Turning up the heat
Helpful bunch the Their report on the questions, perhaps even undermines, just about all Heaven knows what are coming to. In my days in Westminster there would have been trips to St Lucia here, a murmured word about a knighthood there, and perhaps the odd broken arm. At any rate, it鈥檚 rare for a Labour-dominated committee (nine out of ) to produce a report quite so unhelpful to the government.
The veteran Eurosceptic is on the committee and perhaps his always detailed analysis went on so deep into the night that he penned the whole thing while the others slumbered. The headline is that the MPs of the European Scrutiny Committee find that the European Treaty is "substantially equivalent" to the constitution.
Damning
True, they pull their punches in the end. While they conclude that the treaty is pretty much the same as the constitution (or "hated constitution" if you have a keyboard and press F3) it adds that this is true for those countries without opt-outs. As Britain does have them you might think this is of little consequence. But read on, and it鈥檚 damning.
They say they understand why the government wants to distance itself from the old constitution but add, "We would wish to explore the reality and significance," of this approach, adding that it could be "misleading". They say it is up to the government to prove that the new treaty is "significantly different" from the old constitution, adding that despite the British opt-outs "we are not convinced". They demand that the government spells out what battles it has won to make the treaty so different for the UK.
It doesn鈥檛 stop there. They question the worth of Britain鈥檚 opt-outs and clarifications. They say they are 鈥渃oncerned鈥 that the treaty will mean changes that will increase the EU鈥檚 powers over national law and so national governments. They want our government to state what safeguards it has against this.
They then go on to be "concerned" that European courts will gain greater rights over UK law. They pick two examples and suggest that Britain might face tougher laws on the length of the working week and on discrimination (they seem to assume that this would be a bad thing) and want 鈥渃oncrete evidence鈥 that this won鈥檛 happen.
No negotiation?
They highlight what the Conservatives call the "ratchet clause": a change that would mean that an agreement of all governments could mean the abolition of the national veto from a certain area of policy, without the need to call a special summit. They again ask for the government to spell out its safeguards against what they call a 鈥渇urther erosion of transparency and accountability鈥.
They criticise the lack of transparency in the negotiating process and suggest the government was "bounced" because a draft text was produced just a couple of days before the summit, apparently without any negotiation. I think here they either deliberately or accidentally misunderstand both what happened and a fairly obvious difficulty for governments.
The didn't hold formal negotiations with a text on the table. Instead they showed relevant parts to the very senior civil servants from each country. I know for a fact that at that stage the exchanges were detailed, and in Britain鈥檚 case were discussed with Tony Blair.
It was a rather clever sort of negotiation that didn't allow 25 other countries chip in every time the Germans reached an agreement on an idea or form of words. The committee would like Parliament to have been more fully informed at this stage.
I certainly wouldn鈥檛 relish being the foreign secretary who stood up to say: "We鈥檙e telling the Germans we鈥檙e not giving up any vetoes, but of course that鈥檚 not our real position, we鈥檒l stick out for justice and home affairs, but even that depends on what we can get on foreign policy, which is our real bottom line." To then return to the poker game would not be easy.
'Sloppy'
Like all good parliamentarians everywhere these MPs are most concerned about their own rights and save their full fury for a suggestion that parliaments could be legally bound to "contribute actively to the good function of the union". They call this "objectionable". Although the clause is specific, and wouldn鈥檛 for instance prevent Parliament voting to withdraw from the Union, one can see their constitutional point.
This report turns up the heat on the government, but does it have any real effect?
The words "Jon Cunliffe" are rather spat in Brussels these days. He鈥檚 Gordon Brown鈥檚 top civil servant dealing with the EU and he鈥檚 ordered diplomats and lawyers to tighten up what he apparently regarded as a rather sloppy document.
If Mr Brown wants to make a fuss at this will strengthen his hand. Perhaps the whips aren鈥檛 so wet after all.
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
Article 262 of the EU reform treaty which allows the EU to seek its own resources is another way of saying being granted tax raising powers. This article alone requires a referendum.
Mark,
Two points:
1. Brown is very aware that he now is in the 'poo'! An easy way to re-ingratiate himself with the electorate now is to give them what they want - ie a REFERENDUM!
