the undemocratic and totally unaccountable EU.
I for one would like Mr Mardell to use his position for the purposes its intended, as a watchdog.
There's little effective oversight into the goings on in Euroland anywhwere else.
Since voting is totally ineffectual on its own he would be serving the public who pay his salary to hold some toes to the fire and help stop this juggernaut and consign it to the scrap-heap.
Wishful thinking but real jounalism seems to be something that happened in a bygone era."
I totally agree. For god's sake, Blair and his cronies are gradually dismantling this country and handing it to the unelected freeloaders. When are the press and the so called Opposition going to question this governments motives. Someone has to stop this act of treason before it is too late.
Why has a EU wide referendum not been discussed? Would it not circumvent the arguement made by politicians against referendums being a vote on the national governments? Would it not show that the EU was directly in touch with its population and would clearly state this is a vote in favour of European cooperation? If there really are more people in Poland, Spain, Ireland, etc in favour of the constitution then those against in the UK and elsewhere, why should this not be expressed?
I would probably suggest the answer to all of the above is that neither the EU or the national governments want it. The former would fear a no vote would fundamentally undermine the 'European Project' and the latter that it gives the EU political bodies far too much legitimacy and may set a precendent where they are circumvented in future.
I was intrigued by your comment regarding the conservatives. Does being a proper Conservative entail being a Euro-sceptic? There are many pro-European conservative governments around Europe so I fail to see the connection.
I am also surprised by the comments by Open Europe. One mistake people often make with the interpretation of the integration is that they associate it with the destruction of national identity. I do not think this has to happen. One can still be proud to be British and cherish the past achievements while at the same time support the integration purely out of the pragmatism. Nationalism can live on but the nation state is a thing of the past that has outlived its usefulness. Today we have a more robust system of cooperation rather than that of eternal struggle.
john s (7): and who would elect this EU president? That's right, the European Council would. Not the peoples.
Niels Pace (6): you are right. The arrogance of the EU 'colleagues' is baffling. But what's even worse, they're going to get this treaty, which will be exactly the constitution (except in different wordings) and tell us that it's something new. And they expect us to believe it (or rather: they expect us to be extremely stupid).
Steve Saint (3): indeed, there has never been a public demand for anything like a EU federation/USE. Only power-hungry gravy-train-riding politicians like it.
And Mark is right for mentioning the European Courts. These courts have deliberately been stuffed with federalists who make the most outrageous pro-EU rulings based on absolutely nothing (there is no basis either in law or treaty for their federalist tendencies). And this is where the most important problem lies.
You see, the federalists have been in charge of the 'project' from the word go and they are not just going to let us stop them.
It would be interesting to see what historians make of this period of UK history in say 100 years time. After fighting a world war to preserve our liberty, which cost so much in blood and treasure, lost us an empire and brought us to the verge of bankrupcy, we have meekly allowed our politicians to give away that very liberty within a generation without so much as a "by-your-leave". Indeed, the whole issue of our membership of "Europe" has been shrouded in stealth, dishonesty and omisission. No party has ever admitted to the public the true intention of those building the "European Project", and the wealth of evidence that the whole structure is riddled with waste, incompetence and corruption is simply ignored.
The natural instinct of the Eurocrat is almost Stalinist in its desire to control every aspect of the population's lives, deny them any meaningful say in their destiny and ignore even the basic rules of democratic accountability. As such, the EU is contrary to everything that English, and subsequently British, subjects have held dear for centuries. No better example (of which there are too many to list) could be cited than this blatant attempt to re-package a constitution which has been clearly rejected by French and Dutch voters, and would be overwhelmingly by British voters too were they ever given the chance. For Blair to claim that there is no need for a referendum on this issue simply because he knows that there is such strong opposition to any further transfer of power to Brussels and that he would therefore lose, shows more clearly than anything else he has done in his ten long years of power just how far he has travelled along the "European road", and in how much contempt he holds the electorate of Great Britain. This will be his last great betrayal, and the fitting legacy for which he has been searching.
