The two Mr Bs
Merkel made it a priority. So did Sarkozy. Within days of being elected the leaders of Europe鈥檚 two most important countries made sure they went to Brussels to talk to the President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso.
In Paris or Berlin that鈥檚 not a problem. It doesn鈥檛 look like paying homage to "Brussels" but like powerful politicians taking their rightful roles as helmsmen of a continent. But Prime Minister Gordon Brown hasn鈥檛 been to the EU鈥檚 capital yet, and he鈥檚 not planning to come here until the summit in December.
Some think this is a snub, and Mr Brown isn't particularly bothered. So instead President Barroso is going to Downing Street to see him. They both want next week鈥檚 summit in Lisbon to see an end to an intense bout of navel-gazing, and presumably both know it won鈥檛.
In practice, it means they want to get the signed off with the minimum of fuss. Well, not actually signed off. The signing won鈥檛 come until that December summit. I understand the leaders may be asked to initial a document in Lisbon, so they have their monikers attached to a piece of paper without having formally 鈥渟igned up鈥 to the treaty.
Anglo-Saxon agenda
This nicety aside, Brown and Barroso are keen that there is as little messing about as possible. Despite the critical report by the British parliament鈥檚 Scrutiny Committee, demanding more 鈥渟afeguards鈥 for Britain, Brown is pretty happy that he鈥檚 got what he wanted. His argument will be that even if the treaty isn鈥檛 very different from the constitution for most countries, it is for Britain, because the opt-outs make it different.
If it will be a relief to Mr Barroso that the prime minister is not going to be a problem, the two will want to make sure others don鈥檛 raise objections either. The first cloud on the horizon is the possibility of the Poles kicking up a new fuss. The other problem could be a plan to redistribute seats in the European Parliament - with the Italians, French and the British losing out. Mr Brown isn鈥檛 worried about a handful of MEPs losing their jobs, but he doesn鈥檛 want the row about the treaty to drag on because of it.
The two Mr Bs are united in one thing at least - they both frequently make statements on the need to push Europe further down a free-market, high-competition road. At this meeting, they may both be asking each other to put their money where their mouth is. It may not be the stuff of headlines, but how much the French can force a retreat from the Anglo-Saxon economic agenda may be the real story behind next week鈥檚 Lisbon summit.
Gordon Brown will want to make sure that the commission鈥檚 contribution to the summit, sticks to its commitment that "protectionism cannot be the solution". There are some concerns that when it says "the political case for openness can only be sustained if others reciprocate in a positive manner" it is in fact opening the door to all sorts of policies which are lightly disguised trade barriers.
Barroso wants Brown鈥檚 clout to help push the commission鈥檚 energy package - which would mean dismantling giant energy companies in France and Germany, and is already meeting fierce resistance in those countries. While this is very much up Brown鈥檚 street, British diplomats are unsure whether we鈥檝e currently got the clout to make much difference. When Brown took his promotion there was a fair bit of comment around, pointing out that he didn鈥檛 play the EU game particularly well, due to a tendency to lecture other European leaders on how they should be running their economies. It seems the commission may be asking Mr Brown to get his soap box out and start lecturing.
They鈥檇 like him to do it at home as well. The commission is constantly frustrated that British politicians rarely challenge the common British perception (very much reflected in ) that European Union proposals are almost always things that need to be weakened and watered-down, in case they do the UK irreparable damage. They point out, with some justification, that the policies that will get the most attention over the next few months - energy and competition - could have "Made in Britain" stamped on their bottom. Whether or not it will be diplomatic to say it face-to-face, Barroso would like Brown not only to shape EU policy behind the scenes but also to talk about it in public.
Engaging Muslims
But Brown鈥檚 biggest worry is a cold wind from France that threatens to freeze the EU in its current pattern.
The British government has always traditionally championed an expanding European Union and Brown is no different. Keeping the door open for Turkey is a key aim of British foreign policy, and Brown is seriously worried that this is now under threat.
I鈥檓 told he argues that there are three phases in the European Union project to create stability on the continent. The first was establishing democracy and prosperity after the war. The second was reuniting Europe after the iron curtain came down. But the third phase has only just started. That is to engage Muslims within Europe, both within existing borders, but also by making welcoming noises to Turkey, Albania and depending what happens there, Kosovo.