2. Your statement "I know for a fact that at that stage the exchanges were detailed, and in Britain's case were discussed with Tony Blair", states something that is widely known about the events prior to the June Berlin IGC meeting. It also strongly contradicts what Murphy, the Minister for Europe, said to the Commons European Scrutiny Committee shortly before they issued this report. John Profumo had to resign in disgrace for lieing to Parliament. Shouldn't Murphy do the same now?
Brown may wish to renege on the manifesto promise to which he signed up and hold a referendum, but he can still be forced by parliament (either house) to hold one. With 80% of the electorate in favour of a referendum before the treaty is ratified, now is the time when we will finally see if parliament really does represent the people or not! If sufficient MPs refuse to ratify the treaty before a referendum, or if the upper house act as a back-stop in the same way should the commons fail, Brown will have no choice. Let us all hope that there are enough men and women of honour in parliament to allow true democracy to flower. I have already written to my MP informing him that he has lost my vote in any future election if he does not vote for a referendum. If enough people follow suit we may yet win our right to a referendum.
Only public apathy stands in our way.
There is a lot of rhetoric and anguish about the British people not getting a referendum on the draft new EU Treaty.
I'm not familiar with the relevant aspects of the law, but I wonder whether a fundamental question is being missed in the debate:
How can the PM's signature on such a treaty be legally binding if his government was elected on a mandate that promised a referendum on an EU constitution since this committee, the majority of whose members are MPs of the governing party, has now decided that the draft treaty and previous draft constitution are substantially equivalent?
And surely even a vote in parliament does not change this paradigm, because the MPs were elected on the basis of a manifesto that promised a referendum - it makes a mockery of the concept of parliamentary democracy if they can now change their position. How could they be said to truly reflect the views of the people on this critical issue?
Is the PMs signature therefore worthless under these circumstances, his authority assumed, not real?
Any legal / constitutional experts out there?
You conclude your article by saying,"does it have any real effect?". How could it not as we now have a NuLabour dominated committee, as well as every other European leader, admitting that the proposed treaty is the old constitition.
There should never have been any argument about a refendum being held as this was a 2005 manifesto promise. If a referendum is not held this will show the contempt this government has for parliament and the electorate. It treats the former with disdain and the latter as disinterested fools.
It is a pleasure reading your blog Mark. It seems that debate has to focus now not on whether the reform treaty is substantially different from the constitution (it clearly isn't), but on what exactly do the British opt-ins and opt-outs mean. That requires a focus also on the new powers to be given to the EU that the British government is not happy with. I'm still not clear what these are.
Mark, as a knowledgeable person, where do you stand on this issue: is or is not the new (reform) treaty substantially the same as the rejected Constitutional Treaty? (on which we were promised a referendum).
As Mark points out the Committee is concerned for their own powers. Member States have always been obliged to facilitate EU actions.
The Treaty of Rome states: "Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure
fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks." (Article 10)
The Reform Treaty contains 80% or so of the same stuff as the Constitution because about 80% of the Constitution was restating what already existed! The UK has been a Member State for over 30 years now and we this Committee is commenting on articles that were written in 1957.
How much longer do we have to listen to people shout that the sky is falling whenever we talk about Europe to realise that the tales of doom are wrong and appeal to the predjudice that we are better than the continentals?
Thank you Mark for pointing out that tougher laws on discrimination are not necessarily a bad thing. We should remember that it was Europe that made the UK offer maternity leave and has mandated equal rights for both men and women far more than Westminster has.
Another nice bit of neutral reporting from Mark Mardell.
The country is being divided into regional assemblies with power devolved to them. The regional assemblies have their own constitution making them legally bound to carry out EU orders. This new EU constitution masquerading as a treaty purely because all the opt outs can be overridden by the so called ratchet clause at a later date. Makes the whole thing a devious and criminal attempt at the destruction of the legal identity of the UK This of course is the defination of treason. However even the mention of this word brings a chorus of definations showing it isnt. IT IS look it up in the dictionary. Why are you so keen to help the EU Mark? Something to do with a nice plum job? But have you given serious consideration to the world you will have contributed to creating and the impact on culture people aspirations freedom liberties and justice? I mean its no good being a rich and powerful man in a society in decay in an evil world where cruelty and depravation for many are the norm? How long do you think it will be until your of no use?