Labour and the LibDems want the authoritarian EU to control the country because it subsidises the funding to their Party through MEP's etc.
The Coonservatives have turned into a wishy-washy social democrat party filled with career politicians.
Such breathtakingly weak mainstream views and Parties have led to a decline in participation and have led to myself, a 17 year old, being attracted to the UKIP who are the only non-racist, up front, honest Party out there. From those I have spoken to, my generation are sick and tired of beign tied up in would-be constitutions in our future that we have absolutely no control over.
Our position in the EU is that of the starved workhorse. Pretty soon that horse is going to either have to die or go and get itself some food.
To John S (Comment 7):
The problem with an elected European president is that every voter in the UK could vote for one candidate, yet find ourselves ruled by somebody totally different. An EU president will inevitably take on the mantle of Head of State: history dictates that the powers of Eurocrats and the EU in general only ever increase at the expense of national governments.
It is bad enough having a government at Westminster voted for by a quarter of the electorate...
It is all so sad.. British do not want charter on Fundamental Rights as it makes new treaty too much Constitution-like. What is more, it also gives workers right to be informed about a company's money matters (ups!). This will be bad for business.. So, it is not in our national interest. No!
British arm factory bribed Saudi prince for years with knowledge of govermnent. Investigation is stopped. For national interests..
Americans do not want to sign Kioto agreement. 'It is bad for our economy', so it is not in our NATIONAL INTEREST..
These notions are not sadly unethical, they are not just examples of hypocrisy and selfishness of world powers, but in the same time, they are enormously short-sighted and detrimental for very own nations that protects their interests in this way.
Steve Saint (#3) why do you find a journalist reporting the news 鈥渙dd ?鈥
Half the time people complain we comment too much. Of course it is my job to ask hard questions, like some of those you suggest, when I interview members of the Government. And equally hard questions of the opposition. But 91热爆 journalists are not campaigners. There are plenty of newspapers that do that job, as they should in a democracy. But the roles are different. Personally I find it difficult to make judgements without knowing the facts so I was trying to share with you the latest position of the German Government, summing up the likely next moves.
Hertfordian (#4): As I sit here grinding my teeth that my long and lovingly planned piece for tonight鈥檚 Ten O'Clock News, explaining the latest position on the treaty, has been dropped, how could I possibly agree with you? But part of my job is being a salesmen, hammering on doors, pushing people to take a story that they often worry is too complex. I was pleased to get a "two-way" on last night's Ten, and it didn鈥檛 bother me where it was. Editors need to create light and shade in a programme, and if it's there, it's there and I am not too hung up about where it is. Breaking news: what does a spurned sales man do but go to the posh house at the top of the hill, bang on the door, and suggest they might like to be ahead of the Joneses who don鈥檛 have the forsight to buy? In other words the planned piece will be on Newsnight tonight.
The chap who was in charge of Newsnight when I worked there, Peter Horrocks, is now the head of TV news and he鈥檚 made the point recently that there are now 鈥91热爆 Newses鈥 not just 91热爆 news. I have already broadcast on Radio 4, Radio 5 live and world on this story and more is to come. And this blog is a place for people who are really interested and for me to go into detail that is impossible on the airwaves where the pressure is always shortage of time (鈥渨e want a minute setting out the details of the new treaty and where all the 27 countries stand鈥). Thanks for an earlier post from Ibnez but I have to quarrel with the suggestion that there has ever been a deliberate 91热爆 鈥渃over up鈥 of EU developments because they are potential unpopular in Britain. The EU doesn鈥檛 go wiz or bang, many of the personalities aren鈥檛 charisma incarnate, it's complicated, and it probably does turn a section of the audience off (when I began this job someone asked 鈥淲hy do you want to do that. It's got nothing to do with us in Britain.") Editors love American politics... same language... one bloke in charge... simple to understand. Start explaining to them about the Polish coalition鈥檚 desire for a voting system based on the square root of population being conditioned by their relationship with Germany not only in world war two but.... hello hello ..why has my mobile gone dead?
