Miliband's ad lib
Iraq in the EU? Perhaps I should have said Israel. Why is the EU like Voltaire's God? And what happened to the latest proposal for a new European charter? Read on.
Yesterday was one of those days. should have been a doddle but first my phone wouldn鈥檛 charge, then no internet connection would work, then our equipment blew up before we were about to go on Radio 4's PM programme, so while trying unsuccessfully to correct that, I missed an interview with the foreign secretary and then our piece got dropped from the Ten O'Clock News because a better story came along. And back at base it was proving impossible to put comments up on this blog, for which I apologise. Still we did manage to get on radio bulletins, 91热爆 World and News 24.
Enough of my insignificant woes, but it was a pity because it was a rather interesting speech in a number of ways. First Miliband is one of the few front rank British politicians who really believes in promoting the case for the European union. Talking about expanding defence capability and doing it in Bruges where Mrs Thatcher made her famous speech was a deliberate red rag to a bull.
Although he must have disappointed the former Belgian prime minister, vetoed by Britain as president of the commission, Jean Luc Dehaene, who said he was looking forward to hearing the British government鈥檚 argument in favour of the Lisbon treaty.
The foreign secretary was however tackling eurosceptics on their own territory. As he pointed out, drawing a titter from the audience, 鈥淏ruges鈥 to most British political animals means a leading Eurosceptic think tank. .
Most of the media focused on his ideas for greater European military cooperation: it was interesting and fits a certain 鈥渘ews template鈥 that gets the words 鈥淓uropean Army鈥 into the headlines (for some reason Nato never gets called EuroAmerican Army). Interestingly the foreign secretary 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 talk about a new 鈥淓uropean defence charter鈥 and a formal review of EU military capabilities. I suspect that someone pointed out that another EU charter sounded a bit like the institutional navel-gazing Mr Miliband was keen to condemn.
That鈥檚 what he took out. This is what he put in, by way of an ad lib. Mr Milband said because of the threats facing the world 鈥淚f the EU 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 exist we would have to invent it" (what Voltaire said of God).
This is controversial in some quarters but I wonder how many politicians would agree with what he went on to say? Note-taking was near impossible in the dark of the auditorium, but the gist of it was that the EU has to have a an appointed (that is unelected) commission at its centre to represent the interests of Europe as a whole, rather than the nation states. Hardly controversial in Brussels but I suspect in an ideal world many British politicians would only re-invent the EU with a much curtailed commission.
But the 鈥渄id he really say that?鈥 part of the speech remained his suggestion that one day North Africa and the Middle East might join the EU. I just don鈥檛 agree with Rory Mitchell's reading of the speech: he clearly talks of a free trade area 鈥渋n line with the single market not as an alternative to membership, but potentially as a step towards it鈥.
But just to be sure, a colleague asked him about this in an interview. I haven鈥檛 got the tape in front of me, but his reply was on the lines that it was obeying EU rules, not geography, that mattered; who could say what the situation would be in 2030; and it was important not to put up barriers. When pressed again he said that he knew there was a debate in Israel about closer ties with the EU and even membership and repeated that it was important not to put up artificial barriers.
On the surface this is a pretty outr茅 suggestion. It will confirm the view of those who hanker after a closer union that enlargement is a British plot. A plot to so dilute the Union that it becomes little more than a club of states that share roughly the same sort of values. Indeed according to Mr Miliband鈥檚 non-geographical criteria I can鈥檛 see any reason why Japan and Australia and South Africa shouldn鈥檛 be eligible right now. Perhaps this is a plan for a putative world government.
But I suspect it's more to do with classic negotiating technique, a deliberate over-bidding. In December President Sarkozy will get his 鈥済roup of the wise鈥 to look at the EU in 2030 and make it quite clear he wants them to rule out Turkish membership. The French president knows that many feel that Eastern Europe was rather indigestible and after Croatia the door should be closed on not just Turkey but the western Balkans.
Mr Miliband is planting his flag firmly on diametrically opposite ground. Let battle commence. An alternative vision of European defence? An attack on protectionism? Defence of enlargement? This speech was aimed at an audience not in Bruges, not in Brussels, not in London, but in Paris.
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
If the EU expands much more, John Simpson and Mark Mardell will be covering the same area.