The French President Nicholas Sarkozy wants to put the kybosh on this. He鈥檚 demanding that the European Union sets up a group of "wise men": a dozen senior statesmen to examine what Europe should look like in 10 to 20 years' time. That translates not too roughly as 鈥淪top Turkey!鈥 and
Mr Sarkozy is threatening to block further detailed technical talks with Turkey if he doesn鈥檛 get his way. Mr Brown wants to put the wise men on the back burner, if that isn鈥檛 too unappealing a mixed metaphor. In fact I think it鈥檚 rather an appealing one.
Brown had another interesting visitor to Downing Street, the Danish prime minister. As it was "photos only" we didn鈥檛 hear from them after the meeting. But it would have been odd if they didn鈥檛 share at least a wry smile about referendums. The Danish PM is under new pressure, after an interview in with the leader of the Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
As I reported a few weeks ago, Neil Kinnock鈥檚 daughter-in-law has been under some pressure to throw her weight behind calls for a refrendum in Denmark. While she hasn鈥檛 quite done that, she has challenged the government鈥檚 contention that it鈥檚 a matter for the lawyers. She says, 鈥淭his is also a political assessment,鈥 and, 鈥淲e were at no point in doubt that the former draft constitution should be subjected to a referendum. We would like to look at the new treaty and do a similar evaluation.鈥
Both men will be aware that if they budge they could create "negative feedback" in the European system and keep eyes focused on euro navels for a while longer.
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
The only reason that there is continued 鈥榥avel-gazing鈥 is that certain EU politicians refuse to take No for an answer. All the UK opt-outs in the Reform treaty were also in the EU Constitution and were negotiated prior to the 2005 Labour party manifesto commitment to put the treaty to the British people in a referendum. The European Scrutiny Committee鈥檚 report makes clear that there is no significant difference (including opt-outs) between the EU Constitution and the Reform treaty and nobody seriously claims otherwise. It is not credible to say the UK opt-outs make this a different treaty from the one the government promised to put to the people. Since Brown has not called an election to seek a fresh mandate, the 2005 manifesto remains the only one he has and he should stick to it.
It seems to me that this strategy of being always the "opt-outer" is not so good for Britain, I mean that trying to always keep a foot outside the EU hampers UK's strength in asking not to follow Sarkozy's neo-protectionism.
A policy of liberalisation, a policy of free and undistorted market is a pro-Europe policy, but Britain as always kept the role of the euro-sceptic so now its very difficult for the UK's Government to say, "Oh guys what are you doing! Do you really want to dismantle the free market policy, the actual (even if still incomplete) EU integration engine?"
Still worse is the situation about the independence of the Central Bank, because of its opt-out now the UK cannot say nothing against the French tentative of hampering the Bank's independence... but even if the UK has its own Bank, a crack down of the continent economy will not so good for Britain too
I hear alot about this 'constitution', but to be truthfull, I really don't know what it actually says. I highly suspect that a great swathe of it's die-hard critics don't either. Im sure it dosn't include for silly protocol and an unelected upper house - I'm all for some German efficiency in this country.
The wise men on the back burner I can cope with, but am left amazed at the possibility that the French might force a "retreat from the Anglo-Saxon economic agenda".
In the 1930's America used Keynesian social-economic policies to rebuild the country after the collapse of the capitalist investment system devastated the nation -causing a knock-on effect around the world. Regrettably, WWII corrupted and perverted these sensible and humane US policies into an addiction on the military-industrial complex. An addiction which, despite warnings from (ex-general) President Eisenhower, clearly is now the motor driving both the US internal economy and its global hegemonic expansion.
Every day, on the 91热爆 website, one can read the tragic consequences. Today (11 Oct 2007) we read:
'Turkey's Armenian dilemma' "The more foreign parliaments insist that our forebears committed crimes against humanity, the less likely anybody in Turkey is to face up to the hardest moments in history."
'Wars in Africa wipe out aid gains' a report "says that the cost of conflict was equal to the amount of money received in aid during the same period"
'Iraq's displaced people nightmare' -The huge displacement of people inside Iraq appears to be contributing to the further fragmentation of the country.