The EU is so obvious in its intent the underhand devious and criminal activities prove its a land power and money grab. The schengen highway. The Open door. The removal of school discipline and People dying in hospital. Many things are telling you many things are proveable so many when you prove the case for one the next takes as long the previous are all forgotten in distant memory.
Blair Mandelson Brown In fact all at the top are all wannabe Communists who loved trotsky except communism is a failure ONLY for those at the top was there power money and riches..
OOOOOOOH I seem to have found their calling.
Seriously Mark do you want to be partly responsible for the downfall of all the blood sweat and tears that has made this country a little civilised?
I think we should have a preliminary referendum on whether the Treaty text is substantially the same as the Constitution or not! No one seems to be able to agree even on this. Let the people decide.
Mark -
It is in turn a little naive of you to criticise the committee for "misunderstanding" the nature of negotiations. Time and time again, in evidence sessions before the European Scrutiny Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee and on the floor of the House, Government ministers and officials have been asked whether they have been participating in negotiations on a Treaty mandate or similar, and they have always either evaded the question or found formulations of words to deny that negotiations have been taking place. All the committee seems to have been doing has been to take these denials at face value. I expect it knows very well what has been going on - it just cannot tolerate being misled, and nor should it.
With hindsight (things are always easier with hindsight), one can say that it was a mistake to try to adapt to EU enlargement by drawing up an EU constitution. One key problem is that any EU constitution that is acceptable to the UK government will inevitably alienate French voters without reassuring Britons.
Britons want to be in the EU as a trading bloc. But, in comparison with Europeans in general and the French in particular, they are far less likely to see themselves as also European citizens. As long as that remains the case, the French and the British will never be able to share a common view of European integration and its purposes.
So it would have been wiser to respond to EU enlargement by making some necessary administrative changes. But now it is difficult to go that way because the constitutional treaty has been adopted by the people of two countries in a referendum and by parliament in a number of other EU member states. The debate, especially in Britain, focuses on the rejection of the constitutional treaty by two countries, while forgetting those that have accepted it.
Nevertheless, if the reform treaty fails, one would probably have to settle for administrative adjustments at the EU level. That would clear the way for some EU members, at some time in the future, agreeing on a more far-reaching institutional treaty among themselves. Britain and some other EU members would not be in that group.
It is disappointing that a parliamentary committee with a Labour majority fears that a greater role for EU courts may lead to tougher laws on the length of the working week and against discrimination.
Whether the European Union/United States of Europe (and the latest stage which is the Constitution) is a good or a bad thing is irrelevant. Without being asked about it, the British people (and others) will never accept it. If this committee can force the government ask us then that could be good or bad depending on who you are. Not asking ever can only be bad and very bad. Enforced unification always leads to a lot of bloodshed.
I sincerely wish that one day the British will make up their mind whether to stay in the Union or not. However, given the poisoning of their minds through the infamous Murdoch press, we know what the result of any such referendum would be. Would it be that bad though? A couple of years after they'll come begging for readmission, or not?
Oh surprise, surprise, the treaty is a clone of the rejected constitution. Does it come as a shock to anyone that the EU tyranny would find a way to shove its edicts down the throats of its vassals any way it could and that part of the treaty is to make it easier to do the same next time around? All that's left to come out is that the treaty was actually written BEFORE the constitution was voted on so that if it failed, there would be a minimum time lag until its provisions were enacted and enforceable.
"(they seem to assume this would be a bad thing)" NO! They assume the relinquishing of the right to rule ones own country and make ones own laws is a bad thing. They seem to assume that the loss of democratic rule by the will of the governed is a bad thing. But this is exactly what the EU superstate is about, the abolition of all local and national control over lawmaking and law enforcement. It is the imposition of tyranny of an unrepresentative unaccountable bureaucracy. It's the USSR in another form and it will be reality for most of Europe probably within our lifetime, a 19th century European conception of what society ought to be, centralized in power with one law, one authority, an anthill civilization. And then you wonder why Europe can't compete in the 21st century. You'd have to be an idiot to invest in a local business in much of the EU. You can't even fire workers when they are no longer needed and your business can't afford to keep them. The only thing keeping Europe solvent is repatriation of profits from foreign investments. When those fail in a worldwide recession, Europe's economy will implode like the house of cards it is.