Mark,
I heard that his speech had been watered down by the to be less contentious for fear of setting off another EU debate. Sounds to me that there are still many in his own government that seem eurosceptic (the PM perhaps?)
I find that the argument that EU expansion dilutes the integrationist tendencies of some members to be a bit of a nonsense. It certainly hasn't stopped (and perhaps even strengthened) the argument for the EU Constitution - sorry Lisbon Treaty - because they considered a 27 member EU too unwieldy. It it expands to say 35 would there not be an even stronger argument to have even more EU institutions and regulations to manage it?
My take on Milliband's defence proposals is that he just wants an "improved Pentagon toolbox" to accompany further "expressions of US power". As the American diplomat L. Wayne Merry put it, the Europeans should dissolve this "obsolete alliance that has gone out of area in order not to go out of business". And if it is meeting the Copenhague criteria that counts, then why not Costa Rica, Uruguay, New Zealand, Chile today ? Britain has been sabotaging European integration efforts as strenously as de Gaulle did when he was in power. Just look at his Fouchet plan. When Heath was negotiating British entry, he was putting so many exceptions that the EEC negotiators where quipping the Britain;s motto was "Dieu et mon droit nul"
its aterrible idea. the UN is bad enough. lets not compound the mistake
"Perhaps this is a plan for a putative world government"
Mark, you may have hit the nail on the head here - have you been reading DeLaHaye and Jenkins (Left Behind) on this subject?
I thought talks with Arab countries were well going since a couple of years about a Mediterranean trade zone?
As for a political expansion, yes I think that any country who is willing to pursue the difficult process of integration to EU should be encouraged to do so, as long as a precarious geographical location does not introduce serious threats into the Union (so Isreal or its neighbours cant do). Prospective EU membership is a major carrot for democratisation and stabilisation of less lucky societies - thanks to it today the Balkans are pacified. Thanks to it, Turkey is making first steps to respect of human rights. If Turks didn't want to and have to appease the Europeans, today Kurds, Armenians and liberals would have been in the same disastrous conditions as in the 1980s.
I don't see Turkey joining soon because they need an enormous shift to their national perceptions to get to a stage of respected minorities. But this should be encouraged rather than stopped dead in its tracks, as France is doing.
For any North African or Middle East country it will take at least 20 or 30 years of dedicated change (and Miliband appreciated this) before joining EU could be a serious option. Then why are you worried?
Kolio,
Bulgaria / UK
I'm in favour of the Balkan countries and Turkey (when they've addressed their issues over freedom of speak and the Kurds) joining the EU.
I think the idea of including North Africa and the Middle East in a free trade zone (subject to certain rules and criteria) is a good idea, but I'd be against them gaining full membership of the EU.
If I get this right, what Mr. Miliband is saying is this:
We need a European army to go and fight in faraway places like Afghanistan and Darfour, but that same
European army should not be allowed to protect European soil, like turkish-occupied Cyprus.
So if tomorrow Russia invades Finland or Poland , this should not be a reason for denying Russia EU membership.
An EU as a role model has no place for Turkey, not because of some
east-west rift or some anti-islamic feeling, but because of its dismal human rights record(e.g. the Kurds, but also any other minorities), its illegal occupation and colonization of
an EU country, having a military way in excess of what may be reasonably needed for defence and also aimed at EU member states, and a military constantly interfering in politics -in short it will not be the EU who does not keep its promises.
If Milliband ever deigned to address a British audience on the subject, he would find that it would demand a referendum on the Reform Treaty.
This matter won't just 'go away'.
Mark,
Don't you feel that the EU debate is becoming ever more surreal?
How is Mr Miliband able to get away with claiming the EU is not becoming a "superstate" ... meanwhile pushing for the approval of a treaty which passes yet more powers and decision-making to the EU centre?
Of course, we can all debate the extent to which power is passing. But the direction of travel is obvious.
Is the ability of Mr Miliband to get away with such blatant contradictions between his words and actions a failure of the media, the public, or both?
Because he certainly appears to believe he can take us all for fools.
