Treaty of Lisbon
Lisbon in late October. A summit by the sea, rather than by the dual carriageway. Balancing a plate on my knee in the Portuguese Prime Minister's garden it seems a very attractive notion. The PM's backyard is a good place to be. The sky is blue, the sun is shining, the green lawns are shaded by palms, and overshadowed by trees with lilac blooms. In the distance, a profusion of vivid magenta flowers promiscuously cover a series of columns and arches. Over the plate of cured ham and melon, I reflect that if we are to cover the signing of the new reform treaty, then how much better if it will be here, than in the dull building in Brussels that squats next to the busy road that runs through the European Quarter of the city.
The Portuguese have the job of running the EU countries' business until Christmas, and they hope the highlight of will be the signing of the "Treaty of Lisbon". They certainly expect agreement to be reached in their capital and a final deal done here. But there is an argument. The meeting in October is an "informal summit" and a formal one is needed to sign off a treaty. And all formal meetings take place in Brussels these days. But perhaps there is a more pressing reason to hold the summit here than Portuguese pride and my self-indulgence. However the arguments develop about the document that replaces the constitution, I just can't see Gordon Brown signing up to the "Treaty of Brussels".
Portuguese George Clooney
I'm in Portugal to hear what plans Portugal has for the EU over the next six months. It's a smooth, well-organised trip. I am writing this on a coach to Porto that has wireless connection to the internet. Quite amazing. But this handing on of the baton from Germany, before it passes to Slovenia in January, does highlight one of the arguments about the new treaty. It proposes establishing an individual President of the Council - the Council being the name given meetings of the governments of EU states - instead of the current system, where countries take turns at being president every six months. There are arguments that this could develop into "a president of Europe" but the British government portrays it sheer common sense.
One tiny example of why some support this. It takes me about three hours to get my accreditation online. And I spend time doing this every six months. It's not the fault of the Portuguese, and probably has a lot to do with the 91热爆's own computer security. No-one's heart will bleed for me and other journalists having annoying few hours. But it does raise the question why we have to go through this bother every six months. Presumably all the thousands of diplomats, civil servants and politicians who come to the EU meetings have to do something similar. And that's just about badges. Each country that takes over may see it as an opportunity, but it also ties up civil servants in everything from designing websites and , to working in policy areas that may be completely new to them.
The Portuguese Prime Minister bounces into the room, shaking hands firmly. The firm verdict of my female colleagues is that Jose Socrates is a bit dishy, the George Clooney of Portuguese politics. The 49-year-old does have a certain style. Neat grey hair, fashionable sideburns, he's dressed in jeans and an open-necked blue shirt and suit jacket. It's very much the weekend uniform of the energetic leader, a la Sarkozy, a la early Blair. His demeanour is full of vitality and suggests he can't wait to get on with the business of setting the EU's agenda, even if sometimes his answers are so diplomatic as to be devoid of meaning. At least our meeting is on the record. Eventually. At first it was off the record, until the assembled EU correspondents objected. Then some remarks were on, and some off. And then he gave in.
Polish 'misunderstanding'
Which is a very good thing, because such formulations as "friends of the prime minister say..." and "the PM is believed to think" couldn't capture the heavy irony as he brands the latest Polish position as a "misunderstanding".
Through sheer intransigence at the summit, the Poles delayed a change to the voting system that everyone else wanted. Now they are saying there was an oral agreement that would give them still more concessions. Mr Socrates repeatedly says this must be a "misunderstanding because the deal was very clear." In case we don't get it, he repeats: "It can only be a misunderstanding. There were not 26 leaders but 27 around the table. There was a clear cut, precise mandate. That's why I call it a misunderstanding, there can be no other explanation." I think this translates as, "Don't try it on with me, sonny."
I've discussed before how much is open to dispute. But the Portuguese plan to unveil a full text on 23 July and then it will be up to legal experts and civil servants to argue about detailed wording. The foreign minister says, the work will be mainly legal and technical but if there any questions of interpretation, a new debate will have to be organised. That would probably happen at a meeting of foreign ministers in the second week of September.
World actor
Portugal's main job will be to get this treaty signed sealed and delivered. The Portuguese think there is an urgent need for it, so the European Union can play a much larger role on the world stage. They argue with some passion that with many crises around the world, the EU needs a beefed-up High Representative (the job that is no longer called "foreign minister") to play a "balancing" role on the world stage. Nearly all the issues they single out as top priority are about Europe as a world actor.
RUSSIA
Mr Socrates gets worked up about the summit with Russia in October and the need for better relations. Indeed, the urbane prime minister almost loses it with a journalist from Eastern Europe. The PM says that the disagreement with Russia "started with rotten meat and now we are talking about weapons. Weapons!" He doesn't suggest any way forward on the star wars row, but does talk at some length about his love for Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky and how Russian literature means that Russia has contributed to European culture. A journalist from Lithuanian radio says rather acidly that he could talk about Russian literature in some depth because he had read it in the original language, which he didn't necessarily want to learn, but was made to. People from countries like his knew the only way to deal with the Russians getting pushy was to push back.
Mr Socrates becomes extremely animated and rather steely. "I don't agree. I don't accept that. International relations don't work like that. Push the Russians! It's irresponsible! I'm not a guy who will contribute to increasing tensions, I want to lower the tensions." Afterwards we ask a friend (a real live one, not journalistic code for the man himself) why he felt so strongly. It seems Putin granted him a three-hour audience, a rare privilege for the leader of a small country and he was allowed to stay in the Kremlin ,an honour usually reserved for heads of states. But Mr S is clearly no fool and it's hard to imagine he's simply fallen for this sort of soft soap. Many western EU countries simply don't get how they feel in the East and that is a big problem for the future.
TURKEY
Maybe Mr Sarkozy should offer the Portuguese PM the best bedroom in the Elysee, because at the moment it seems he's not going to get the conference he wants on Turkey. The French president would like a summit to discuss Europe's borders, with the real aim of stopping negotiations with Turkey. The Portuguese, like the British, feel this would be a strategic blunder of massive proportions, destabilising Turkey at a difficult time and sending all the wrong signals to the Islamic world. The Portuguese don't quite rule it out, but the foreign minister said "it is very difficult to open another divisive debate when we haven't closed the last one (on the treaty)".
AFRICA
The Africa summit in December matters a lot to Portugal, and ministers say having proper relations with the continent is a priority for the European Union. The row will be whether or not they invite Robert Mugabe. Both Mr Socrates and the foreign minister reply with deliberately obscure gobbledygook about bilateral relations being different from relations with an organisation as a whole. This probably translates as, "We're crossing our fingers that the African Union will sort it out their end."
AND AN OLD CHESTNUT
While many at home argue the treaty is another big step down the road of European integration, many countries feel they've only made a small, hobbled step after Mr Blair added a ball and chain to the treaty. The number of British opt-outs again raises that old chestnut of a two-speed Europe, with some countries threatening (promising?) to press on without the laggards. The metaphor of speeds does imply we'll all get there in the end. The truth is that there already is an inner and outer core, with Britain as the most determined member of the outer ring. There is no realistic prospect of Britain joining the euro, or allowing EU citizens in without passports, and these are the most significant integrationist projects.