Nevertheless, America continues to bully the rest of the world -telling Turkey, Burma, Palestinians, Iran, North Korea, etc. how they must behave (despite also telling them to be "democratic"). A conflictual world view seems to lie at the very heart of the American system. No wonder -their economy is apparently based on "security" issues, on producing the weapons of war, surveiling and monitoring others and on commercial "nation building": On creating poverty and then protecting the rich from the consequences. Many US politicians (Rumsfeld, Bush, etc.) move freely between politics and industry -presumably gathering profits as they go. America profits from playing the international policeman and guardian of capitalism -while the rest of the world pays the bill.
Is this really the kind of world the EU wishes to support and develop?
If the EU is based on "consensus politics" -then why can't it also develop "consensus economics" -based on mutual fair trading and productive synergy -rather than a destructive and conflict based "winner takes all" system?
If "democracy" needs seriously redefining -then surely the definition of "capitalism" (and "Socialism") needs to be rethought too, for the 21st century -or the same stupid and dangerous mistakes will be made all over again.
Shouldn't EU comissioner Neely Smit-Kroes investigate thouroughly the entire US military-industrial complex -and the way it artificially and unfairly supports US commercial interests in monolpoly positions? If America is itself a global monopoly (as it seems to be) then shouldn't the EU (and others) take steps against this -in the name of "free trade"?
Only after "Capitalism" has developed in a more friendly and human way should we discuss how to spread it by encouraging better relationships with the (Muslim) countries on the European border. To do otherwise is only to use diplomacy and trade as a means of destroying their culture -as we are currently doing.
In a democracy (and in free trade) -there always has to be alternatives, or "free chioce" becomes simply a propaganda based illusion.
I normally don't like your blog, Mr Mardell, because you resemble so much for me the self-satisfied Englishman who loves to gloat over how much better England is than any other part of the world, and reading yet another piece of bleeding heart propaganda on what kind of special treatment England should get in the EU brings up a kind of sordid deja-vu.
Honestly, why don't you English, in your nightmarish fear of anything from the continent polluting the Pound note and pounds of contaminated English beef, simply engage in some, uhm, you know, democracy (the stuff you were trying to instill on Iraqis when you weren't shooting at them), let your brilliant nation decide on where it wants to go, and get the hell out of the EU. I think the EU would do just fine without the English and I'm just as sure that the majority of the English, God bless their xenophobia, feel that they would do fine without the EU.
There is only one problem. The U.K., Poland and the rest of the Euro sceptics want the E.U. funds and influence membership brings with it, without any strings attached.
Therefore there is only one solution. Whoever is not in favour of the new treaty should be kicked out of the E.U. The E.U. should make it clear also that whoever leaves will be considered as a country which has plague. Therefore all sorts of quarantine and barriers should be imposed on those getting out.
I am sure that these ex-members will find a willing equal partner in George Bush's U.S.A. as they have found for themselves in the distribution of Iraq's oil revenues.
I wonder if Sarkozy did indeed suggest a panel of "wise men". More likely he talked of "sages" which in French could be men and/or women.
It is a sad state of affairs when the British public have to rely on Polish 'intransigence' or Danish politicians to offer any possibility of rejecting the 'reform' treaty (aka Consitutional Treaty Mk II).
A British government (and PM) that wasn't cynical and cowardly would not shy from holding a referendum - as promised.
No excuses are valid. With or without the 'red lines' (which, in the long run, will probably not be worth the paper they're written on once the ECJ get their hands on it), the Reform Treaty remains substantially the same as the rejected Constitutional Treaty.
Referendum now.
Kevin Burns - check it out :
consilium.europa.eu/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1317&lang=en&mode=g
You'll find it's gobbledigook. But that;s the intention. As Giuliano Amato, Former Italian Prime Minister, said at CER meeting, 12 July 2007:
鈥淭hey decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception鈥 Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister 鈥 imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go
to the Commons and say 鈥榣ook, you see, it鈥檚 absolutely unreadable, it鈥檚 the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.鈥 Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.鈥
Mark is again analysing very precisely the situation. In general, the EU seems a bit too complex for the media, it doesn't provide the easy stories.
Brown not visiting Barroso (the easy story) is pathetic, but was to be expected from a man who mentioned Britain and Britishness 75 times during his last party conference speech. Mr Brown just isn't European in the political sense.
The real (complex) story is the question which economic philospohy the EU should have. Sarkozy may be a protectionist in disguise, but what does the other side have to offer?
