Making hay with the PM's diary clash
MPs will today debate the treaty of Lisbon which Gordon Brown may, although then again, . Officials still say with a straight face that they are trying to resolve a diary clash.
is indeed an important duty for the PM but the MPs who make it up are not completely inflexible.
Unless the usually efficient diary secretaries in have suddenly been overcome with incompetence, this is hard to swallow.
But it's equally difficult to believe that Mr Brown would have thought he would have gained any brownie points from opponents of the treaty by signing up to it, but not signing it in person.
He will, however, annoy other European leaders and the Commission, who may be reminded that, and both came to Brussels within days of their election, Mr Brown has yet to make the trip as Prime Minister.
about this clumsiness and the treaty itself.
I was struck, listening back to an interview with the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, how often he used the conditional tense: he is not accepting that the treaty, and the changes it proposes, are a done deal.
Indeed, he tells me that, if there is not a referendum, he will regard the treaty as illegitimate, although he doesn't want to spell out the practical implications of that for a Conservative government.
In the interview I focused on the implications of the treaty for EU foreign policy.
Mr Hague told me: "I am very worried about what is happening in foreign affairs. The creation of a European foreign minister is a major development. And is intended to be.
"In the new treaty he is called High Representative: that is simply a change of terminology (from the European Constitution). There are no other changes to the intended role of the foreign minister.
"So you do get here the structure of a "European foreign ministry and the drafters of this treaty intend that will create more and more power at the European level over time."
The treaty does state in black and white that Britain will not lose any control over its own policy but Mr Hague is not impressed.
"There is meant to be legal protection in the treaty for Britain's independent foreign policy, but according to legal experts it is only a declaration, not legally binding protocol.
"This is something we should be very worried about that will change the dynamics of determining foreign policy over time.
"I don't think we would be told what to do with our troops in Afghanistan, but the atmosphere that would be created and the institutions that would be created would increasingly push us and other countries towards thinking that we have to have agreement on foreign policy across the European Union as a whole."
Mr Hague also raises a point that most of the others I have talked to about this have also spotted: .
This person is meant to arrange the meetings of the leaders of the nation state and it could be an intensely bureaucratic role, chasing up agreements and patching up alliances in back rooms.
But some want the person who gets the job to be "Mr or Mrs Europe".
The approving member of the cabinet of one EU country told me with a grin: "At last Europe will have a king!"
Mr Hague does not approve: "The President also seems to have a role in foreign policy, in the external representation of the European Union. It's not quite clear how that fits with the High Representative, so some institutional tension is being created for the future.
"But it also means that as well as a European foreign minister going around the world saying "I am the foreign minister of Europe" you have a president going around saying "I am the president of Europe" and that again is intended to accrue more power to the centre, over time, at the expense of the national states."
The shadow foreign secretary is of a book on , and points out it wasn't always clear that whoever held the title of would be Britain's leader.
He thinks the President's job could grow in the same way (some have suggested it could be combined with the role of ).
Mr Hague seems to be rather looking forward to the Lisbon treaty's passage through the Commons next year.
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
It is so sad to see that some UK politicians just don't want to understand the nature of the EU. I just wish they would stop misleading the public.
The new EU "foreign minister" and the new EU President would just represent the COLLECTIVE will of the Member States. Therefore, they would also speak on behalf of the UK after the UK has agreed.
Of course, this is a long way from former British imperial glory where other nations would just be forced through military power to comply.
But I find this sytem of pooled sovereingty much more appropriate in a complex and globalised world, even if it seems a bit too intellectually challenging for simple souls like Mr Hague.
As a Labour supporter, I do admire William Hague's intellect. He is a very intelligent politician and also authored a fantastic book on William Wilberforce. His book on Pitt the Younger is equally fascinating.
Now, I do not agree with Mr. Hague's politics but I think it's a shame that people like Ronald (comment #1) feel the need to insult a man who, in all fairness, probably knows much more about foreign affairs than you do. With respect Ronald, having read your previous comments, it is clear that you are very envious of Britain for whatever reason.
As it is, I don't think that the creation of an EU foreign minister threats British soverignty. I don't think any EU member state would stand for that.