One French journalist from the left-wing daily suggests that Sweden Denmark and Britain are such a "stumbling block" they should be offered a privileged partnership - the same deal, far short of full membership, that Mr Sarkozy wants to offer Turkey. Mr Socrates replies that the mood in Sweden and Denmark is not a real problem and the countries are not stumbling blocks. What about the UK, I ask? He diplomatically replies that Britain has its own history, but the British are "more European than they themselves think they are". Well, are we?
UPDATE:
I'm somewhat in the dark, metaphorically and literally. The Portuguese are very keen on having a big summit with Africa, but is inviting Robert Mugabe a price worth paying? That's the question I've just asked the Portuguese PM at a news conference in the lovely city of Porto. He said that it was "an error" that for seven years "a diplomatic problem" had prevented vital dialogue. The logic of that is that they would invite him. But he says he hopes "a diplomatic formula" can be found.
So I don't know.
Certainly diplomats here hope that he just won't turn up, but that may be placing to much faith in Mr Mugabe's desire for compromise and easy relations for the greater good.
The other reason I'm in the dark is that my glasses have broken and I'm having to wear sunglasses to see anything beyond a blur. I can't even see my computer screen without them. The risk is that people will think this a pathetic attempt at cool at a moment of mid-life crisis. The alternative is that I stumble round bumping into things. Then people would think I had partaken too liberally of this lovely city's most famous product, which has wrecked the legs of many an English aristocrat. That would be more in character and so a less desirable interpretation.
UPDATE, 6 JUL: I've replied to some of your comments here.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
Mr Socrates, the Portuguese PM seems to forget that under international law, the Intergovernmental Conference is superior to the European Council.
Therefore, everything and anything about the coming 'new' treaty can be put up to discussion. Mr Socrates and mr Barroso may not like that, but they cannot stop it.
The fact that the European Council is trying to make everyone believe that they CAN limit the IGC's mandate, is nothing short of a coup d'etat.
About the Turkey situation, it is abundantly clear they must be kept out at all costs. And also, the Turkey situation is a good measure as to how the gap between politicians and the peoples is widening.
The peoples do not want anymore moves to federalization. Yet it goes on.
The peoples do not want Turkey in. Yet the negotiations are not stopped.
Maybe it is time to put Kurdish independence on the table?
If pressed to declare an affintity to any particular territory I certainly think of myself as a Mancunian (from my Region of NW.England) first and a European second but I know I am not following the normal trend in displaying those sentiments.
I am very depressed about the general progress of the European project and Mark Mardell's article catalogues many of the Union's perennial woes.
Why is it presumed that the exclusive form of describing your identity is through the orthodoxy of Nation State terminology. All dialogue is (by default) pervaded with references to nationality:
"One French journalist"
"the mood in Sweden and Denmark"
"The Portuguese don't quite rule it out"
and so on.
These labels merely reinforce the domination of an inflexible and compartmentalised mindset.
Until we begin to create a nascent European political space in which notions of shared experience can flourish, Europeans will never realise the vast potential offered by their own continent, which is a real waste.
Only through such Europeanisation of the political arena can we begin the long process of institutional democratization required to deliver citizen driven legitimacy in those clearly defined policy areas where the EU demonstrates a logical capacity to act on our behalf.
Are we more European than we think? The opposite is true in my opinion. One of the reasons that Britain's relationship with the EU (in all it's various historic guises) has been so difficult is that our history and consequently our view on life, is so markedly different. The Europhiles have tried to hide this blindingly obvious truth for a generation as they pursued their utopian dream of a European state, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Britain is out of step with the EU, and will always be a bad fit. It is only a geographic accident that sees us classed as European; we have far closer ties - historic, cultural and in blood - with other Anglo-Saxon countries like the USA and the old dominions. The pro-Europe lobby may not like this simple truth, but that doesn't make it any less fact.
One of the great ironies of modern history is the fact that the original architects of the "European Project" freely admitted in later years that they were inspired to build it as a counter-weight to the trading might of the British Commonwealth in the post-war years. A Commonwealth that blinkered British politicians saw fit to all but abandon in their shortsighted pursuit of EEC membership.
As a truly global, maritime trading nation, Britain should never have manacled itself to the European horse-drawn wagon, and it is only fair to both the British public and our European neighbours that we admit as much, wish them well, and resume our rightful place as an independent sovereign nation, free to trade and forge alliances with whom we wish. After all, it was not because of our position off the European mainland that we became so succesful, but in spite of it.
I'm as impressed as you that the Portuguese manged to set up a wireless connection on the journalist tourbus. If you've ever taken a look at the Portuguese EU permanent representation website (N.B. not the Presidency site) then you'd know why....
I think the French journalist is right. I say this not because I dislike in some way UK or other eurosceptic countries, I say the idea of the French journalist is right because EU is not an empire and the federalist "party" don't want EU to become an empire, so why forcing sceptics countries to accept compromises that in the end are designed to lead to a federal State?
If a European coutry just want the benefits of the free market, why not giving it just what it want?
Let's do a federal unione with coutries wich want it (they will be two, three, six, ten, it doesn't metter) and then let's create an area of mere market sharing with others.
I hope Portugal never ever supports Turkey for joining Europe. I am not against Muslim people, but the fact that most of of land of Turkey is part of Asia I beleive that Turkey is not part of Europe. The reason why Turkey wants to be part of EU is because in EU there is better intgration better econamy and of course the tolerance towards otehr people.If the neighbours of turkey on the Asian side were better the Europian countries I bet you Turkey would not had fighted that hard to be part of Europe.I there fore hope that Turker never joins Euope. Say Not to Turkey in Europe.
To Marcel, about Turkey
Why do you want Turkey to be kept out of the European Union at all costs. When people in the European Union do not want Turkey to become a memeber you should state the reasons. And you should state the reasons why you want Turkey to be kept out at all costs. Are they politicial, economical, cultural or personal reasons for your opposition?
On the reference about putting "'Kurdish independence' on the table" this not a criteria for EU membership and not even an issue since the borders and territory of the Republic of Turkey and its neighbors Iraq, Iran and Syria (all of whom have sizeable Kurdish populations) are internationally recognized.
Sinan
Istanbul Turkey
Sarkosy's proposal "sending a wrong message to the Muslim world" ? Did the Commonwealth feel aggrieved when de Gaulle vetoed Britain's entry ? All these Muslim countries in the Asian continent were colonized by the Ottoman empire and don't feel any special simpathy for Turkey, especially since it is allied with Israel. I know Mark Mardell wouldn't object to the Kurds doing to the Berlaymont what John Bolton wanted to do with the UN building in New York but , as a Brussels resident, I object to the collateral damage
Would Marcel (and others) please explain what EXACTLY they mean by "federalization" -and what other alternative(s) there are -both derirable and undesirable. I'd have thought that a centrsalised Europe was the last thing they wanted.
I'd also be curious to know on what practical experience of living conditions in which EU countries these opiniions are based.
Actually, I too wonder how many Britons still transit the channel for their "first trip to Europe". I suspect that many Britons are less European than most Europeans could ever imagine. Aren't most British eyes looking in the direction of America and not Europe?
Allowing Turksih entrance would lock in liberal democratic principles to their governance that are sorely needed; such EU laws are the only reasons Poland hasn't spend the last year running backwards on gay rights, oppressing women, and reintroducing the death penalty. For that reason if no other, expansion is always a good thing.