Mr Barroso was Primeminister in Protugal which arguably is lagging dramatically behind in economic reform. Portugal has wasted years and loads of money without getting anywhere. Mr Brown is the originator of one of the worst economic bubbles ever. It is about to burst.
I think it is time that Mark writes about the different economic philosophies in the EU and how they have delivered prosperity and equality to the people. We may see some intersting results that will surely go beyond the knee-jerk comparison France-UK.
I couldn't agree more with the comments of Theo S and Marc Curni. Just to add that the british mentality is actually on the other end of the european integration and efforts to bring turkey in today (iraq tomorrow?) prove this dearly.
Leaders in Europe will continue to be nice to Mr Brown until he has delivered a signed and sealed copy of the Reform Treaty. That is all Mr Barroso and others can expect or indeed want from the U.K. Government in the short run.
The idea that anyone in the Euro Zone wants economic guidance from the U.K. is really rather funny. If anyone wants to know how to thrive in Europe and within the Euro Zone while keeping local identities, look to Spain.
In the medium term, Max Sceptic (9) and other who doubt the real value of the U.K. 'opt outs' are probably right. Remenber a 'piece of paper' that the then British Prime Minister got from the then German Chanceller in 1938. The coming conflict is not military but economic. The stronger the Euro becomes vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar the weaker the British bargaining position will become.
Theo S - your opinions pretty much sum up why we, the English, want nothing to do with the EU. Democracy? Explain please how this treaty (Constitution in all but name) is democratic when EU politicians attempt to shoehorn it into law without any democratic consensus. I do not believe the English are xenophobic we have simply been doing democracy a hell of a lot longer than most of Europe, modern democracy has been shaped by the English so if we seek to lecture it is because we actually know what we are talking about.
I suggest you take your anti English rhetoric and preach to those that actually care.
It is not a good signal that Gordon Brown has not travelled to Brussels. It is an indication that he is not intent on confronting euroscepticism.
At some point member state leaders will have to grab the bull by the horns and put some effort into making the case domestically for their European policies.
David Miliband, will you?
@ Marc Curmi (7):
I would be very happy indeed if my country Netherlands, along with Britain and possibly Denmark/Sweden/Ireland were to leave the EU and join the EFTA.
There'd be no doubt we'd be more prosperous within years and leave the members of the EU's overregulated customs union far behind. As for not having influence on EU laws, well we don't have any influence now either.
@ Theo S (6):
How mighty 'progressive' this attitude of yours. Your attitude is precisely why more and more people are getting sceptical about the EU
I would gladly take up the glove and say to you: Europe would be better off without the EU. Since I stopped being an EU-nthusiast some years ago I have become more and more convinced that Europe indeed is better off without the EU.
However, one group is worse off without the EU: politicians and bureaucrats. Which is why most mainstream politicians blindly support the EU without actually knowing its history or how it really works.
In the last few years I have found that people who are sceptic about the EU (and they are everywhere, not just Britain), tend to be remarkably well informed whereas EU-nthusiasts generally haven't a clue what the EU is about.
A tip to all sensible intelligent people out there who want to better themselves.
Move to Australia, let the EUropeans commit suicide. But joking (maybe) aside what the EUrope will achive is the very thing it was thought it would render obsolete, Nationalism.
Dont belive me? take a good long look at what is happening in Belguim, in effect the EU is subsidising nationalism.
The only way of protecting freedom, liberty and peace is the Nation state underpinned by democracy.
I think one of Europes greatest philosophers Immanuel Kant's 1795 essay, Project for a Perpetual Peace. put forward just such a solution.
EUrope is sadly addicted to Hegal and Marx who both have been falsified.
To Theo S: But who would pay for the EU if Britain "got the hell out"?
mmm. this is my first post on a political blog and on the topic of the E.U. I'm coming from the position of being a u.k. citizen and liberal-left....and pretty eurosceptic at that (which is perhaps not so typcical a position with the european left/social democrat)...
to give a little background. when i was at university there was a tendency for the european rich kids to scoff at british culture (their hopes of hugh grant and high teas quickly dashed at the site of the friday night binge drinking endemic in our unis). they quickly ghettoised and formed self-satisfied "european" societies, where they discussed grand global issues/held "cultured" opera evenings with a slight excess of self-imoprtance and awareness of their own glittering future. needless to say, fast forward a few years and most of those rick kids are either in banking in the City (completely immoral), or stagiaires at the E.U.