However, I can understand the possibility of a job clash with that of EU president. But thsi just reminds me of Tony Blair and Jack Straw.
Blair focused much of his time on foreign policy decisions. Jack Straw, an apparent "Brownite", would surely havd had some clashes with him but ultimaley it's the Prime Minister who gets the final say.
Although I'm sure it will be difficult, I'm sure both the roles of EU President and EU Foreign Rep will evolve over time. We shall just have to see.
Ronald, I am sure Mr Hague is far from a "simple soul". Maybe you could explain to me, as the man of great intellect you clearly are, what is the COLLECTIVE will of the EU. What if there is no agreement, as for example over Kosovo? If we can't agree on a small state in our back yard what hope of a coherent EU foreign policy.
As one of two nuclear powers in the EU and with one of the larger armies would the UK end up shouldering the responsibility for military commitments it might disagree with?
You might find the system of pooled sovereignty appropriate, others do not, that does not make them simple.
So Ronald Grunebaum (1) thinks William Hague is a 'simple soul'. Well if he means Hague puts everything in a simple and easy to understand manner then he is spot on. Though i doubt that was Ronald,s intention. Hague knows what the EU is about a lot more than you, Ronald Grunebaum.
Hague is correct in what he says and the sooner the EU understands that the majority of us British do not and in the end will not go down this road the better it will be for all concerned.
As for the collective will etc. and therefore the EU would speak on behalf of the UK after the UK agreed ! Is this guy for real or is he just interested in seeing what replies he gets to an utter load of tosh!
This is indeed a matter of convictions, rather than comprehension. But it does seem intriguing to me, how those who advocate the concept of a strong goverment, capable of overriding the will of people when needed, seem to be more or less the same as those who oppose the concept of a strong goverment, capable of overriding the will of countries when needed. This is especially curious in a democratic environment, where "the country" roughly equals "the people". I guess our past overshadows our thinking. We're still fond of some imperial concepts, even though all of our empires have fallen some time ago.
EU "foreign minister", or whatever we call them, is needed precisely because member countries seem unable to agree on most matters. It's needed so a collective will can be developed. If it was possible without at least some transfer of power, we wouldn't need any goverment at all. People would just agree on things. They would achieve common goals through charities.
I think this is mostly an issue of trust. When opposition MPs vote against a bill, and they lose, they don't declare secession from the state. This is possible, because even if they don't trust in the goverment's goodwill, they trust in "the system". More specifically, they trust that having everybody obey them is not as important as having their standpoint considered. They trust that, even if the goverment doesn't listen to them, the general public does.
The same applies at the European level. For the EU to work in all the member states' best interest, it is sufficient that any member's standpoint is considered. On the other hand, the inability to develop a single common stance on any matter would make the EU ineffective (quite often it already does). For instance, if the EU was unable to develop a common policy on Kosovo, in spite of Greek and Spanish objections, it wouldn't be part of the negotiation process. With Serbs and Albanians already unable to make a deal, we would end up with the US and Russia doing things over our heads, again.
So I think we just need more trust in Europe. It's not like Poland is trying to conquer London, you know.
Ronald,
While there are such differences of opinion throughout Europe at a national and even regional level, having one voice will not work. It would be like demanding the Scottish support the English football team.
We are living through a time where nations are experiencing regions desiring autonomy from national governments, yet the EU is trying to bind everyone together.
The concept of a united europe may be well and good. But for it to work it must have buy in from the people.
Typically Gordon Brown, doing his McCavity act again.
He is living up to predictions that he would be a Scottish Europobe, a real Little Englander.
The UK deserves better.
@ TSP (2), Ronald knows very well that what he is saying isn't the whole truth. This EU 'foreign minister' is most definately intended eventually to be a position with full powers.
As always with the engr茅nage method of integration, the EU will create the position or agency first, and then slowly accumulate powers later. As with the relationship between the member states and the EU that will be reversed (ie the EU becomes officially supreme) by the constitution mark II, they will attempt the same thing with this position. The idea is that in time, the EU 'foreign minister' will become leading rather than representing some 'collective will' (which doesn't exist).