That said, it cannot come until there is more depth; the EU is straining because it was stretched so wide without better foundations. British and Danish Euro entry is a necessity; the new 12 states are all adopting it in time. A stronger Europe with a louder voice on the world stage will allow a more stridently liberal, open position to be stated, against Russian bulying and American militarism.
The ultimately depressing thing about Britain's position is that in some ways, Norway and Iceland are better integrated into the EU than we are - as they are Schengen signatories, permitting passportless internal travel. The idea that we should need one to travel within our union is absurd, and abolition is long overdue.
Mark, surely the Treaty will be named after the place where the signing ceremony is held (c.f. Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice)? The text has to be agreed - probably after last minute alteration - at a formal meeting of the Council, as you say, but it will then take a while for it to be cleared by jurist-linguists and for versions to be produced in all EU languages. It could yet be the Treaty of Ljubjlana!
Something you might like to consider is how administrative support will be given to the new permanent Presidency. I think I'm right that currently, COREPER I and II are chaired by the Permanent Representative and his/her deputy respectively of the country that has the Presidency. The innumerable working groups that prepare dossiers for COREPER approval are in turn chaired by members of the Perm Rep's staff or by home civil servants from the country that has the Presidency. They are all supported by the Council Secretariat under its Director General and, of course, work closely with the various DGs of the Commission.
The creation of a permanent Presidency must enhance the role of the Council Secretariat which will surely have to provide permanent chairs of COREPER I and II and all the working groups. I'm not at all sure that currently it has the numbers and quality of staff to do this well. So where will they come from? Will there be a scheme to co-opt suitable candidates from member states' Permanent Representations (as happens with the cabinets of individual Commissioners)? Or will there be a massive programme to recruit staff to be employed on a permanent basis? The latter choice will not do much to alter the EU's bureaucratic image. What are UKREP's views on this?
'...the British are "more European than they themselves think they are". Well, are we?'
Not really, not as long as you think of European politics in terms of past wars only. The UK and Poland should form a new Union of Embittered and Fearful Ex-Big Powers with a Silly Inferiority Complex (UEFEBPSIC), and let the rest of us carry on with living in the 21st century, without passports and silly old local currencies?
...just joking, you are all right even though your plumbing IS 19th century...now that half the people of Kaczynskiland have moved to Britain, let us hope that the famous Polish plumber can be found to fix that...
One of the recurring problems in various countries of Europe today is that they have forgotten that the primary basis of the EU was to lock previously warring nations into a different sort of relationship. It has worked for so long that it no longer seems to matter.
A key element, also, was that there would be no future recriminations about past war acts.But Poland, in citing German WW2 oppression against them clearly didn't understand this?
As to the question of Europe's boundaries, "Europe" and the EU are ideals, not a reality. The idea of seeking an historical basis for any boundary has to be linked to the question "at what point in history?". Do you choose Napoleon's, Alexander's ... whose Europe?
Nb we should get more idea of what Sarkozy thinks the new treaty is all about tonight: he's going to tell us! Can't wait (yawn).
I find it interesting that anyone would support an Islamic state amid the current events, i.e. London bombings, Madrid bombings, Turkey's recent imprisionment of journalists/writers. Most appalling, I saw an interview of a prostest against Rushdie, and someone in this crowd had a poster "God curse the Queen"! Can someone explain to me why this man has not yet been put in jail, together with the others threatning violence in our country?
Allowing Turkey to join, is allowing our culture to cater to Mustlim repression. We go about our daily business while sensitive Muslim clerics call fatwas, incite violence, their followers burn catholic churches/nuns in their country. We have grown enormously tolerant. How about our rights to take public transportation safely? To freedom of speech? We spend too much money rebuilding and fixing the damages caused by extremists time and time again!
Rather than acussing Europeans of being anti-muslim, anti-turkey, they should spend their energies in codemning these criminals, and changing their own situation.
@ Sinan (7): my reasons for Turkey to be kept out are simple. The main reason is that we (Netherlands) would have to hand over billions of euros to Turkey, and I don't want that to happen.
Other reasons are that Turkey is secular in name only, 99% of its land mass is not in Europe and Turkey is still occupying parts of Kurdistan and repressing its language and culture.
Kurdistan was promised independence in the 1920s but Ataturk and the Brits and French cut a shady deal and left the Kurds without their homeland.
And as East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Montenegro and the Soviet Union prove, international borders CAN be altered. In the case of the Kurds, it would be right to do so.
@ trevor batten (9), what I mean by federalization is the ever creeping centralization of decision making powers. This 'ever closer union' stuff has to be undone. Its time to realize that political union is only wanted by a small minority (bureaucrats and politicians). And this is a kind of federalization without a popular mandate.
Desirable would be a proper free trade area (EU = overregulated customs union) or dissolving the entire thing altogether. Desirable would be to keep the veto rights.
I am in favour of Turkey joining the EU and extending membership to Khazakhstan, Azerbijan, Turkmenstan, Outer Mongolia, etc. The more the merrier - to clog and block 'ever closer union'.
John Smith (#10 above) says: "Poland hasn't spend the last year running backwards on gay rights, oppressing women, and reintroducing the death penalty." Why is the reintroduction of the death penalty a 'bad thing'? Given a free vote, most Britons would welcome the reintroduction of capital punishment. Which is why - just as in the case of the EU Treaty - the British government will do everything in it's power to avoid a referendum on the subject.
I believe that Turkey should be allowed to continue on the road to EU membership, however slowly, mainly for the same reasons that Britain and Portugal - that doing otherwise would destabilize the region. Russia cannot be dealt with without a unified foreign policy, which unfortunately the EU does not have yet. This means that small countries like Estonia continue to be bullied by Russia whereas ex-Chancellors of Germany get offered seats on Gazprom's shareholder's committee. This divides European countries, and is hardly the best way to go about dealing with a resurgent Russia.
Incidentally, Mugabe has been invited by Portugal; they're just hoping he won't come.
If your flowers are promiscuous, should they not adorn a "fornicate" structure rather than "columns and arches"?
The premise that the EU ought to be having more direct contacts with the African Union is basically sound. The African Union is a diverse body, so there might be limits to its usefulness, for example, Colonel Quadafi is a leading member. Gordon Brown has a policy of bunging cash at Africa, as do other nations. France has close contact with francophone Africa, including alleged corruption. EU involvement could bring better value for money. The Holy Grail has to be better trade relationships, it would be in Europe's best interest as well as Africa's if the terms of trade were rather more equal. To achieve this will need the joint co-operation of African and EU nations. It is difficult to see what part Mugabe can play in this - he should be given the option, but he will inevitably not wish to take a sensible part, and can therefore be excluded.
I support this UEFEBPSIC! Sounds like a great place to put Belarrus as well.
Beeing a portuguese (although european first) and "lisboeta" I do honestly hope the Treaty won't get Treaty of Lisbon as a name. We should take revenge on the dutch and their hard to say "Maastricht" and go with something like "Guimar茫es".
Please stop racism against Turkey. Turkey, when defending Europe against Soviets, was considered very European. How come, it is so not suddenly? Should Turks create a cold war in order ot make Europeans understand the reality of life? After all, European civilization orginated from very heart of Anatolia. Also, Kurds have an independent country. Turkish Republic, it is called.
PM Mr Jos茅 S贸crates is indeed a very clever man who resembles Mr George Clooney. This is such a great compliment from Mr Mark Mardell, whom I also salute for such a great article.