He should be shamed and ridiculed for that. And then, perhaps, we might have an honest debate about the EU's real purpose and direction.
cheers,
-Stuart-
Finally, a UK politician not afraid to make a stand and make a case for the EU. Hopefully this will be the first of many, as to many British people they know there is more to it than the simple arguments put to them by the Daily Mail, but they don't have the tools or the knowledge at their disposal to properly counter them. Hopefully David Milliband will give them these tools
Mark, I really hope you are right about him just exaggerating and he really wasn't "serious" about including the Middle East. I did send him an email about this but obviously am not expecting an answer. I hope, however, he gets to read it. As much as I am against creating artificial borders as much I am against destroying natural ones...(except channel tunnel, of course)
As Mr.Miliband said in Bruges "This is not a race to the bottom. Europe is a model for reconciling economic dynamism with social justice. We must use the power of the single market to export these values."
If we want to acheive this, it seems to me, we must respect equally the liberty of the individual citizen( and taxpayer) to expose these values. Otherwise we might end up "biting the hand that feeds us", so to speak.
since the E.U.`s criteria for membership do not seem to include being geographically part of Europe...why shouldn`t they [Turkey] be allowed to join !
I'm curious how the poster would explain granting a EU membership to Cyprus, which is located south of Turkey and east of a sizeable portion of it.
Modern, Democratic, secular Turkish Republic will be a good example for other countries in the region
George Parker in the Financial Times quoted a Brussels diplomat; "It was the same old story, a defence of British interests - the UK is cherry-picking what suits them".
That's about it. Nevertheless, the speech was curiously reassuring as it implied that the Member States were leaving aside their institutional wrangles and were returning to their usual differences.
That between the French and UK visions of Europe has been worked over so many times that the speech could have been written in their sleep by any number of Whitehall mandarins.
The speech is also full of (presumably)unconscious ironies e.g. the reference to EFTA, that forgotten organisation which it can hardly be argued was a success for British diplomacy as it did not prove an alternative to full UK membership of the EEC.
Another example; "The EU has been defined for the past 50 years by a focus on internal change: by the Franco-German bargain over industry and agriculture, by the creation of a single market and the drive for basic shared social standards; by EMU". With the exception of the single market, the UK has not been involved in defining the EU in any of the ares mentioned. How then can the UK be "fully engaged in the current debates about policy reform in Europe"? Is the suggestion that the European Central Bank - in which the UK is not participating - provide the model for a European Carbon Bank to be taken as one answer?
Where the Foreign Secretary hit the nail on the head was in his comments on 10 years of institutional wrangling; "everyone who has participated is exhausted; and the rest of the European population are either bored or angry".
This raises the question of why governments in the EU are not addressing the problems they confront with their populations with regard to digesting the existing enlargement before starting a debate about the next one.
Will, for example, there be continued agreement to allow countries such as Germany and Austria to continue to limit full freedom of movement until 2011 if Croatia joins in 2009? Or will the drive to expand the EU blind some Member States, and notably the UK, to the fact that there must (and should have been) a EU-wide common position on this essential topic before any new members can be admitted (as was the case with earlier enlargements)?
The Foreign Secretary does not deal with issues relating to justice and home affairs, no doubt having regard to the White Paper just published by the Cabinet Office "Security in a Global Hub - establishing the UK's new border arrangements". This takes an entirely national perspective on what is supposed to be a European problem. The White Paper's one saving grace is that it takes a more pragmatic and realistic view than that taken by the Commission and there may be scope for some reconciliation of views in the context of the new institutional arrangements and the new - rather, standard - legal instruments to be adopted istead of the ersatz versions currently in use which allow Member States to knit their own.
I cannot see anything special in the speach as such. If anything is special is who gave it and what does it say about his relationship with the Prime Minister. Gordon Brown is clearly trying to steer attention away from the Lisbon Treaty with his anti- anti-americanism, so what is going on?
Only someone intent on the destruction of the EU would suggest extending it beyond the borders of Europe. For many, even Turkey is a step too far.
The EU works because its member states have a common history and culture, and all states are stable democratic and respect individual freedom.
Just as one example, the idea of extending free movement of labour and open borders (a fundamental principal of the EU) into Asia or North Africa would simply not work.
This 鈥楤ruges speech鈥, the latest EU lecturing from NewLab really shows what their state of confusion about Europe and the EU is. It really goes to show several things: a) How far removed from and ignorant towards the real EU the British mainstream political establishment is; b) it is a reflection of the crisis of identity of the British political and social mainstream, i.e. the incapacity to accept what EUROPE means and, c) above all, this official - and ill informed - British policy of perpetual EU enlargement is the ultimate exercise in double standards.