This takes me to what I feel is fundamentally wrong with the European project. Firstly, it's the type of people which it attracts (talking about the behind-the-scenes bureaucrats). Individuals removed from ordinary society, many living a dislocated life in brussels, mostly progeny of a wealthy background. How are these people qualified to dictate what happens in my life when they know nothing about my country/my region/my town. I elect an MP for that job. Secondly, the Commission, which is the Executive, is an unelected body, its undemocratic and thats in keeping with the type of people it attracts, who have a contempt for the citizens of the EU being able to make decisions themselves and often arrogantly pronounce (in private) that they know whats good for us better than we do.
now theres lots of good things coming out of common european legislation; europe has pushed the u.k. further than we would have gone on worker rights, human rights and social legislation. but the nannying self-importance which i've seen in many rich-kid euro student makes me fearful and angry for giving these people greater power to control our lives.
the real problem with the idea of market liberlisation progress in the EU isnt our 'weak' position, but Frances' extremely strong position. France is seen, and sees itself as the most important power in the EU, which means that liberlisation, which is opposed by France, will never happen. It simply doesnt matter who else supports Gordon Brown, or even that Sarkozy appears to be slightly more pro free trade than previous Presidents. The same goes for Turkey's accession to the EU, which, in my opinion, would be a great achievement if it were to ever happen.
"Therefore there is only one solution. Whoever is not in favour of the new treaty should be kicked out of the E.U. The E.U. should make it clear also that whoever leaves will be considered as a country which has plague. Therefore all sorts of quarantine and barriers should be imposed on those getting out."
I love this quote. Its so funny. I'm sure the EU would love to lose Britain's money - don't forget the UK pays more into the EU than it gets out by a long way. I'm sure also that the 600,000 immigrants who have entered the UK in the last 2 years and work in the UK but send money home would love to return to their home countries. I'm also sure those home countries would love to lose this flow of money into their countries. In return, the UK would trade more with the US (unlike the rest of Europe). And we would probably happily take up a position in the EEA like Norway. In return, we get what the EU was supposed to be, and not what it has become. I.E we get a free trade area, not a faux-United States of Europe.
@Marcel (16):
Nothing new that the Dutch feel superior to all others. It comes with Calvinism. (Fact is, however, that you are just louder than others.)
But have you tried to tell your industry or the people in the port of Rotterdam that they will be better off outside the EU?
I always thought that the erotic relationship that the Dutch have with money would keep them firmly in the EU. And before you give me the line that the Netherlands are a net contributor to the EU budget, please deduct the Rotterdam effect. These import duties are collected by the Netherlands for products going into the single market. Few of this relates to the Netherlands as such.
Few countries have profited from the EU as much as the Netherlands. But then again, biting the hand that feeds you seems to be normal human behaviour.
Democracy on a continental scale was, I think, invented by the founding fathers of the United States of America more than two centuries ago.
The Federalist Papers could be a healthier diet than British tabloids, if we Europeans want protect our interests in a globalising world.
Sadly, the reform treaty is but a small improvement for the citizens of Europe (and even less so for those who are UK citizens, too).
Good to see some posts from all sides, and not just those that have got through the 91热爆 censor, for a change.
We are part of Europe, in Europe and must learn to get on with some great cultures and neighbours.
That does not mean that we should surrender our sovereignty to the European Union which, despite its pretence at democracy, is undemocratic, has little in the way of checks and balances or real representation. I think the European Union (not Europe) is beyond reform and, sadly will eventually implode at tremendous cost to us all, as it tries to implement more and more regulations to over regulate and control so many aspects of our lives.
I'd encourage anyone to try and read the Reform 'Treaty'. It is very difficult, but does show the intent to transfer national power to one central European power. However, should anyone ever sign a document that is so difficult and confusing as this Treaty?
As The Plain English Campaign makes clear
Plain English Campaign slams EU over 鈥榰nreadable鈥 treaty
(Posted 26 September 2007)
Giuliano Amato, the former Italian Prime Minister, claims the new European Union treaty is deliberately 鈥榰nreadable鈥.
Plain English Campaign condemns this as an act of deception by the EU.