By the way, the coach Mr Mardell travelled in was a very special one. We have many Wireless Internet Hotspots throughout the country, but not on common buses and coaches.
I have yet to actually see a reason stated for keeping Turkey out of the EU. Is it because they are Muslim? In that case the European should kick all the Muslims which have migrated to Europe out, like the Spanish did in the 15th century. Perhaps the anti-turkish people want to return to the ideas of the middle ages, like the death penalty for witches. As to Turkey being supportive of Israel, Israel and Turkey are the only real democracies in the Middle East (Israel even has Arab PMs and an Arab Supreme Court Justice). Of course Turkey wouldn't have a problem with Israel because politically, Israel is closer to Turkey than any other Middle Eastern nation. Do the anti-Turkey people prefer Turkey side with such regiemes as Syria or Saudi Arabia? As to differences in culture, if Spain and Estonia, which have widely varying cultures, can be in an union together, then so can Turkey and Europe. Nano84's comment that if Asia had a better union than the EU Turkey would join it, are you accusing Turkey of *gasp* looking out for its national interests?! The horror! Seriously though, any nation's goal is to look out for its national interests. No EU nation is joining the EU because they think their nation will go down the tubes because of it. Every EU nation is expecting to benefit from the EU and any nation that moves for a federal union believes that their nation is better off in an union than on its own. If Spain had the chance to join a union in Africa which would be more beneficial to it than an European one, they would join the African union. The only reasons I have seen to keep Turkey out of the EU are bigoted and xenophobic. If someone has a good reason I would like to hear it.
When Mr.Socrates said that Britain has its own history, but the British are "more European than they themselves think they are", I am inclined to agree... and hopefully "Europeans" (whoever and whatever this means) might eventually turn out to have more in common with the "British" than they would have thought! This will happen once we all realise how to love and learn from the UK's best asset or national competence. This is our wonderfully generous (largely unwritten) and therefore flexible constitution.
I can't resist adding that I hope any new treaty will be signed in Lisbon and not in Porto. Why? Well, the Finnish government for one would be in big trouble recommending to the voters a 'Porton sopimus' (='the treaty of Porto', which in Finnish coincidentally also translates as 'the treaty of the prostitute').
Let us hope that the multilingual PR people of Brussels alert the Portuguese in time. No need to scare the poor Europhobes (those who already see the EU as the whore of Babylon, the beast of the Apocalypse, a left-wing/ right-wing/ German/ French/ gay/ straight plot... you know the sort I'm talking about).
The EU has been polling for decades (via Eurobarometer) on the relative strength of our European 鈥榠dentity鈥. In the case of Britain 63% say we are British only. Only 3% of Britons hold a European identity stronger than their British identity or claim an exclusively European identity. This is weaker than the EU27 average, but not by much. Across all EU27 countries only 7% say they have a stronger identification with Europe than their own nation and only 2% say they are exclusively European. In every EU27 country most people鈥檚 primary identity is their national one, often their exclusive identity. Furthermore Eurobaromter#62 shows that the number of people feeling more European than national has been falling since 1994.
Our identification with Europe is important because only a strong European identity can lead to a 'constitutional demos', i.e. the nation-like solidarity necessary for us to stick together through thick-and-thin. Such a 'demos' is a necessary pre-requisite for democracy (from 'demos' = people, kratos='rule by') because without it majority decision making in which the group to which we identity the most (our nation) is outvoted will not be accepted as legitimate. The lack of such a 鈥榙emos鈥 is the root of the EU鈥檚 legitimacy problem and no tweaking of Brussels institutions can fix a 鈥榝ault鈥 that is actually a characteristic of the diversity of the peoples of Europe.
The strong identities required to legitimize majority decision-making are based on shared values, language and culture. The Achilles heel of the EU project is that there are no European values which are not also values of the wider Western world. In the case of the UK we actually have more in common with this wider Western civilization that speaks our language, shares our attitudes towards individual rights and responsibilities, minimal government, a strong civil society and even inherits our legal system and liberal constitutional arrangements. De Gaulle spotted this truth decades ago; we have a European identity but it is weaker than our attachment to the wider English-speaking world and precludes our inclusion in any exclusively European political union.
So it goes on....& on & on without a mandate, referendum or vote of any description in sight.
Portugal does very nicely out of the EUs coffers, so I expect more of the same undemocratic path as before from them whilst they have the chair.
They can decide as much as they like amongst themselves, they can change whatever centuries old system of Government they like without the will of the people.
But eventually the little people of Great Britain will have their say on further UK occupation by the federalist, neo socialist EU,...one way or another.
You lot never seem to reflect the real anger in the UK at the EU. Its almost like it is deliberate news managing - the sort of thing we expect from Iran, Venezuala, North Korea & China.
Great Britain out.
Which bilateral relations is he talking about when he is talking about the forthcoming EU-Africa summit?
Maybe UK-Zimbabwe it seems to me.Is he trying to say he'll invite Zimbabwe 'coz he does not have anything against Mugabe than other EU members especially UK?
I've heard this b4 from Mugabe but I might have misunderstood the Portuguese PM statement.
Whatever will happen Africans have shown that they prefer to be treated as a block under AU.I think we must respect that.After all this is about EU and Africa not EU-Zimbabwe summit.
Mark's idea about Africa is fully supported by me especially the issue of Zimbabwe.
Two wrongs does not make a right so ignoring President Mugabe does not solve the problem.
Those who refer to President Mugabe as a dictator should refrain from such statement because he was dully elected and has never ruled in a dictatorial way.
He might have made some mistakes with some of his policies or actions which everyone does but that does not make him a dictator.
To resolve the problems in Zimbabwe pride must be thrown aside and accussing and counter accussing fingers should be dumped and all parties should sit at the round table to resolve this issue.
The problems,suffering,killings,high rate of poverty e.t.c in Zimbabwe today is not only caused by President Mugabe but also the international community.
The Invitation of Mugabe to EU-Africa summit will be a good place to hear Mr Mugabe explain the situation in Zimbabwe clearly and to seek solutions to the problems the Zimbabwians are facing presently.
The move of the Portuguesse authority to invite him is the right thing to do.
"Portugal says the EU has paid a price for failing to hold a summit with Africa for the last seven years."
However, by Portugal offering the Tyrant Mugabe further support, the remaining 9 million Zimbabweans within Mugabe's prison camp will pay a far greater price. Many of them will pay with their lives for Portugal's posturing.
Is Jose Socrates's puffed-up ego worth Zimbabwean lives? I don't think so.
Malcolm writes: 鈥淥ne of the reasons that Britain's relationship with the EU (in all it's various historic guises) has been so difficult is that our history and consequently our view on life, is so markedly different.鈥 And so on.
A nice thing about history is that it can be interpreted in different ways.
One can enjoy the UK鈥檚 historical differences and peculiarities 鈥 and those of every other European nation 鈥 without necessarily rejecting the ideal of European integration.
The British historian David Thomson wrote in his book 鈥淓urope Since Napoleon鈥: 鈥淚t is in the rich diversity and striking contrasts, as well as in the revelation of 鈥 undercurrents of general movement, that the alluring interest of modern European history lies.鈥
And in the preface to the 1966 edition, he added: 鈥淚 make no apology, even since the collapse of Britain鈥檚 negotiations to enter the European Economic Community, for having throughout considered the British Isles as a part of European civilization.鈥
To President Sarkozy and others, I can only say that it is a little late to claim that Turkey is not a European nation.