I find that when Eurosceptics talk about the burden of helping the poorer countries rather short-sighted. Yes over the short term helping the poorer countries catch up to the richer ones (to a degree at least) produces an economic drain on the rich countries. However, over the long term, those nations will catch up and become an economic benefit to the EU as a whole. Look at the example of the United States. Certain states in the early days were poorer than others (this is still true today). For instance, Virginia was much wealthier than Georgia, but today Georgia has the city of Atlanta which is one of the most prosperous cities in the US. America would never even consider abandoning one of its poorer states because it produces a drain on the richer states (temporarily at least). Taking the arguement that the wealthier EU nations should not help the poorer ones because they are an economic drain to its logical conclusion, every poor province in every European nation ought to be abandoned because helping them would be a drain on those richer provinces wealth. Does this mean that rich people should not give to charity in order to prevent an econmic drain? What if a major natural disater occurs, like the Netherlands' dike system fails and half of that country is flooded. Helping the Netherlands would be an economic drain on the EU so should they be thrown out of the EU? Perhaps the poor European Nations are "demanding handouts" because they NEED the "handouts." Perhaps they're not greedy, just trying to get completely out of the economic disaster communism left in their countries. When World War 2 ended the US gave billions to European countries to rebuild after the Nazi take over and both the US and Western Europe benefited. Are the nations of Western Europe going to be less generous and more short-sighted than even the US? I certainly hope not.
I think the reason why the first attempt at a constitution failed was because the whole process was convoluted. Now that a second attempt is being made, it seems that instead of making things simpler, politicians are making things even more complicated. Even if this second attempt works, we'll end up with something that won't satisfy anyone.
We need an European wide debate on where we are and where we're headed. We need an honest debate to figure out what Europe's citizens want (a common army? an elected president? a common foreign policy? none of the above?). The constitution would be a good tool to launch such a debate. The document must be something easy to read and to understand. It needs to be taken to the people and then adopted or rejected by the people. If Europeans are ready to dream big and grow beyond nationalism then it will succeed. If not, then the framework would at least be set for future, more mature generations to take it up.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
PLEASE - why don't you all in England finally (instead of eternally moaning) either emigrate like me (37 years ago) to civilisation or just shut up and opt out forever of OUR Europe. You don't belong here anyway and we can survive very well without your exports! Either stay on your isolated binge drinking and stag/hen party island or join the US and make UKIP and us just too happy! Thanks!!
From many of the comments made so far, I wonder how many contributors ever took time to read the constitution thrown out by France and the Netherlands? If they had they would realise that:
1 the proposals so far floated (no agreement on anything yet!) are far fewer than in the original;
2 the EU needs some new rules on procedure, to free-up the current messy decision-making processes, to stop a lot of excess duplication of job-roles and jobs, and to make the EU more accountable in law.
A bit off topic: "majority voting" vs "square root voting" that Poland insists on.
Germany's share of all votes in EU will decrease from 17 percent in majority voting system to 9.5 percent in square root voting system.
The share of votes of the remaining five "big" countries will decrease as follows:
Britain's from 12.4 percent to 8.2 percent,
France's from 12.4 percent to 8.2 percent,
Italy's from 12.0 percent to 8.0 percent,
Spain's from 8.2 percent to 6.7 percent,
Poland's from 8.0 percent to 6.5 percent.
All the remaining 21 countries of EU would gain votes in square root system of voting.
It's hard to see how a referendum would be confined to the issue of the 'constitution' - inevitably it would turn into a debate on Britain's whole future in the EU. That is certainly what UKIP and the Tory Eurosceptics intend.
Where would such a debate lead? If Britain's membership of the EU were seriously destabilised, what would be the alternative? Go it alone? Look to the USA? Look to the emerging powers: India, China? Eurosceptics should say what future place they see for Britain in a world that will increasingly be dominated by 4 or 5 large power blocs.