Ahh Mark, I drop in very occassionally to see how you're doing and 'no better' is the oft repeated conclusion. Still utterly failing to see the lack of democracy which illegitimises the EU. Still failing to understand the crippling economic effects of continental scale institutionalised corruption. Still dreaming the same ludicrous fantasy of a single European state and wondering why the rest of us are not. I hope for your sake it is all a well rewarded act. If not I simply pitty you.
Marc Curmi and others should get their facts straight. Britain is a massive net contributor to the EU (far more than France) and we do not take kindly to the undemocratic nature of the EU which appears to be modelled on the USSR.
75% of Britons do not want political integration at all. Only 17% are happy with the EU. (25% w3ant to leave altogether and 50% want a free trade agreement.
If we were to leave the EU would split up because it would be bankrupt.
The Constitution - pretending to be a treaty - iks a massive confidernce trick. The Dutch and the Frenxch people have rtejecvted it once. Why can't the the euro-politicians understand the word "NO" ?
As a committed EU-sceptic, I am angry at the way this Government has lied to us and continues to lie to us over this Reform Treaty/Constitution. But if I was pro-EU I would be even angrier.
If you really want Britain to be at the heart of Europe, playing a full and proper role, then that can only be achieved with the peoples鈥 consent. By misleading, manipulating and lying to the public, all the Government does is provide more ammunition for sceptics like me.
And let鈥檚 not forget the great irony in all this. If Brown forces the EU Reform Treaty/Constitution onto Britain without a referendum, then as I understand it, he will actually make our leaving the EU easier, as a future UK Government will be able to invoke the new exit clause that this Treaty formally introduces for the first time.
And because referendums were not used to get Britain into the EU (the referendum in the 1970s was for the old EEC, not the EU), they will not be needed to get us out鈥!
So although as an EU-sceptic I am angry, part of me actually thinks 鈥渃arry on Gordon鈥濃!
From whence did Brown get the three phases in the European Union project to create stability on the continent which Mark Mardell lists?
After 13 years of research on the EU, the nearest plan I know about is the three phase German plan.
First regain sovereignty (achieved 1955). Second become the dominant economy in Europe (long since achieved). Third take on US hegemony round the world - in train.
Brown's version sounds to me like recent spin and a re-write of history. Should we be surprised?
I get the impression that Theo S. thinks that the English are particularly xenophobic. I can only imagine that s/he has little experience of living in other parts of Europe, where xenophobia is quite virulent. Theo mixes up dislike of foreigners with a dislike of imposed, undemocratic rule
On Theo-lost-his-nerve S;
response to B Selman:
Q: Who pays the most for EU in total?
A: Germany
Q: Who pays the most for EU per capita?
A: The Netherlands
It is actually quite funny that some of the British Eurosceptics honestly believe that the EU would financially collapse without the British contribution to the joint purse.
They also seem to believe that all Brussels do is scam and waste, and all Whitehall does is pure charity and righteousness. I am sure Sir John Bourn and Jonathan Aitken would agree.
Crikey, Mr Mardell, I'm surprised the EU don't try to put the kibosh on you, as you are telling us what they will not!
This is the first I have heard that by potentially saying 'Yes' to Turkey, that is just a 'come-on' to including Albania and Kosova as well ! What next ? Israel ? Russia ? Egypt ? India ?
Someone needs to do some serious soul-searching and navel-gazing before we have lost any possibility of maintaining British and European competences as separate and distinct identities. Mind you, any argument about whether we get a vote on the EU Constitutional [Reform] Treaty is a sterile one, as the EUrocrats ignore public democratic opinion. Unbelievable !
Two comments from here in France:
1. please could someone detail just what changes there are between the new treaty/constitution and the Treaty of Maastricht (signed by M Thatcher - no referendum). It might be enlightening? Might even help G Brown explain things better to his electorate?
2; re Sarkozy's stance on Turkey. I've spoken to many here in France about their stance on Turkey's entry (and there are plenty); for all the anti's protestations otherwise, I'm convinced that anti-muslimism is at the root of it (Algeria still hurts here). I wish I was wrong. However, note how pro-Turkey Bernard Kouchner (Foreign Secretary) is: and he carries a lot of influence with Sarko, so they say.
I think Lee (14) raises an interesting point: Is UK really a better democracy than the rest or most other countries in EU.