Turkey was a founding member of the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) in 1948, and joined the Council of Europe in 1949, before, among others, FR Germany, Austria, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal, Spain and Finland.
Before joining the EU, Turkey needs to clean up its human rights act, including a reasonable settlement with the Kurds. But in my mind there can be no doubt about Turkey鈥檚 fundamental eligibility. When I say a reasonable settlement with the Kurds, I mean that the UK and Spain are EU members, despite having had or still having problems with respectively the Irish and the Basques.
John (25) writes: "...we have a European identity but it is weaker than our attachment to the wider English-speaking world and precludes our inclusion in any exclusively European political union."
Spot on! Most Brits (let alone English) have more in common - and would rather have a 'union' - with Ozzies and Kiwis albeit that they are 8,000 miles away, than with our closest continental neighbour - the French.
This is another 'inconvenient truth' that the EU choses to ignore.
Britain is of Europe - but need not be part of a European Union. The two are not synonymous.
As for Turkey not being 'European': that may be true geographically - but the same can be said of Cyprus - which is east of suez and south of Tunis. On the other hand, Turkish ascendance would annoy the Greeks - so maybe not a bad thing after all....
Edward writes about the different views which can be taken of history (and he's right of course)but I think he misses my basic point. The British, being an island race, have developed along very different lines to our continental neighbours. Not having been occupied in war, or having your fields and cities used as battlegrounds by different armies over centuries has also probably led to different perceptions of what is important. The simple fact is though, whatever the cause, the British are, in general, different in political viewpoint from the citizens on the continental mainland. Consider the uproar in the UK over the proposal to introduce ID cards. I suspect that most Europeans, who have had them for generations, cannot understand the fuss, but they so conflict with the British concept of individual freedom within the law that there is huge opposition. This is simply one manifestation of the gulf that exists.
Like it or not, Britain belongs in an alliance of English speaking democracies which share similar instincts, histories and traditions, and with which her people feel comfortable, and attempting to force her into a political union with nations whose people prefer an alternative relationship between citizen and state will only cause anguish on both sides. Cordial relations with your neighbours do not depend upon marriage. Europe should be allowed to develop as it chooses, and trying to accommodate Britain will only lead to resentment on both sides. Far better to be happy friends than surly bedfellows.
ali (20): keeping Turkey out of the EU is NOT racism. It is common sense.
And the Kurdish homeland is called Kurdistan. Except that it is being occupied and oppressed by several other countries, most notably Turkey.
I demand a referendum on this question.
John makes a sophisticated case. But his arguments rationalise what is basically a political opinion, in his case a Eurosceptic one.
His identification analysis is too narrow, as it concerns only national vs European identification. It is also interesting to look at inner-national identification. Take the example of Switzerland. Only 4% identify themselves as primarily European. Yet only 26% identify themselves as primarily Swiss. Their strongest primary identification is with their commune (33%), and there is also fairly strong primary identification with their canton (21%) and their linguistic region (13%).
Does the relatively low primary identification of the Swiss with their nation mean that there can be no national-level democracy and legitimacy because, as John would say, majority decision making in which the group to which the Swiss identity the most (their commune-canton) is outvoted will not be accepted as legitimate. Not at all, Swiss national institutions are democratic and function quite smoothly across linguistic barriers, and they enjoy legitimacy (75% say they are proud to be Swiss).
So John hasn鈥檛 proven that the EU cannot be democratic. What he is saying is that Britons would prefer not to be in the EU 鈥 period. I would agree that this is a proposition that deserves to be tested in a UK referendum. For the sake of both the UK and the future of the EU.
I find some of the posted comments regarding whether British are European or not to be pretty fascinating.
It seems a lot of British posturing of Us and Them Europeans comes from a bit of an insular mentality and the belief of the possibility of having their good old empire back. Well I'm Canadian, Canada was part of that good old empire and guess what? We wouldn't want it back even if it meant being swallowed by the U.S. instead.
Speaking of which, there seems to be this vibe that maybe the U.K. has more in common with the good old U.S. of A than with Europe, and that maybe the U.S. would like to be part of a new Anglo Empire. That is so hilarious it makes me weep... The only thing the U.S. has in common with the U.K. is language and even that is barely common.
People of Britain! Trust me on this one! No other people knows Americans better than us Canadians, and although we love them, respect them and admire them we would never, ever want to be them. If you think you'd have more respect and influence in the world working closer to the Americans (Iraq sure was a great hit eh?) you are deeply mistaken. The U.S. doesn't compromise. It's either their way or the highway. You'd be swallowed whole. Before you knew it, your precious queen would be talking with a southern drawl.
Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, France, all had an empire and outgrew the loss of it. Although your loss is more recent (except for the Portuguese), maybe you should think about moving on. It's been what? More than 60 years already?
Thomas Patricio
Toronto, Canada
Hi, i think the portugese gov. should not invite mugabe. Is he the ruler of africa? why not invite just the good rulers of africa and leave the parasite that mugabe is out of it. I`m certain that mugabe`s exclusion will not make any diference to the treaty and it would send a message to all dictators like mugabe that their actions are wrong. I`m surprised that the portugese people allow Mr Socrates to go foward with this desision [being portugese myself] im ashamed.
paulo j. s. bola says "i think the portugese gov. should not invite mugabe. Is he the ruler of africa? why not invite just the good rulers of africa and leave the parasite that mugabe is out of it. I`m certain that mugabe`s exclusion will not make any diference to the treaty and it would send a message to all dictators like mugabe that their actions are wrong."
The problem is, the European Union isn't holding talks with the Continent of Africa and every other country in that continent but with the African Union, which is treated as a single body, and of which, Zimbabwe makes part of. It would be very impolite and very undiplomatic if we just went deciding on what parts of this body(the African Union) is or isn't allowed to come, if we did that, it would be the first step for the failure of the whole meeting and this in case the AU accepted doing such a meeting after we meddle on their own business.
The only thing we can count on that matter, is that the heads of the AU are a bit tactful and hold the meeting without the need of all individual heads of state or something, so as to not hurt some 'sensibilities' on this side of the Mediterranean.
As a Portuguese as well, I actually believe our Government is doing a good job by being very tactful and very delicate, political-wise that is, on this sensible matter and others, such as the UE(Poland & Other Eastern Countries)-Russian 'problems'.
I would digress from Edward's (35) analysis of John's previous posting. I would contend that John's reading of Eurobarometer's findings is simply a symptom of a wider absence of any genuine European sphere of debate. There are no genuine pan-European political parties discussing pan-European issues or standing on a common manifesto.
There are coalitions or groupings in the European Parliament, but political debate is still ostensibly discussed, in Britain at least, through a national or sub-national prism. As Margot Wallstr枚m states:
"Perceptions of Europe are largely coloured by national history and circumstances. There is no such thing as a European demos and hopes and fears about Europe very often reflect national politics."
...hence her enduring efforts to facillitate the emergence of a genuine European sphere of debate and communicate EU issues with the public. She also states:
"Ignorance and apathy undermines democratic systems and societies. For democracy to thrive in the EU, people must be aware of how European issues affect them. And they must have their say in how the EU tackles those issues."
This is also an excellent point; for if people don't engage in the European process, either though European Parliament elections, or informed debate, then the process and legitimacy of government is potentially undermined.