How about a referendum in continental EU member states on expelling the obstructionist Britons? I wonder if UK tabloids would support or oppose that...
The European Select Committee has been concerned for some time with that specific clause Mark alludes to concerning national parliaments. It states: "(Article 8c) National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" and goes onto list six sub clauses.
The chairman (Michael Connarty, Lab) has pursued this point and questioned exactly how it is reconciled with the British constitutional maxim that parliament is, and always, remains sovereign. Some of those that gave evidence, particularly Margot Wallstrom and Jim Murphy, passed the wording off as a drafting error that did not intend to compromise parliament's sovereignty, or instruct it how to act. AFAIK, that clause has yet to be changed or tightened in the final draft, as Connarty wished it to be.
Surpise surprise, British people whining about the EU again
And the predictable unthinking Mudoch-indoctrinated masses wheel out their venom and bile once more.
1) No, there should not be a referendum. The issues at stake are far too subtle and complex for a blunt Yes/No answer. The result would be meaningless. If it comes back 'No', perhaps that means most people think the treaty doesn't transfer enough responsibility to Brussels. There's no way of proving otherwise.
2) If there should, there also needs to be a referenddum on the continued existence of Westminster, and what powers it should hold. I was never asked if I accepted it or not, so why should I respect its right to do anything?
3) The EU's democratic deficit can be solved easily. Transfer of powers from the indirectly elected Commission to the directly elected Parliament, and elect the executive. The new treaty moves slightly in this direction, hurrah! So it's a small step forward, but forward nevertheless. We should welcome it, and beg for more.
Why shouldn't we whine. We are now in the position that a Prime Minister who has no mandate to govern but whose Party guaranteed a referendum on the Constitution treaty which every intelligent commentator ,including a Parliamentary Committee in which his party is in a clear majority, says is replicated in the Reform treaty and then this one indivual denies us that right to a referendum. Not only that but this same individual is so scared that his Party would not win an election that he has bottled the opportunity.
It is clear that we have no democratic rights in this country and are governed by a chicken politician who is concerned solely with self preservation
A Constitution is the supreme law of a sovereign people.
On no account should it be tampred with without the express and direct authorization of the electoratew
I'd like the Brittons to opt-out completely from the Union. The only thing they do is block and slow down what is inevitable and also desirable. EU without GB and Poland! EU one country!
# 17
Will you also be voting to expel the "obstructionist"Danes, Dutch, French and Irish who I believe have all had the absolute audacity to vote against the grand vision at some point in the recent past.
Note this is something the "Britons" mentioned have never done, although this Briton would welcome the chance to vote no.
# 19
When you pay billions for the privelege you are entitled to moan. I have no wish to spend my working life supporting other countries farmers for growing nothing.
#20
Another one who decides the issue is too complex for me. Let me worry about whether I have the intelligence to understand the issues.There are those who helped draw up the whole treaty who now say a referendum is required. Do they also lack the ability to make up their own mind.
There seems to be an increasing number of continentals like me who are fed up with Britain's "脿 la carte" membership, half in and half out, cherry picking and obfuscating. So go and have your damned referendum . but make the choices clear, something like this: "Which do you prefer ?
1. Full membership of the Union, with all the rights and obligations attached to it, with the perspectcive of being part of a European confederation
2. Abandoning the EU and becomng member of the European Economic Area, which is a successor to the EFTA which Britain created at the end of the 1950's
3. Applying to become the United States' 51st state (Britain's defence and intelligence structures are already fully integrated with their US counterparts. Maybe the Queen could become the second US vice-president which would be a benefit to the rest of the world as she would checkmate another Cheney gang in the White House)
Note: choosing option 2 or 3 would mean that you'd be subject to passport controls like the Americans, the Yemenis, the Filipinos, the Ugandans etc as, unlike the other EEA states, you haven't signed the Schengen agreement on the suppression of border controls (got to keep these Norwegian and Lichtensteinian terrorists out...)
I want my country (Netherlands) out too. I'm sick of having to subsidize inefficient French farmers via the CAP which in the process is destroying African farmers chances.