I would say it isn鈥檛. It is probably the only country in EU with first-past-the-post electoral system, where it is in theory possible a party control every seat in the commons with less than 2000 votes received (not very likely scenario, but non the less possible). On the top of this I think it was pretty clear that most of the British citizens were against the War in Iraq and sucking up Bush, but nether the Tories nor Murdoch papers asked for a referendum then. And I think having your country involved in war crime was a good cause for one.
And the notion that England practiced democracy for centuries is a pretty pathetic one. Real Democracy in Britain was established only after World War I when the women were allowed to vote.
So I will humbly suggest to all EU treaty enthusiasts to spread their referendum spree to other even more worthy topics even closer at home.
As for me I would really love to be allowed to vote on the Treaty (here in Germany) and cast my NO vote. After it鈥檚 the Constitution (that I quite liked) made absolutely unreadable by the politicians. I feel just like they are having a piss on us.
As for the question of B Selman (18) I have a simple solution if UK leave the Union (minus X billion euros) and at the same time Poland is kicked out ( Y billion euros saved expenses), the mathematics may actually turn out to be a profitable one.
To Dave (20) I would only like to mention that Norway pays dearly for being allowed to be in EEA, but can only accept what EU offers them (in the borders of the EEA Treaty). And there is simply no way around it, no op-outs so to say.
Lee (14): "I do not believe the English are xenophobic we have simply been doing democracy a hell of a lot longer than most of Europe, modern democracy has been shaped by the English so if we seek to lecture it is because we actually know what we are talking about."
Then why, pray tell, dear Lee, do you as a nation not have the automatic right to a refrendum? As for xenophobic, why yes, I do think that the English in general (and reinforced by the same inability to move past old history that makes the Poles such fun to get on with), tend to be xenophobic. The place I live (Switzerland) is about as racist and xenophobic as it gets in Europe, and the arguments against the EU (financial loss from having to pay for a change, and all those troublesome foreigners having a say in local laws) are very similar to what one reads from the English press. The difference is, here in Switzerland, they may be racist xenophobes, but they're democratic racist xenophobes and hence are not in the EU (and have no say in it either).
B Selman(18). Why don't you take that chance and find out? Stand up for your rights! Shout for democracy! Get Brown to give you that referendum. Then we get to find out just how much Europe depends on the UK. I personally think all parties will be happy with the result.
I never cease to be amazed at the eurosceptics. They hate the EU but they never (except that fringe party UKIP) ask for an IN or OUT referendum, or if not look at the Tories. Does anybody understand their position towards the EU? ... not me, that's for sure, but the NewLab鈥檚 one is not much clearer either鈥 There is nothing wrong with disliking the EU, but in a democracy those that are in that position should demand an IN or OUT referendum not one on a comparatively minor technicality called the Reform Treaty, and then accept the outcome (in other words put up or shut up). If the 'IN' side were to win (most unlikely) then let the UK 鈥榡oin鈥 the EU as a FULL member, something which by virtue of its endless list of opt-outs and red lines is not by any stretch of the imagination.
This leads me to my second point which is that the UK and the EU are engaged in a two way fiction with regards to UK membership of the EU. The UK's opt-outs make its position resemble more that of an associate or an EFTA member, but nobody wants to say that. It suits the British and EU agendas to keep alive the illusion that the UK is a 'full' EU member (as Mr Milliband stated recently). After all, the UK is the ONLY one out of 27 EU members that has opted out of the two most fundamental EU pillars, the EU and Schengen, but hey, that鈥檚 just small print for politicians.
With regards to UK's position supporting perpetual EU enlargement and Turkey's membership, this is the most fascinating and perplexing example of hypocrisy and double standards that one could possibly imagine. If and when Turkey joins the EU, it will have to sign up to the whole of the EU body of legislation, which includes the EU and Schengen. So, hypocrisy no. one is that the UK wants for Turkey what it doesn鈥檛 want for itself. Of course, once Turkey is a full member of the Schengen area, this very Schengen area, composed of 25 EU countries (but not the UK or Ireland) plus 3 non-EU countries, will find itself, overnight, with a border with Irak, Iran and Syria. So hypocrisy and double standard no. 2: Would the UK government be so enthusiastic about Turkey鈥檚 membership if, as a result, it were to find itself with a direct border with Irak, Iran and Syria? I bet not, and I think this is the safest bet I will ever make in my life...