I don't doubt that an EU demos may emerge because there is an awful lot of room for improvement to be made when it comes to engaging the citizen, partly through informed debate, partly though elections and referendums. The UK and its multi-faceted demos is a case in point.
At the present time however, it remains very weak in Britain - given the lack of informed debate and the lack of any genuine discussion regarding "European" issues. It's not helped of course by the present administration reneging on its promise to hold a referendum.
And I would argue this is the root of the problem. Some may perceive the organisation and its institutions as having formidable democratic credentials, but should it not have a demos, should it not cultivate public support, then it builds on fragile ground, not bedrock.
Malcolm's post is a hilarious example of the nationalist thinking which suggests that Britain possesses unique expertise in resisting evil Euro tyranny, as manifested by fascist/ communist ID cards etc.
Guess what? Nobody in Finland ever had to carry ID cards (unless they want to prove their identity of course, say in order to collect a registered letter, get a mortgage or whatever). Scandinavian countries had passport-free travel for decades before the Schengen free travel area (which to me is a great blow for liberty, long may it continue!). In Western Europe, just the British cower behind a wall of policemen and passports. At European airports, the flights to London, Belarus and Zimbabwe leave from the same non-Schengen wing...
Please do read Linda Colley's 'The Britons' in order to understand the origins of this paranoia about the mythical, sinister Continent. Then cross the Channel. Cease being an aircraft carrier for a foreign power, come and say hello to your neighbours? We won't eat you, we eat snails instead :)
Portugal didn't invite Mugabe. It is still not clear if he will attend the summit at all. The African Union made it very clear that they won't attend the summit without Mugabe. If Portugal has to invite him so that the summit can take place, she will.
The summit is very important, not only for Portugal but also for the EU. Do we want to watch the growing influence of China (whom as we know "worries" a lot about human rights) in Africa and stay out of it? Do we want to see Africa forgiven for its debts to the west and then buried in debts to China?
Thomas Patricio got it very right. Many British still think they have an empire and that they don't need Europe. It reminds me of Portuguese Salazar philosophy "Alone (with the colonies) and proud of it" which kept Portugal out of Europe and her population in ignorance and poverty, afraid of what he called "foreign contamination". So far, "foreign contamination" has done only good to us.
It will be good for Turkey too.
I don't see the Turkish as a threat and I couldn't care less if they're Muslims or not. To the Portuguese, joining the EU meant that our democracy was going to be safe, that important EU laws regarding human rights and protection of the individuals were going to be enforced here too. The EU helped our democracy reach maturity, not just our finances. Why would it be any different with Turkey? Socrates is right, Turkey issue must be kept on the table.
Ian M wrote:
"Portugal does very nicely out of the EUs coffers"
Portugal no longer does as nicely as it used to before the enlargement. The "greedy" Portuguese were in favor of the enlargement (not just the government but also the people) even though they knew they were the biggest losers. That is called solidarity which, as Dur茫o Barroso told to the Polish and very well, "it has two ways". We understand that concept very well. Do you?
Edward (35) disputes my analysis of the EU鈥檚 crisis of democratic legitimacy using the Swiss as an example of a nation where identity to the commune (33%) is higher than to the Swiss nation (26%), canton (21%) or linguistic region (13%). However given that there are 2780 Swiss communes with an average population of 2600 people each it is clear that communes cannot form viable independent states providing the range of services that are expected of government. Governmental functions in Switzerland are therefore mainly distributed between the national federation and the cantons. Since the Swiss national identity remains stronger than the cantonal identity Switzerland remains by my analysis a viable democratic federation.
You say that my analysis is too narrow; only focussing on European versus national identity. However these are the relevant distinctions in the great majority of European countries that do not have the communes or cantons or linguistic differences of the Swiss and this is the data on identity that Eurobarometer collects. Nor is my analysis a mere 鈥榦pinion鈥 to rationalise an EU-sceptic viewpoint. I maintain that it exactly describes the crisis of legitimacy that is engulfing the EU. Fritz Scharpf of the Max Planck Institute for the Studies of Societies defines the constitutional 鈥榙emos鈥 as 鈥渁 community in which the identification of members with the group is sufficiently strong to override the divisive interests of subgroups in case of conflict鈥. Given the Eurobarometer surveys of the strength of European identity it is very clear there is no 鈥楨U demos鈥. Certainly not one that includes the UK where there are more people who believe Elvis Presley is alive than the 3% who tell Eurobarometer that their European identity is stronger than their British identity.
Without the solidarities afforded by a strong sense of European identity, cleavages will inevitably arise when Brussels imposes decisions on one or more of the various 鈥榮ub-groups鈥 (a.k.a. nations) of Europe. The reason this did not happen in the past was that (a) imposition was not possible until QMV allowed member-states to be outvoted and (b) the EEC occupied itself with relatively minor matters. This is no longer the case. The EU Constitution would make the legitimacy crisis worse because it will (a) expose yet more policy areas to decision-making by QMV and (b) transfer even more sensitive areas (justice, defence, foreign policy, etc.) to Brussels control. Furthermore EU law in areas of so-called 鈥榮hared competence鈥 (the default under this Reform Treaty) are only 鈥榮hared鈥 until such time as the EU legislates in any given area. At that point the very ability of our national parliament to legislate in the area is suppressed by the supremacy of EU law. The inevitable consequence of this over time will be the gradual elimination of the ability of the national Parliaments we elect to legislate. Our democracies will automatically be gradually replaced by the 鈥榢ratos鈥 of remote bureaucratic rule if we remain in the EU on the terms envisaged by this 鈥榬eform treaty鈥 without any European 鈥榙emos鈥 to lend the constitutional arrangements legitimacy. This issue is therefore true for all member states and transcends any attempt by you to reduce my case to 鈥淏ritons would prefer not to be in the EU鈥.
to whom may think not wanting Turkey in the union is racist: it is not! The problem is that we are struggling to maintain an European conscensus, with a democracy, and freedom. Mostly there is a huge difference in what we perceive as freedom of speech. Turks need to learn to argue their case on merit, rather than calling Europeans "racist", or anti-whatever. All the assets Turkey can bring, the EU needs to consider the ground impact--on every day aspects of society. The biggest issue is integration, in religion and society. We need to wait for the new members to cope.
Thinking of it, we are currently dealing with the "misunderstandings" from Poland, who apparently waited until they joined the EU to express their hatred towards Germany. Also towards Russia, a bet to justify their alliance with the American military. Our new Eastern members seem to be compulsively hostile due to Easterly fustration?! Perhaps it has nothing to do with fustration, but rather with 'misunderstanding' history itself.
It seems to me that Mr. Socrates first responsibility will be to "school" our leaders in history.
* 15.
* At 06:10 PM on 02 Jul 2007,
* Marcel wrote:
"trevor batten (9), what I mean by federalization is the ever creeping centralization of decision making powers. This 'ever closer union' stuff has to be undone. Its time to realize that political union is only wanted by a small minority (bureaucrats and politicians). And this is a kind of federalization without a popular mandate."
Thank you Marcel. As I suspected, you apparently do not understand what "federalism" means: The UK, the Netherlands and France -for example have "central" governments. The US, Germany and Switzerland, for example, have "federal" governments -involving much more regional autonomy and a minimum of power for the "federal" government. The choice between Federalism and Centralism is about how centralized power operates in relationship to the regions. So it also seems that you are confusing "federalism" (which is opposed to "centralism") with "harmonization".