The notion that we could renegotiate our membership of the EU on more advantageous terms is unreal. Just contemplate what would be the British reaction if another Member State, say France, tried this?
And if England voted no in a referendum and Scotland voted yes (a likely outcome) where would that leave the UK?
A referendum might help Cameron to evade local difficulties in his party (as with Blair and Wilson in 1975) but it could be very high risk for Britain's national interests.
Even if you are lucky enough to be given the opportunity of a vote, following votes in Ireland, Denmark, France and Holland, in anything to do with the EU it is clear:
a) You are not allowed to vote No.
b) If you vote No you are ignorant and don鈥檛 understand the arguments involved.
c) People who vote No (as opposed to people who vote Yes) are voting for a number of other issues not against the (this is not now a constitution) treaty.
I expect nothing less then complete capitulation from these spineless, self-serving parasites with their snouts in the trough.
Says it all really!
I think Britain is the United States' trojan horse in the European Union. It has always been the most Eurosceptic country and totally anti European regardless what politicians say. Britain has always wanted more countries inside the EU (it supports Turkish entry) because it just wants to obtain benefits from the EU, namely Free Trade but doesn麓t want to contribute in anyway to the EU. However to the EU's disgrace whenever something like the Constitution is debated Britain is always inside the debate. It is more than clear that Britain just wants to jeopardize the whole European effort. In short, someone in this forum said "we (the British people) just don't belong to the EU) and he or she was right. Not only the British people don't belong to Europe (in a practical sense), but the United Kingdom should leave the European Union, and the sooner the better. I really hope this happens one day and I hope it happens very soon.
Why do the british fear Brussels so much?
Why don't you see all the positive things Brussels has brought to you, like
- a big and equal market
- more rights for consumers, for example better descriptions of products and marking of dangerous ingredients in your food
- cooperation of police = better security
- social, ecological and economical standards as high as nowhere else
- destruction of monopolistic structures all over Europe
- visa-free travel
- tax-free trade
- intense exchange programs for students
- stable democracies all over Europe
- huge investments in infrastructure
- all in all a lot of economic advantages
And additionally: All of us depend on the others. There will be no more wars on this continent. And also, we are only heard in the world when Europeans speak with one voice.
The EU will never be a super-state like the USA. It's not meant to be like this, even not by most of the pro-European people. It IS a cooperation of sovereign states and it WILL BE the same in 50 years. But we have to lay it on the ground of democracy, we have to strengthen the parliament and we have to streamline the decision process to make it work.
And if you still want to leave the EU, just ask your brokers how many of your firms will go bankrupt immediatly. We are in one boat, and we shouldn't fear each other but work together and do our best.
Greetings from Germany
PS: Especially the British get all these advantages for a very very low fare. Just look at who is paying for the EU.
japan can survive on its own and be a success its not much bigger then britain so why cant britain survive on its own we survived for well over 1000 years we dont need the EU. lets get out before its a war for independence from the big bad EU,rule Brittania.
chris woods (30) et al - where do you create your "we" ? Serious question. Eurosceptics love to trot out "we survived a thousand years", "we fought in two wars", "we" did this, "we" did that - who is your "we"? I've never lived outside the borders governed by London, but I don't recognise any common "we" within those lines on a map. Anything I have in common with a Scouser and a Geordi, I also have in common with a Stockholmer and an Athenian.
"My" history is as much Magna Carter as it is Immanual Kant. My future is peace and prosperity. Can any Eurosceptic out there come up with an argument why I should actually object to my government being in Brussels instead of London? I'm ignoring its current democratic deficiencies because they can easily be amended (ironic, given that that always seems to be a major europhobic argument, yet they then oppose measures to fix it), just why should I care if it is actually *in* one city over another? Every Eurosceptic seems to start from this strange and senseless position that there is a "we" I have never seen. Will any of you help me with your position? Or is it simply easier to forget that, and retreat into small minded head burying?
I really do wonder on which planet many of the EU sceptics reside.