Mark, this report of yours is far from neutral. Its littered with overt, covert and subliminal anti sovereignty (pro EU) propaganda. of course the new treaty is the same thing as the old treaty (called constitution), I've been saying this all along (and so did Merkel, Giscard, d'Amato, Dehaene, Ahern, Zapatero, AF Rasmussen etc...).
@John Smith (20): my oh my what a democratic mindset you have. I assure you, through our (online) debate(s) we 'Eurosceptics' throughout Europe have gained an understanding of the EU which I dare say, is superior to that of many socalled politicians who only fancy themselves a ride on the gravy train that is the EU.
I do not trust politicians on this subject, every one of our Dutch politicians I have talked to about the EU, with few exceptions, hasn't got a clue. They cannot tell me what the Davignon report is, how federalism was the theme of the Schuman (Monnet) speech or how 'engrenage' works.
Perhaps us, Britain (along with possibly Denmark and Sweden) could join Norway and Iceland in some sort of Northwest European/Nordic Union which would be based on respect for sovereignty and intergovernmental cooperation. I bet it wouldn't be long before we all would enjoy better economic times than those who remain behind in the EU.
For me as an anglophile citizen of Austria (PLEASE DON'T mix it up with "down under"!) it is very interesting to read all the comments. Our parliament ratified the constitution without any kind of public outcry, but we don't have the same democratic tradition, ours is a bit shorter (since 1918, with interuptions). But what I do not understand is the fear many of the commentators have of a unified Europe. I also do not want a "superstate" oder a "United States of Europe", but we all should realize that in a globalised world it simply isn't enough to have just a economic union. Think about China and the USA, even India is bigger than Europe! And what many of the posters do not understand is that the new treaty/constitution or however you choose to name it brings MORE democrazy into the Union than we have at the moment! And what is the alternative to the EU? The same political situation as in the 19th century oder the early 20th? What all the critics of the EU tend to forget is that we have had the longest period of peace and prosperity in Europe (and that includes the UK, even if it's focus was and is often outside it) for a very long time.
So concerning the Reform: debate about it, vote about it in Parliament or in a referendum, but think about what you vote about.
What I find increasingly puzzling is how the EU and our continued membership of it is still as popular as it is when pretty much all of the warnings that those of us wanting out gave have turned out to be true. Is Britain simply so decadent that its electorate just don't care about their future? Is the concept of democracy just too, too boring to think about? How else could Blair, now Brown, get away with denying us a referendum on the "treaty"?
What is clear from reading this Commons Committee report is that it is a very serious study and raises a large number of questions that need to be answered. It finds that just 2 out of 440 provisions from the EU Constitution (and those on issues of mere symbolic significance, e.g. flag and anthem) are different in the Reform treaty.
It raises a point (that has also been made by the Swedish prime minister) that the UK does NOT have a watertight opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights that would prevent the ECJ from striking down or re-interpreting UK law. This is because the current wording of the Reform treaty caveats the provisions relating to the UK such that existing obligations of EU membership 鈥 such as the obligation to ensure the uniform application of EU law in each member state 鈥 could trump any UK opt-out.
There is also the issue as to whether the UK could be prevented from concluding international treaties in the same areas as treaties concluded by the EU itself using the 鈥榮ingle legal personality鈥 that this treaty would give it. This would have major implications for our ability to conduct an independent foreign policy.
And while the UK has an opt-in to some areas of draft legislation it is unclear if once a decision to opt-in has been taken what would happen if subsequent modifications lead to EU law unacceptable to us. In my opinion Britons should be able to opt-out of EU legislation not just during drafting, but also elect a new government that could opt-out of EU legislation that previous governments have agreed to. Otherwise we will over time inevitably become entrapped by ever more European law that our votes cannot touch.
The government has no leg to stand on when claiming that this is not the Constitution. According to one report I have seen it appears they have given up this line of argument tonight. The new line seems to be that a referendum is not needed because UK opt-outs mean we would not be signing the same treaty that so many other EU leaders say preserves the substance of the original Constitution. But that line of argument is also holed below the water line because all the UK opt-outs had already been negotiated prior to the 2005 manifesto when Labour promised to put the Constitution (complete with those opt-outs) to the people. Since Brown decided at the weekend against seeking any fresh mandate the 2005 manifesto remains the only one he has and he should stick by its promise to put this treaty to the verdict of the British people.