The British officialdom continues to see the EU in purely economic terms, treating it as little more than a glorified trading block. This is not how the vast majority of European countries and citizens see the EU. I will give a simple example. Britain is the ONLY EU member, out of 27, that has opted out from the two single most fundamental EU policies, the two that have more direct impact on more people on a daily basis than any other EU policy: Schengen and the euro. While a few years ago you could find British politicians supporting euro membership, I still have to hear ANY British politician, of any sign, supporting membership of Schengen, or even talking about it. Of course, the euro is predominantly an economic policy of the EU, but not so Schengen. Schengen embodies the principle of TRUE freedom of movement inside the EU as if one was traveling inside their own country. Hence, Schengen embodies what the EU is ESSENTIALLY about: A COMMUNITY OF EUROPEAN NATIONS AND PEOPLE. Any chance of NewLab - or the British mainstream, for that matter - getting that message...? How can the British government lecture the EU on priorities when it is not part or the REAL EU in the first place? I don鈥檛 know if this is arrogance or ignorance or both.
Secondly, I referred to the British crisis of identity and the difficulty for the majority to accept that a) the UK is geographically part of Europe and b) the EU is an alliance of EUROPEAN countries. Admittedly, it is a big leap for a country that dominated a large part of the world until the early 20th century to now realise that it is just one of many EUROPEAN countries that form the EU. Perhaps for that reason the British government chooses to forget that the EU stands for EUROPEAN UNION.
Finally, this policy of 'perpetual EU enlargement' reflects hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order. Has the British government heard of the Copenhagen criteria for EU enlargement? It says that each and every new member has to adopt the WHOLE of the 'acquis communautaire' or EU legislation, which includes Schengen and the euro. So, it follows that the UK wants all these dozens of new countries that it wants to join the EU to sign up to policies that the UK doesn't want to sign up to itself. How hypocritical is that? It is also disingenuous to want to become even more isolated. The UK is already the only member out of 27 out of the most fundamental EU policies. Does it want to look even more isolated, becoming the only country out of 35 or 40 opting out from fundamental EU policies? The reality is that the UK has already lost its battle against a 鈥榙eeper鈥 EU. It wanted to have a wider EU so that political integration would fail. Well, the EU is a lot wider, but - most of it - has gone ahead with political integration nonetheless (again, Schengen and the euro) leaving the UK far behind inside its own mini-EU.
I read a reaction to Milliband鈥檚 speech from a quango called the Centre for European Reform saying that the UK has already won the battle against a European superstate. What battle? Against who? The European superstate is a mythical creature created by eurosceptics; it doesn鈥檛 exist in the European mainstream. For the EU mainstream consensus it is perfectly possible for POLITICAL integration to be compatible with the sovereignty of individual nations. This is a subtlety that the UK seems totally incapable to understand. It is precisely for this reason that it is the ONLY EU member that has opted out from Schengen and the euro.
Why is it that every speech discussing military expansion in Europe comes just after the decision is made to (further) cut our own Armed Forces.
Let's put our OWN house in order...
Too bad the Beagle II crashed. If it hadn't the EU could have invited Mars to join.
"European Army," now there' a laugh. I'll bet they could whip any troop of girl scouts in the world hands down. Well at least if the girl scouts gave them a head start advantage.
I'm not a Miliband fan by any means, but damn right, its good to see somebody take a stand against the idea of the EU becoming a special club that only certain countries are fit to join. If Turkey sorts out its Human Rights problems then there is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be allowed to join.
I've got just as much in common with people from countries like Moldova, Ukraine, Israel etc as I do with people from Holland or Belgium and its an absolute farce to claim otherwise. The bigger the club the more we can learn from one another, and provide a model for other regional organisations to follow (and hopefully they'll have learnt not to give themselves an ECJ!). Frankly the attitude of the German press on the Europe question is shameful I think, as is the near contempt that countries like France hold for the post 2004-Member states.
I'm sure I read above somebody say the UK hasn't contributed significantly to any moment in the EU's development - well what about offering the accession states true freedom of movement, the chance to feel like they were actually part of the European Union, unlike many of the other countries who put up the "sorry, no vacancies" sign whilst watching how we got on.