It will not be possible for the UK to leave the EU and then immediately rejoin something called a 鈥淐ommon Market鈥. To get only the benefits and not pay the costs or have any say in making the rules. 鈥 We are not like Japan. We have half the population and less than 10% of the manufacturing capacity of Japan. - We couldn鈥檛 survive on our own or if we did, we would live much like the Portuguesa but without the sun. People from the UK would be hiding in lorries to gain entry back into Europe. - Or we could become the 51st State of the Union!
I can't help wondering how many of those who are so scared of loosing British autonomy actually live outside Rngland. Why are they apparently so opposed to s directly democratic EU which is outside the power games of local politicians? Have the UKIP fans any first-hand experience of the often more effective way (many) things are run on the continent?
Indeed, why do so many people apparently oppose the idea of a powerful Scotland, N.Ireland or Wales within the British Union -but demand a more powerful voice for Britain within a larger club?
Perhaps the real objection to the EU is that wider cooperation requires a little more intellectual consistency -if one is not to be accused of hypocricy.
The future of the UK must NOT be placed in the hands of faceless European bureaucrats. Power should be taken back from them, not increased. The behaviour of the Blair Labour government has already displayed their contempt for the genuine democratic wish. How much worse it will be if it went to Europe. Blair himself is aready wangling to be in charge there by sacrificing Britain's national interest to that end and we know what a mess he can make of things. The UK surely must take on board the usefulnes of a written constitution to stop power hungry opportunists such as he.
I think the UK should leave the EU. It will be the best for everyone. They don't want to join, and Europe does'nt need them!
I fully and convincingly support the goal of a fully-fledged federal Union among willing European States. Of course this is not likely to happen today or tomorrow, but in the long run this incremental process will be feasible. In the short and medium run what the European citizens need is an increasingly integrated and suprantational Union which shall be provided with working and genuine powers in order to manage today global problems as well as to solve the common problems of the Member states. This my personal opinion, but I seems to me that the overwhelming majority of the Europeans from the continent share this perception and this integrative necessity. If the majority of British (or Polish) people do not agree with this, it is better for them and even more for us, that they urge their national governments in order to leave the Union as soon as possible. We don't need boycotters in Europe!
It's evident that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom do not want Mr Blair to sign over our rights and powers to an EU Superstate. Their should be a referendum, no questions asked and something he should leave in the hands of Gordan Brown.
As someone else said, we have survived on our own for many, many years, so why do we need to sign upto this EU constitution?
Sebastian (21) writes: "Nationalism can live on but the nation state is a thing of the past that has outlived its usefulness."
Maybe, maybe not. But surely it is for the citizens of the nation state to decide whether or not to 'disband' and surrender their hard-won sovereignty to a supra-national entity.
Citizens of the UK are increasingly demanding the right to express their view on this - hence the necessity of a referendum.
Maybe, as Thomas Patricio (29) condescendingly writes above, we are not 'mature' enough to 'grow beyond nationalism'. I do hope this is the case. let's find out.
So Downing Street has decided not to have a referendum on current changes being discussed, saying it is an amendment to a treaty and not a constitution. This is just a play on words! It will become by any logical analysis a constitution. Will people in this country sit back and do nothing. I would like to think not, but that will probably be the case! If this were the French government proposing to impose something on their electors that they were opposed to without referendum there would be protests and roads blockaded etc.
What we get is our own fault due to our lack of action! It is no good saying it's ok we will not vote for them again, by then it is too late and Brussls will have yet another slice of our soveriegnty. What next, the euro without a referendum??
I think it is sad how centuries of rivalry and suspiscion still exist in the majority of the British population towards our European neighbours.
As the world's political landscape changes, Britain's role and prominence will begin to diminish after other countries such as India and China grow both economically and politically.
It is my opinion that in order for Britain and other European countries to maintain their position in the world. European Unification is necessary.