In reply to Christophe ( 22 )I agree with you 100%.We should leave the union and it would be better for us and for you.Is there some way you can get the other countries to expel us ?
Maybe that is asking too much as we give them a lot more then we get in return.But i, along with the majority of people in the UK live in hope.
George Brown may well be an excellent poker player -is he perhaps playing the wrong game?
The (UK/US style) "winner-takes-all" politics may well be totally innapropriate for a more "consensus" based European (EU) tradition.
Why go to all the bother of huff and bluff -if one can get the same deal just as easilly by quietly discussing the problems with one's collegues -who ultimately are supposed to be on the same side. The EU should function as a good marriage. Partners should listen to each other and not be automatically oppositional in a continual two party fight.
Under British rules, the poker game described by Mark Mardell is primarily concerend with Brown's survival -when the issues should really be more concerned with satisfying the needs of the inhabitants of the British Isles -and not just Brown's needs.
On the other hand, I suppose that if the British governement is legally bound to support the EU (which is perhaps not so bizaare a rule for any club membership) -then perhaps all the "political debates" in all the countries of the EU are nothing more than window dressing to support EU decisions already made in private.
Isn't it time that the EU became democratic -open to true public debate and decision making regarding the real issues invoolved -instead of being just an exclusive private poker and horse trading club for constituent governments?
If a free vote was allowed in Parliament there would definitely be a majority in favour of holding a referendum but again our leaders are so scared of democracy that not one of them would allow their MPs this freedom to vote on what is a constitutional issue. It would be very interesting if the House of Lords which is actually a far more democratic body than the Commons voted against the adoption of the Reform Treaty.
It is unacceptable than such a major change in how the UK is governed should be introduced by a PM who did not even participate in the negotiations , who has no democratic mandate , who has demonstrated that for all his huffing and puffing about respect for the British people when it comes to getting a democratic mandate he rapidly decides only he knows what is good for the country. Given his disastrous time as Chancellor how can we ever believe he knows best.
Stephen, the articles relating to own resources are in fact articles 258-60 of the Reform Treaty. It is not new and you will find the majority of its content in articles 269 of the Treaty on the European Community and 6(4) of the Treaty on the European Union. As it is not new in substance and so I do not see why it would need a referendum now. Also, to describe it as a tax raising power is also wholly incorrect. This is not something the EU can do.
@ Christophe (22): can we (Netherlands) opt out from the EU completely as well?
You will find that your suggestion is the minority viewpoint.
Sean Schneider #8 quotes the Treaty of Rome as stating: "Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks." (Article 10)
Tony #18 says the EU reform treaty states: "(Article 8c) National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" and goes onto list six sub clauses.
I consider the formulation in the reform treaty to be stricter than the original formulation in the Treaty of Rome, whereas it should be the same or, if anything, less strict.
Perhaps it is worth recalling some principles of international law as codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, which also 鈥渁pplies to any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organization and to any treaty adopted within an international organization without prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization鈥 (Article 5).
Article 26: 鈥淧acta sunt servanda鈥: Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.
Article 27: Internal law and observance of treaties: A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.
Article 46: Provisions of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties: 1.A State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a provision of its internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties as invalidating its consent unless that violation was manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of fundamental importance.
Article 10 of the Treaty of Rome is consistent with the principle of 鈥減acta sunt servanda鈥. And the inclusion of a commitment by national parliaments helps to prevent States from violating the principle set down in Article 27 of the Vienna Convention.
I'm against further intergration with Europe. Its corrupt, undemocratic and all our money goes to rich french farmers to stuff live gheese. Our relationship with Europe would be much better if we keep them at arms length.
If Europe is to punch its weight in a globalised world with 2 bn Chinese and 1 bn Indians, we surely cannot work through 27 national parliaments filled with provincial and petty-minded politicians. Thus, the transfer of powers to the EU institutions is common sense. The only real issues are transparency and accountability. In this respect, the original constitutional treaty was far better.
But did anyone really expect those provincial and petty-minded incumbents of national power to grasp this? Turkeys don't vote for Christmas.
"And the predictable unthinking Mudoch-indoctrinated masses wheel out their venom and bile once more.
1) No, there should not be a referendum. The issues at stake are far too subtle and complex for a blunt Yes/No answer."