I'm not a Miliband fan by any means, but damn right, its good to see somebody take a stand against the idea of the EU becoming a special club that only certain countries are fit to join. If Turkey sorts out its Human Rights problems then there is absolutely no reason that it shouldn't be allowed to join.
I've got just as much in common with people from countries like Moldova, Ukraine, Israel etc as I do with people from Holland or Belgium and its an absolute farce to claim otherwise. The bigger the club the more we can learn from one another, and provide a model for other regional organisations to follow (and hopefully they'll have learnt not to give themselves an ECJ!). Frankly the attitude of the German press on the Europe question is shameful I think, as is the near contempt that countries like France hold for the post 2004-Member states.
I'm sure I read above somebody say the UK hasn't contributed significantly to any moment in the EU's development - well what about offering the accession states true freedom of movement, the chance to feel like they were actually part of the European Union, unlike many of the other countries who put up the "sorry, no vacancies" sign whilst watching how we got on.
JorgeG at post 19 says it so well, the debate in London and the rest of Europe, is miles apart.
The UK is designing itself a separate second class membership, outside of Schengen, Euro, Charter of Fundamental Rights, Justice and 91热爆 affairs etc.
Yes some of the original 15 took the opportunity to put in transitional measures re free movement of labour, but all but Germany and Austria will have phased them out by next year and the last will go go in 2011.
Assume Brown wins in 2009 and Milliband is the Labour candidate in 2014, he will be facing an EU of 28, (Croatia in, Turkey still waiting), Schengen in force in all bar UK and Ireland (they are not willing to put up barriers on the Irish land border but if we joined they would). Euro membership would have reached if not all of the other 27 easily 22-25.
The idea of free movement of labour from Cairo to Cardiff and Baghdad to Birmingham, I do not think so.
The idea of full membership for Israel is laughable, free movement of people of any religion ability for free movement of capital, Charter of Fundamental rights enforced by Strasbourg court re all sorts of issues.
Wish you were the Americas blogger ... such detail. In my opinion, there are damned few newsmen left in the world.
Great report.
In my humble opinion the key question regarding enlargement is that EU countries don't actually control the process. The question is: Will they ask us to accept them?
Because, should 'they' ask (and 'they' here can mean Turkey, Morocco, Israel, Lebanon, Ukraine...) the question becomes 'Are we going to reject them?' and to that question the answer will always be 'No', because the consequences of such a rejection are to dreadful to consider.
Once a country decides it wants to join the Union, EU members can delay things, demand legal changes, impose economic reforms... but in the end, if a country is firmly decided to join the EU and willing to do whatever it takes to join the European Club, it will.
In other order of things, I would say that linking enlargement with the abandonment of federalist dreams is a mistake. There are already enough countries opposed to 'a closer union' in the EU to make uniform progress impossible. The countries willing to progress towards a real Europe know that they will have to proceeed leaving the others behind, at leat for the time being - see the Euro, or Schengen...
And, for the record, I would be in favor of Turkey and Israel entering EU. If that is compatible with Turkish nationalism or with Israel being a Jewish state is for them to decide; if they are willing to accept the rules of our club, we should let them in, and that applies also to countries like Canada, for example...
I have a theory that the only reason we (UK) joined the EEC (now EU) was because the USA told us we had to; to ensure the EU 诲颈诲苍鈥檛 get too strong or successful. If so, we did (and are doing) our job quite well!
I am largely in agreement with #18. But it would be unfair to attribute all of the problems of the EU to the UK. The failure of the Continental member states to live up to the requirements of Enlargement by introducing full freedom of movement is but one example. I am not critical (#21) of the UK action in doing so.
Incidentally, Cyprus is neither a member of the Eurozone or Schengen. Ireland is a member of the Eurozone but not Schengen. Denmark and Sweden are not members of the Eurozone, but are members of Schengen. Iceland and Norway, that are not even members of the EU, are members of Schengen. When it comes to "variable geometry", the UK is also not alone.
Finally, it was heartening to see the Foreign Secretary come to the defence of the role of the Commission. The entire European edifice is built on the Community method viz. sole right of initiative of the Commission, QMV and the inability of the Member States to reject in negotiation a Commission proposal except on the basis of unanimity, a mechanism which has shown its worth as it allows the Commission to negotiate to find the "general interest of the Union" (Article 9d of the Reform Treaty).