To myself the creation of a European superstate is inevitable, and that no matter how we complain and moan it is merely delaying the unstoppable, a European superpower would provide a separate and strong voice across the world, and could be a restraining hand on some of America's policies and offer a separate route in dealing with the world's problems.
With the European Constitution, I believe that it will lay in place the foundations for unity, with which Britain can still remain a significant part of, still preserving traditions such as the Royal Family and others. The creation of a European President with a significant term is one of the greatest prospects of the constitution/treaty it provides a figurehead for the EU to look to and I do believe that a combination of the two jobs is a good thing and also the new EU president to be elected. This would give great credibility to the EU and give it more respect across Europe, as a simple thought it would be 'well we put him there', and it would lead to the EU becoming more relevant in daily life. So, I ask those reading this not to simply roll their eyes and call these words rubbish, to put aside their prejudices and trust in our European neighbours to lead us to greater prosperity, the EU along with other factors has provided the most important thing, Peace. Almost unthinkable 62 years ago, and the dream of European Unity was dim there in the view of some such as Winston Churchill. It has provided miraculous things and I simply cannot wait for unity!
Like it or not, the world is becoming are far smaller place, we are a globe after all. And the comments made about the evils of sharing our national wealth smack a litle of unethical and uncontrolled capitalism. Perhaps it is a little bit fairer to share the wealth that some of the eight richest countries in the world possess with those in different places who are not quite as fortunate.
I believe that the EU could be a good thing. There will be an elected president, there will be free movement, and a greater amount of protection for smaller states who perhaps could not defend themselves unliaterally. Perhaps it is time for Britain to share a little- forgive me if I am wrong, but the last time there was a huge conglomerate of nations run from a central capital it was, was it not, a British Empire- for whom 99% of the popluation received no vote and no representation. The EU is perhaps a little fairer than that!
At this point in the EU's development, is it worth remembering how Yugoslavia was created from disparate cultures, and how it came apart, and with what bitterness?
You Britons are so sad...always complaining about EU, regardless whether good or bad. By the way..any of you going to their second home on the Continent will soon pay very little money for cell phone calls back home to Britain? Why? Not because UKIP abducted the daughters of major cell phone companies but because the European Commission forced them to. Also..the "constitution" is not a constitution. The name is totally silly and it is a mere treaty like the Nice treaty that would put more (not less) democracy in EU decision making. What are you Islanders complaining about? Get the facts right you ever-skeptical Britons.
What point is there anyway of including that Charter of fundamental rights? What other point could there be then furthering the federalist agenda?
Fact: all individual EU member states have already signed this thing.
Also, what point is there in giving the EU legal personality? If, as EUphiles claim the EU is cooperation between sovereign states, there is no point in that whatsoever. But as always, the idea is to further the federalist agenda. EUphiles know this but keep either lying or denying.
Let's get one thing perfectly straight: no politician has received a mandate to dilute or undermine any nation's national sovereignty. Let's go back to what we did agree on, which is economic cooperation only.
If Europe only maintains an economic cooperative then who will be there to control the US? China perhaps? Do you Brits really want the only two superpowers being a belligerent nation like the US and an oppressive communist nation like China to be the only superpowers on Earth? If the EU became a federation it could be the third superpower and moderate the sometimes extreme impulses of the other two. If an economic cooperative was all Europe needed to do this then Italy, Spain, and the UK would not have gone into Iraq while Germany and (I hate to say it) France made the wise move and stayed out. Europe without a coherent foreign policy is a Europe which can do nothing to blunt the ambitions of the US or China.
The EEC (as it was originally) was a trading area between European Countries. The UK already had a trading area, it was called the Commonwealth (split those words apart and read slowly, Common, Wealth) but the ever overbearing EU made us cut our ties with our longstanding buisness trading cousins (sorry Australia, will you ever forgive us. I know we nearly bankrupted you) in favour of an ever closer fedralist nonsense.
Let's pull out of the EU, run our own country with our own laws, join EFTA and re-establish links with our worldwide trading partners - the Commonwealth countries.