I would end by saying that there are two parallel realities with regards to Britain and its relationship with the EU. One is always in the open, a tabloid fed, right-wing reality, in which the EU is a headless monster with unelected bureaucrats at its core, threatening the UK鈥檚 ability to rule itself. There is another reality, one that never surfaces but is nonetheless there, lurking in the background. It goes as follows: Britain, still suffering from severe post-imperial hangover, desperately clings to hopelessly obsolete notions of independence and sovereignty in order to avoid confronting the bitter but inescapable reality: that it no longer is a world power but just one of many (namely 27) members of a new world power, albeit of a slightly different nature, the EU. Britain either comes to terms with this reality or it would be far better, both for itself and the EU, to leave the EU and become an EFTA member.
The problem with these exchanges is that they ignore the elephant in the corner of the room viz. the fact that the UK has consistently refused to pull its weight since joining the European Community. The UK has signed up to the Reform Treaty (a) because the new text - like the old -favours the six largest Member States (which make up 75% of the population and related economic activity) (b) because the Continental Member States will otherwise move ahead without her. This is realpolitik not rocket science.
Refusing to look at a problem is not going to make it go away. The Commons Scrutiny Committee, for example, steers well clear of the provisions of the new treaty in relation to economic and monetary union which establish the euro unequivocally as the currency of the Union and show the UK in its true marginalised position.
In fact, profiting from the weaknesses in the French (and Dutch) positions, the UK has succeeded in winning back earlier concessions and, oddly enough, has also succeeded in improving the situation for all Member States (although whether this was her intention or not, it is difficult to say). This is notably true of the move to an amending treaty which avoids problems of legal continuity and interpretation which would certainly have put the internal market at risk under the Constitutional Treaty.
It may also be noted that Title XVII on complementary competences has been dropped in the final version of the amending treaty, no doubt because industry was included (an open invitation to defenders of national champions because, if industry is not the responsibility of the Union, it must be that of the Member States).
There are other major technical improvements, notably the retention of the existing European Community legal instruments.
The UK risks being put off the team for not trying. The owners of the club are losing patience. Now that it is certain that there will be neither an election or a referndum, there will be a possibility to meet the Foreign Secretary's desire and have an in-depth and clarifying debate in Parliament. Due to a quirk in in Ireland's constitutional arrangements, we must face the much riskier path of a referendum. But Commissioner McCreevy is right; we will not get the same consideration if we vote no this time.
Incidentally, Poland does not wish to be elevated to the voting strength of the Six just yet as the voting weights of her natural allies (the so-called net-recipient Member States) will be halved. Getting the Ioninna formula into the treaty (probably by way of a protocol) will ensure that her position is protected not just for the next multi-annual framework (2014-2020) but the one after it. As Sarkozy does not wish to give to Polish farmers the same support as French farmers received from 1958 onwards, Polich concerns are fully justified.
No wonder that there are less and less pro-europeans and that the pro-europeans there are are becoming less and less informed. How many pro-european articles are there in the news papers? The view portrayed is peversly one sided. All one hears about are the problems of the EU (no one claims it is a perfect institution) - CAP, rows at meetings and the supposed erosion of national identity. On the point of national identity the EU is comendable in that it allows national concioussness to flourish, not just at member state level - but at nations who for whatever reason have been drawn into larger administrative units (the nation state). I find it hard to believe that being in the EU, or not having a monarch on the note (I would like to point out that member states such as Holland and Spain retain their monarchs on their EU coins) makes me any less English.
I believe that the union of Europe is a necessity, not only for economic reasons - but political ones. The time has passed for the strong European nations and empires of yesterday. It is amusing to watch the US play each European state off with others as they clamber to be heard on the international stage. With unity our place would be secured in an increasingly polarised world.
Many British are demanding a referendum on the "Reform treaty". I'll go ome up on that: let's have an EU-wide referendum on Turkey's accession. One man, one vote . I bet the answer will be a resoinding no
"If it will be a relief to Mr Barroso that the prime minister is not going to be a problem, the two will want to make sure others don鈥檛 raise objections either. The first cloud on the horizon is the possibility of the Poles kicking up a new fuss."
Just as it wasn't a problem for the UK that Poles among RAF pilots had more shoot-downs per squadron during Battle of Britain than anybody else.
Perennial trouble-makers! ;-)