The predictable view of the pro-European intelligentsia. Do as your told and leave the thinking to your betters!!!!!. I thought that kind of thinking went out with the ark.
The true reason that the UK is being denied a referendum is that Brown, the Labour party and their pro-European supporters cannot handle rejection. They know that they would have to campaign for a yes vote and they know they would lose. Therefore, to avoid this happening and, given the likely result, thus avoiding the enmity of their European counterparts, they have decided to abandon democracy. So much for Europe and Labour trying to re-connect with the people.
John Smith #20
"No there should not be a referendum. The issues are far too subtle and complex for a Yes/No Answer."
What you really mean is that the issues are too subtle and complex for the stupid masses to understand them and only the most highly educated elite who graduated from say Eton or in France the Acadamie are qualified to know what is best for the people. Isn't that really what the EU is all about? These unwashed huddled masses of rabble, the wretched refuse, the untermenchen are not educated enough to know what is good for them and what isn't. Let them eat cake. The EU has become a technocracy run by the mediocre, for the mediocre, and of the mediocre. How nice it is to know it will never become a real competitor. Why do they whine? That's all chained slaves can do.
Brown is not in favour of a referendum for the same reason ge was not in favour of an election: he would lose.
The same goes for the governments of France, The Netherlands and Denmark.
This is the politics of cowardice.
"However, given the poisoning of their minds through the infamous Trinity Mirror press"
Fixed it for you
Further on Article 8c of the reform treaty, which says "National Parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" and then lists six sub clauses.
Could there also be a translation problem here?
I assume "good functioning" is translated from the common French phrase "bon fonctionnement". It refers to the working, running, administration, operation, etc of machines, systems or organisations.
So it is a matter of national parliaments helping the EU to perform its tasks efficiently.
For instance, in the consolidated version of the treaty establishing the European Community, I have found the term "bon fonctionnement" in four places. In none of these is it translated as "good functioning".
It is translated twice as "proper functioning", once as "smooth operation", and once as "smooth functioning".
Moreover, if one looks at the six sub-clauses in Article 8c, one sees that they concern, rather than obligations, rights of national parliaments and exercising those rights.
@ Christoph (27):
What makes you think the period of peace since 1945 has anything to do with the existance of the EEC/EU? There is no correlation between the two. And the only war Europe did have (Yugoslavia) was partially caused by EC officials who promised the government in Belgrade support for keeping the federation together. This happened days AFTER Slovenia and Croatia had announced their secession.
An official from Luxembourg even had the nerve to say Slovenia was too small to be independent (Slovenia is larger than Luxembourg).
Also, you say that you are against a superstate yet at the same time you say economic cooperation isn't enough. Well those two positions are mutually exclusive.
The EU already has a disproportional influence on lawmaking which is mostly invisible to most people. The EU controls the levers of national governments, parliaments, ministries and judicial systems to such a degree that it doesn't need to become a de jure superstate in order to be a de facto superstate. A supergovernment it already is. Just ask yourself: who governs the EU?
And as for your claim that the 'new' treaty makes the EU more democratic. This treaty does nothing of the kind. In fact, it makes the law making processes decidedly less democratic by removing another 60 policy areas from national governments and transferring them to the joint control of Commission and Council.
@ Tom Trust (28): the EU and its 'popularity' can be easily explained. Most people don't think too much about it and figure that 'some cooperation' in Europe has to be good. While I agree with that positition it is precisely for that reason I oppose the EU. Intergovernmental cooperation: yes. Supranational imposition of laws: no.
And in general, yes the UK's opt-outs are worthless. They do not have any legal status. Any law expert would tell you the same thing.
Everything we EU-sceptics have warned about (and EU-philes have vehemently denied) turns out to be true. We said 2 years ago EU-philes would try to sneak the 'constitutional treaty' through anyway. EU-philes denied it. And yet, it is happening.
Has anyone asked the government how exactly their 'opt outs' differ from those they claimed to have secured from the original Constitution?
Because the soundbites - tax, foreign policy, social security, labour laws - are exactly the same.
Do they imagine people have such short memories?
It's hardly credible to claim a referendum isn't necessary due to the opt-outs - when they promised one on a document that featured the same opt-outs.