The unwillingness on the part of the Member States generally to accept this mechanism in the area of police and judicial cooperation may be noted.
At poster #18. Actually Britain is not the only country to opt out of the euro. Both Denmark and Sweden have followed the same route. In addition, the Republic of Ireland too is not a part of the Shengen treaty. Let us stay on board with the facts please.
As for the European superstate not existing even in theory, you might want to take a look at Guy Verhofstadt's "The United States of Europe". Verhofstadt was the man the French and Germans wanted as the head of the European Commission. Go back even further and look at what people like Delors and the founding fathers of the ECC envisioned in the future. You would be wrong to discount the notion that there are people out there who see a European superstate, which is a catastrophic idea. I have a hunch it is a vehicle to serve two purposes:
1. counterweight to American power
2. tool for inherently bigger nations such as France and Germany to use the EU's power and sphere as their own.
Lets get real here and realize that there is a CLEAR ideological division and that it is not the product of euroskeptic Brits.
David Milliband said that an unelected EU Commission with a monopoly on legislative initiative is needed to 鈥榬epresent the interest of Europe as a whole鈥. But the common good as perceived by the Commission 鈥 the accumulation of more powers for the EU institutions 鈥 is not perceived as being for the common good by electorates across Europe that are disenfranchised by the transfers of these powers from the democratic parliaments we elect. The powers of the EU Commission were expressly designed by Monnet to prevent the Council of Ministers from being able to take any initiative to return powers to national democracies. The Commission and its inappropriate powers are an integral part of the one-way ratchet to a super-state.
No other supranational organisation has an institution equivalent to the EU Commission with equivalent powers and none suffers from the same deep crisis of legitimacy. The EU鈥檚 problems are directly linked to giving unelected bureaucrats a monopoly on changes to law superior to any other over 500 million people, and to the imposition of this law by qualified majority voting over the heads of electorates who cannot elect a new government to change this law once created. If the WTO can use unanimity with 139 member-states then there is no reason why the EU cannot with just 27.
At the risk of over-staying my welcome in these exchanges, the comments by #29 cannot be allowed to go un-answered as they reflect a profound misunderstanding of the Community method. It is the Council of Ministers (i.e. the representatives of the Member States) usually in co-decision with the European Parliament (elected directly by the citizens of the Member States) that adopts legislation, not the Commission. The Commission proposes but only the legislature (Council/Parliament) disposes. The changes introduced by the Reform Treaty would monitor even more closely than at present the activities of the Commission (already under scrutiny in any case both by diligent committees of national civil servants under "comitology" procedures and the European Parliament).
If the Euro model could be successfully transported to other continents the world would be a better place. Wether we would want Euro expansion to other continents is a different matter.
What about the European Parliament?? With the Commission so powerful, unelected and lacking in any real legitimacy the elected members of the Parliament SHOULD be the ones with the real decision and law making powers. Then, perhaps people might bother to vote and to change our representatives should we wish to do so.
Mr Miliband, it is called EUROPEAN union.
Therefore, not a single non European country may EVER be admitted. Not a single one!
Ergo: no Turkey (99% non Europe, no Russia (70% non Europe), no Israel, no USA, no Australia, no Iraq, no Syria.
I've always said the EU is one of the tools of the OWG (one world government) crowd. Therefore it is imperative that it be destroyed and sovereignty be restored. Miliband was just being honest and upfront. His fellow oneworldgovernmenters (Bush, Clinton, Blair etc) will privately lambast him for this.
@ Denis O'Leary:
the sole people who should be allowed to legislate are the national elected parliaments. Let political integration be stopped and dismantled immediately.
Legislative power may only ever lie with DIRECTLY elected peoples. None of this 'but they were appointed by those who were appointed by those who were elected' INDIRECT nonsense. And anyways, those who were elected received no mandate from their electorate to pass lawmaking powers from national parliaments to EU unelected politicians.
At poster #28. "Actually Britain is not the only country to opt out of the euro. Both Denmark and Sweden have followed the same route. In addition, the Republic of Ireland too is not a part of the Shengen treaty. Let us stay on board with the facts please."