In practice, the US is a federal nation and this is why it has such a diversity of laws in each of the federal states. In this case, "federalism is the tool for preventing "harmonization" (in the sense of a centrally imposed set of laws). So I don't see how you can logically oppose it.
However, the question that you should perhaps concider is how viable is a "free trade" area without (some level of) "harmonization". Could British workers compete fairly in a free trade zone where some workers were paid reasonable wages while others were paid starvation wages? If British workers are to be protected by humane health and safety laws -then how could they compete fairly with workers from countries who do not bother about such niceties? It seems to me that a level playing field for trade requires a fairly high level of harmonization with regard to the social and economic practices of the trading partners. Presumably even the states of federal America have limits imposed on their (economic) freedom by their federal government -or else inter-state competition would presumably tear the union apart.
The alternative to a degree of "harmonisation", would appear to be a straight Darwinian fight for survival by the fittest, leanest and most vicious -with no rules at all. This presumably implies cutting wages, working and social welfare conditions to the bone -so people are forced like dogs to fight for every scrap of meat they can get hold of.
So, if I understand you correctly: You appear to desire the return of Dickensian standards of poverty so as to allow business profits to increase -and you want the British government to be powerful enough to protect you against those foreigners who think that human values should not be completely trampled underfoot by the economic system. Is this so?
You still haven't answered my question about which practical experiences (in which countries) have lead you to your opinion.
Many thanks to John for his reply to my criticism of his earlier piece. Just a few comments.
First, a question of mathematics. Even leaving identification with the commune aside, Swiss cantonal and linguistic identification together exceed Swiss national identification. Yet, there is a functioning national/federal democracy.
Second, you acknowledge that identification cannot be the only criterion, in saying Swiss communes cannot enter into the equation as they are not large enough to provide all required services. One of the arguments for greater European integration is that the nation state cannot cope with all modern-day challenges and that between the nation state and world organisations, a regional level is necessary or at least useful. Just as in Switzerland and other federal states in particular, governmental functions are distributed between the federal state and the cantons/states/L盲nder, etc. And one of the functions of the federal state is to co-ordinate, regulate cantonal/state services, so as to make national defence, a single market and social cohesion possible.
Third, I question that the European versus national identity is the only relevant distinction in the great majority of European countries. If the statistics were collected, you might find, for example, strong Scottish and Welsh identification in Britain, strong Catalonian identification in Spain, strong Bavarian identification in Germany, and strong Flemish identification in Belgium. Yet, national institutions have been able to function with more or less success.
Fourth, Fritz Scharpf's definition of demos confuses me. If divisive interests or ideologies are sufficiently strong, a sense of common interest or identification will ultimately collapse. One of the achievements of European integration has been to overcome the deep European divisions of the past by focusing on common interests and a common project: "an ever closer union".
Fifth, many would dispute your appraisal that the EU Constitution transfers more sensitive areas (justice, defence, foreign policy, etc.) to Brussels control. I would speak of Brussels co-ordination and co-operation, and its adjustment to a larger EU. As such, EU-level action can strengthen national measures.
Having said all that, I thank you for reminding us that different levels of identification are important, within countries and within Europe as a whole. That is one of the reasons European (and also national) integration is difficult and marked by periodic crises. For democracy in Europe, the subsidiarity principle must be respected. And where functions are transferred to the European level, it is important to ensure that democratic accountability is too, through a proportionate increase in the powers of the European Parliament - and, I hope, one day, a dash of direct democracy.
I won't be writing any more on this. So you can have the last word, John.
Your comments on whether Robert Mugabe should attend the summit is a matter of great importance.Personally Mugabe should attend the summit but he should be given the opportunity to explain the path he is taking the country .Is it towards prosperity because that is all most of us Zimbabweans want or what.We havenot being informed on this what so ever.So a blunt 'Please explain' is all that is needed.
The 'Chimurenga War'is over nearly 30years, any hard feelings should be put aside and work to reign in Mugabe would be beneficial to all and that includes Africa who stand to gain a lot from a stable Zimbabwe.
Sorry to be so short and crude on this, but:
There is no such thing as Europe, except as a geographical convention.
Saying that means also that I'll never feel european first and I certainly hope my grandson grandsons feel the same way.
There could be some cultural groups in Europe but surely they don't fit all in this thing called UE. To have gone behind the CEE was a mistake, something completely the other way things happen on Europe.
Divisions and cultures come form a long past and will not integrate 'just because'.
BTW, I am where Mr Socrates is...
I am only just catching up with this blog, and feel I have been missing out..
Not sure what the answer to Mugabe is.
Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, but I'm not sure he's shown any sign of being open to persuasion. But something is needed to break the impasse.
By the way, can you explain [maybe in your next blog post] about the African Union. My limited understanding was that it had formed from its predecessor the Organisation of African Unity. But that it was going to try and go down the road of the European Union. I am sure you may have some views on whether that integrationist approach is suitable for that continent, and whether it will be a benefit in their dealings with China.
Hi Edward,
Thanks for your reply. I don鈥檛 believe that you can compare the limitations of Swiss communes (which are similar to parish councils in Britain) with the British state and conclude the UK is so small that we need the EU. Nor can you simply add the strength of weaker identities together and conclude that Swiss identification with canton + linguistic group outweighs their identification with the Swiss nation. I might identify with London, England, Great Britain, Europe, the English-speaking countries or the whole of western civilisation but like most Britons my strongest identity is with Britain and this is what legitimises the British state to me. If a majority of my fellows share this opinion then we form a 鈥榙emos鈥 (or 鈥榩eople鈥) who will always aspire to self-government. As you say, there are strong regional identities in a number of European countries, including those of Scotland and Catalonia. But until there is a majority of Scots voting for independence they should be treated as part of the British 鈥榙emos鈥. Irish identity by contrast is stronger. The Irish decision in 1921 to create the own state is equivalent to them saying that they are a distinct people that are not part of the British 鈥榙emos鈥 and will not live under decisions taken by a majority of the Westminster Parliament with which they as a people disagree.
In the absence of a European 鈥榙emos鈥 the best solution (and the only one compatible with democracy) remains our nation-states. It is largely our national executives (cabinet ministers) who desire transferring powers to Brussels because the supremacy of EU law gives them a way to introduce legislation that overrides democratic checks and balances on their executive power at home and also prevents their successors reversing their decisions. If the different nations of Europe are forced to live under a multi-national federation then Brussels governance would have no more democratic legitimacy or stability than earlier multinational federations such as Yugoslavia or the USSR. The whole concept of a federal state in Europe is fatally flawed not by the design of its institutions as some federalists imagine, but by the linguistic, cultural, etc. differences between the peoples of Europe that lead to their separate identities. If federalists want to create a European state with a true democratic legitimacy then they will have to eliminate to the linguistic and cultural distinctions that are at the heart of our national identities. To do so however would be the greatest cultural crime in history.
The only viable option in the real Europe beyond the ideal of the nation-state is a limited confederation confined to specific issues. Traditionally confederations have been formed by a group of small states to resist the aggressions of larger neighbours and been limited to common foreign and defence policy. However there is no need in Europe for a confederation to provide a common defence as NATO fulfils this role better than the EU ever could. A common EU foreign policy divorced from defence policy would have no teeth. The only requirement for confederal arrangements in Europe today is the need for common rules for the common market and (possibly) regulating relations between (not within) members-states. Every Brussels-made law applied within our nations is a law removed from the democratic arena and should be avoided unless there is compelling reason to do otherwise. Your terminology of 鈥淏russels co-ordination and co-operation鈥 are weasel-words and are not sufficient reason to justify the removal of decision-making from the democratic arena. Nor are greater powers for the European Parliament any answer. That parliament is elected, but it is not democratic because it answers to no 鈥榙emos鈥. If a decision is made in Brussels and imposed on the British against the wishes of the British government or people then it has no democratic legitimacy in this land. That is just as true when the decision is made by the European Parliament as it is when made by unelected Commissioners. Nor is 鈥榮ubsidiarity鈥 any real answer so no long as there is no effective mechanism (such as an independent Constitutional Court) to prevent the ECJ always ruling in favour of the EU treaty preamble commitment to 鈥榚ver closer union鈥.
The real 鈥榬eform鈥 needed in this latest European treaty is to make the EU democratic. In the absence of a European 鈥榙emos鈥 this can only be achieved by making European law subordinate to national law such that it may be over-ruled by the national 鈥榙emos鈥 when it sees fit. This should be the general rule in the EU, with the supremacy of European law limited to very specific and non-controversial matters (e.g. common market).
Mark,
Could you please explain why is a new treaty so urgent when the new rules it will define are not going to be implemented before 2014 (and some only in 2017)?
Thanks
@ trevorbatten (44):
Federalization also implies that EU/Brussels is officially recognized as a government in its own right. And I do not want the EU to be a government, therefore I do not want it. I want it to be nothing but intergovernmental cooperation. Neither I nor anyone else have ever given any politicians a mandate to hand over governmental powers to a supranational institution.
National parliaments may be sovereign, but they are not sovereign so that they can give their powers away. In order to do that, they must ask the peoples first. They did not.
The Euro is something that had a powerful effect on me. Common sense and banks like HSBC tell me that we (Netherlands) have been seriously defrauded. We had a very unfavorable exchange rate from our own currency to the Euro (and guess what, France had a very favorable one).
It is estimated this wiped out up to 10% of the value of my savings. They should have given me 1 euro for every 2 guilders I had in savings. Instead, they gave me only 0,90 euro. I am still angry about that. Livid is probably a better word.
And to add insult to injury, it turns out the Netherlands was the only country that should have been allowed to adopt the Euro in the first place. All others failed to meet the criteria but blatantly cheated (France and Germany continue cheating to this day).
Costs quickly adjusted to the old levels but income did not. No matter how much our politicians continue to deny this adverse effect. This (the Euro) was the #1 reason we rejected the constitution (emphasis on con).
And to add insult to injury (loss of savings), it turns out the Netherlands was the only country that should have been allowed to adopt the Euro in the first place. All others failed to meet the criteria but blatantly cheated (France and Germany continue cheating to this day). We ended up paying for other peoples failure to hold their end of the deal up.
The Euro is the only experience I need in order to oppose any further 'integration'. Integration, by the way, is a Brussels code-word for ending national sovereignties which has always been the final purpose of the integrationists.
Britain would be insane to join the Euro. You would lose control over your own monetary policies and end up paying for the failure of countries like France and Germany to hold up their end of the deal.
Speaking of France never holding up its end of the deal or ever compromising to give up anything, think of the CAP and CFP having devastated many farmers and fisheries communities across Europe and particularly Africa (which cannot compete with the subsidies, levies, and surplus dumping). CAP was called into life only to protect French farmers from foreign competition.
Peter Davidson suggests that using what he calls "the orthodoxy of Nation State terminology" to describe people reinforces "the domination of an inflexible and compartmentalised mindset". I suppose the difference, Peter, is that to misquote Marx, your job may be to change the world, mine is merely to describe it.
It would be very hard to write about the politics of Europe without using nationalities. I described the journalist as French, partly because he was, and partly because it was relevant: he was expressing the view that Britain should be pushed into the EU's outer zone, which is a common view in French political circles.
I confess that sometime I use the short hand of "Portugal thinks" rather than "the Portuguese government thinks" but I hope it's clear from context what I mean and that I am not confusing the position of a government with the mood in a country.
Harry Starks makes a detailed but important point about the presidency. Harry, you clearly know your stuff, but perhaps my reporting has skipped over one complexity.
If the treaty goes through and the European Council gets a president, then the six-monthly country presidency will disappear. But there will be, in its place, a threesome for 18 months. The Germans have already informally kicked this off by establishing a troika with Portugal and Slovenia (the current and future presidents) during their turn in the hot seat.
So if the treaty goes through, the big meetings of prime ministers and presidents would be chaired by the council president, and the foreign minister meetings by the high representative. But other councils, like agriculture or finance would be chaired by someone from the troika countries. So would the ambassadors meetings you write about.
I guess this sort of thing is exactly the kind of detail that will be thrashed out during the intergovernmental conference, but that is what is proposed in the old constitution.
The council president is the council president, whatever the specialized meeting is convened. If the president is unable to attend a meeting due to other commitments, he will delegate the meeting's chairing to somebody else, maybe from his staff.
As far as the "French view relegating Britain to the outer zone", it is just a recognition of what Britain has decided upon, i.e. to stay out of the Euro and the Schengen agreement (to which two non-EU countries, Iceland and Norway, have agreed). Britain "opt-outs" and "red lines" have pushed it even further out without any French action. Maybe the French are expressing louder what many in "old Europe" are mumbling softly. If you want to know theirfeelings, ask one of your non-British journalist colleagues to interview Juncker, Verhofstadt or Prodi. They'd be too polite to tell you their real feelings
I guess that most of us fall into the trap of saying "Portugal" as shorthand for "the Portuguese government". Nevertheless, these can be two totally different entities -as the "polish" posts have clearly shown.
Perhaps one should be particularly careful about this distinction when looking at the economic conditions of a country: Government figures might show rosy economic figures for the national government while many inhabitants are actually living in poverty. Perhaps the inverse is possible too -that people can be well fed and happy in a (theoretically) disastrous economy. In this context -perhaps the Japanese economy might be concidered a great success in "practical" terms but a disaster in "theoretical" terms. Many EU countries may fall behind UK economic standards on paper -but their living conditions are much nicer.
So in this context -one wonders exactly which "world" it is your job to describe: Is it the world of the politicians, the world of the people -or some other "hybrid" world?
Indeed, perhaps many "political" problems might result from the confusion (or obfuscation of the difference) between "nation" and "Nation State". In this context, the earlier remarks on Switzerland were perhaps very relevant. Perhaps the EU as a dreaded "supra-national" state can help (somewhat) alleviate the problems of ethnic groups (such as the Basques and the Celts) that are transnational -or minorities within larger Nation States.
The African Union as the name implies has only one agenda.How do we act like Europeans without showing the Europeans that.We must think and act like Africans but and the big but is what do we do.They could ask the other more established organisations for assistence instead they will continue to show their differences amongst themselves.The main agenda is thrown out and once again the continent is left to its own devices.When are our leaders going to sit down once and for all and try to solve the crisis in Africa.We only ask the world leaders to not give up hope on Africa just yet.
Will anyone be that surprised in the coming years when a terrorist movement arises from Great Britain to regain our country back?
The democratic deficit of the EU is now at crisis point.