This is precisely what I said 鈥 or at least intended to say: The UK is the ONLY EU member that has opted out from BOTH Schengen and the Euro. I am fully aware that Sweeden and Denmark are also out of the euro. With regards to Ireland being out of Schengen, this doesn't count. They are only out of Schengen because they don't want to yet again see a fortified border being erected between the North and the South - which is what would happen if they joined - but they absolutely would do so if the UK were to join Schengen.
As regards to Sweeden and Denmark staying out of the euro, at least they did hold referendums, while in the UK the decision to opt out (same as with Schengen) was taken exclusively by politicians, so much for British democracy. Since the UK is a member of the EU it SHOULD have put Schengen and the euro to referendum rather than politicians opting out on their own accord, as these 鈥 Schengen and the euro - are absolutely key and fundamental policies of an entity that the UK is already a member of, irrespectively of what the likely outcome would have been. I don鈥檛 think the opposite is necessarily true. If a country is part of the EU and its citizens are largely in agreement with that, as it happens in Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Ireland, France, and the vast majority of EU members, then there is no democratic necessity to hold a referendum to JOIN a key policy of an entity which they are happily part of. Conversely, if a member country doesn鈥檛 join these key policies but doesn鈥檛 bother to consult its people, like the UK has done, that is a FUNDAMENTAL FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY. So the eurosceptics, who permanently accuse the EU of being undemocratic, should look to their own backyard first (starting with the first past the post) and demand some real democracy here first.
Finally, you say "Lets get real here and realize that there is a CLEAR ideological division and that it is not the product of euroskeptic Brits." Now imagine that this (a superstate) was the EU agenda, and also imagine that EU countries were in fact ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats. None of this is actually the case, but it seems to me that it is the UK the only country who has a big problem about it. I don't know of many - or any - other EU countries that have this fixation about this. How about then to bring some democracy to this country and hold an IN or OUT referendum and either a) liberate eurosceptics from their demons or b) if the result was to stay in the EU (what EU, in any case, the REAL one or the UK version?) then accept the democratic will of the people - admitedly not very likely.
To Denis O鈥橪eary (30): There is (unfortunately) no misunderstanding on my part regarding the powers of the EU institutions or the 鈥榗ommunity method鈥. It is a fact that when the 鈥榗ommunity method鈥 applies the EU Commission has a monopoly on legislative initiative. There can be no new EU law (or change to EU law) without a proposal from the Commission and the Commission has never once in its history proposed any reduction in the body of European law. The EU law that only it may initiate replaces not just national law but also the ability of our national parliaments to legislate in the area covered by new EU law. The inevitable result of such a system will鈥 over decades 鈥 be the gradual but inevitable extinguishing of the ability of the national parliaments we elect to legislate in any area where the EU has assumed competence. It is entirely fair to say this monopoly on legislative initiative is an integral part of the one-way ratchet to a European super-state. Indeed this is the design goal of Monnet in devising these arrangements and the intent of Merkel et al in extending their scope to almost all policy areas.
The reality of the 鈥榗ommunity method鈥 is that when it is used - and under the resurrected EU Constitution it would be the norm - a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers may approve a legislative proposal from the Commission, but the Council of Ministers may only modify a Commission proposal with the unanimous agreement of all 27 national governments (unless they are supported by the European Parliament when a qualified majority is necessary - see Article 251 EC). And if the unelected Commission fears such unanimity of all the elected governments of Europe may develop it may (see article 250 EC) withdraw its proposal to avoid being forced to amend its legislative proposals. This gives the Commission enormous power to set the legislative agenda in the EU 鈥 far greater than is held by the executive in any parliamentary or presidential democracy anywhere in the world. In Westminster for example individual MPs can propose their own bills and also amend draft legislation introduced by the executive (cabinet). In the USA only members of the legislature (Congress) may initiate legislation with the executive (President) restricted by Article 2.3 of the US Constitution to merely 鈥渞ecommending鈥 to Congress such measures as he shall judge necessary. The powers of the Commission are therefore inappropriate even for the executive of a democratic nation-state. But when one considers that the EU Commission is an unelected supranational executive that can never answer to any people (because the EU does not have one) and initiates legislation superior to any other that replaces not just national law but also the ability of our democratic national parliaments to legislate in the area covered by that law, then the powers of the Commission can only be regarded as obscene.
Any trivial extension to the period in which national parliaments may scrutinize Commission proposals is entirely useless unless accompanied by a power to reject. Nor is the Council of Ministers any democratic check against the Commission. If we do not like a national law we can elect a new government to replace that law, but once a one-time qualified majority in the Council of Ministers (which need not include the UK) has approved a Commission proposal we can never again elect a new government to replace this EU law no matter how strongly we or future generations feel about it. It will 鈥 like the CAP 鈥 live indefinitely on the statute books forever beyond the reach of our votes. The unseemly haste with which national executives rush to legislate at EU level can indeed by explained by the desire of the governments of today to create law that cannot be reversed by their successors and also (because national executives sit in the Council of Ministers approving legislation that cannot be blocked by their national parliaments) to bypass democratic checks on their executive power at national level. I believe that it is you Dennis that has the 鈥榩rofound misunderstanding鈥 if you do not acknowledge this is an accurate description of the 鈥榗ommunity method鈥 and its debilitating effect on our democracy.
How can Milliband suggest that North Africa and the Middle East should be part of Europe. What is European about them? This what happens when you put a kid in an important job like this.
As for the European Commission it should be replaced by a Cabinet from the European Parliament with posts allocated on the d'Hondt formula used in Northern Ireland. Then we could have some accountability. It should not be an old age home for politicians who have passed their sell-by date.
#28: The United Kingdom remains, however, the only member state to opt out of both.
I would also like to ask those complaining about the Commission being unelected; when was the last time you voted for Minister of Defense, Public Health or Economic Affairs? Members of the commission are proposed by each member state and confirmed unanimously; afterwards, the European Parliament can still send them all home.
@Simon L (22):
there is one very good reason for Turkey not being allowed in under any circumstances, two very good reasons actually.
1.it is not European (Asia Minor is not Europe)
2.the peoples do not want it
@ Foeke (33)
how do we, the peoples, determine what political color the supreme government of Europe (the EU, that is) has? How do we influence it? We want DIRECT democracy, not this indirect business (for which there never has been a mandate).
"there is one very good reason for Turkey not being allowed in under any circumstances:
it is not European (Asia Minor is not Europe) [#39]
Actually Turkey would be much better off creating a Confederaton of Turkic Republics (with oil/gas rich Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan) rather than joing EU.
However, if Turkey is not in Europe how do you justify an admission of Cyprus, a speck of land located way east of Istanbul and south of Antalya? :-)
Europeans, just say "No" to Israel and "Maybe" to Turkey. Israel joining NATO and the European Union are American fantasies. Israel isn't in Europe. Israel isn't our problem. Let Israel join the United States of America. As General Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State said, the Israelis knew more about what his government was doing than he did.
Mark of Beagle II jokes, the "Army", European Defence Force, is indeed a laugh -- the last laugh because, unlike NATO, we can fight.
Miliband, Brits out!
#40, last time I checked the Falklands and Reunion are EU soil, even though they are much further away than Turkey or Cyprus. The problem with Turkey is not so much geography, but
-its occupation of an EU member state
-an extreme turkish nationalism(part of the education system)
-army intervention in state matters
-a dismal human rights record,
-ultranationalistic laws like "insulting turkishness"
-the kurdish issue
-practices that are not acceptable in the EU(like family honor beatings and killings)
-a huge army with offensive capabilities against neighboring EU countries(I can understand an army
looking to its eastern border, but a huge army corps with
amphibious landing capabilities stationed at the borders with EU member states is not acceptable)
Dear a. dimitriou
Greece has the similar problems but they are member of EU somehow
-extreme greek nationalism (part of education problem)
-orthodox church and army itervention in state matters
-a dismal human rights records in Greece
-western thrace issue
-Turkish population in northern greece are not allowed to use Turkish language
-human rights abuses against Albanians in the Southern Epirus region of Greece
etc. etc. etc.
"European Army," now there' a laugh. I'll bet they could whip any troop of girl scouts in the world hands down. Well at least if the girl scouts gave them a head start advantage." [#20]
That's not fair. Remember heroic stand of Dutch troops at Srebrenica?
And France has at least one formation which doesn't escape from the battlefield but actually holds and sometimes even gains ground.
It's called FOREIGN Legion.
Greece and Italy also had great combat troops - couple of thousand years ago; Spain had something called Armada at one point and Portugal - great sailors and conquistadors.
As for Czechia, Belgium and Luxemburg, well, it seems I'll have to do more research.