This indeed is a very worrying development considering the total lack of mandate for transferring lawmaking powers from the nation states to the EU. What is even more worrying is that those arrogant behind-the-scenes bureaucrats and 'diplomats' in Brussels seem to think that they know better what is good for us than we do. I cannot put in words how much I despise those behind-the-scenes peoples there because it would never get past any censor.
Ronald Gr眉nebaum seems to be one of those 'progressive' types who think that it is much better for appointed unelected unaccountable politicians making all decisions because 'the peoples are too stupid'. He is perfectly willing to ignore the vast majority in every member state who demand a referendum and thinks that anyone who dares to disagree with the EU is too 'simple' to understand. Ronald completely fails to understand that Europe would not be worse off without the EU (career bureaucrats however would be worse off, makes you wonder as to what Ronalds profession is).
I want referendums in every member state. The vast majority (according to the Financial Times) agrees with me.
McCavity Brown's intended absence from the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon (aka the Constitutional Treaty with cosmetic tweaks) is typical. As usual, he believes that by not being present when the excrement hits the ventilator, we won't remember who flung it in the first place.
Funnily enough, Brown doesn't realise that he would accrue himself immense political credit if he just did what his party promised to do: put the Treaty to a referendum. But writing about courage and acting with courage are two different things.
Ronald Gr眉nebaum's distain for Britain is such that I'm surprised that he wants us in his USofE. I seriously wonder what his motive is for contributing to this blog. He must be a UKIP plant. Not even the most ardent EU aparatchiks display such a combination of haughty arrogance and disingenuousness.
Mark: Acording to the portuguese newspaper Publico, this is/was part of a manouver to preasure the portuguese presidency not to go forward with the joint vote about two proposals. One about protection of temporary workers, and one about working hours.
Just forwarding the info.
@Justin (#2) Why would the UK be forced to commit it's military to something it didn't want? Common foreign policies are a self-declared objective of the Treaty, but only politics can create that, no Treaty can generate artifical consensous if member-states do not agree.
Mark,
Has it slipped your mind that the tories may have their own problems with Europe? Surely you can't have forgotten about Tory splits on Europe? Or is that not part of your current role to question the opposition.
Isn't it about time, if not overdue for the ordinary mass of people in this country who are sick and tired of this inept and non caring government, to get off their bottoms and show their anger at the way we are treated. No matter who I speak to everyone feels the same. Well let's do some thing about it
I agree with R.Grunebaume (1) except that Mr.Hague is not simple. He is just a clever politician who sees that there are votes in kidding a gullible (see WMD)jingoistic part of the British public that Britain can go it alone etc. This euroseptic group still live in 1945 and are an impediment to Britain assuming her rightful place as the leading or one of the leading European nations. Today British foreign policy in most areas (see Dr.Mugabe) only has meaning as part of a wider EU policy. To paraphrase the Croatia football coach's recent statement to Britain: "Wake up. Who do you think you are? The world is moving on and you are left behind!"
Brown should definitely attend. At least have the guts to sign it.
I don't think there will be a conflict between the new posts, They seem like they are well defined:
President - President (King?)
EC President - PM
HR - Foreign Minister
No?
Have to agree with John O'Brien about our Mr Brown aping little englander attitudes.
Where, for example, can be the objection to any of the articles in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (https://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/unit/charte/index_en.html), except, of course, those dealing with Freedoms (Article 19), Solidarity (especially 27 & 28), Justice (Article 50) and not forgetting Article 8:
Protection of personal data!
Jacek Weso艂owski wrote:
So I think we just need more trust in Europe. It's not like Poland is trying to conquer London, you know.
Maybe not but Germany and France are.
As regards the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution, if it is only half as good as our Gordon is telling us what has he to fear. We would all agree with it wouldn't we?
It does seem from all the latest polls that all the "simple people", (mentioned earlier), in Europe would like the chance to vote in a referendum. That of course is not allowed, it's not EU policy.
One other item, here in the United Kingdom we have four nations that cannot agree with each other, never mind the whole of Europe. I'm afraid it will all end in tears.
According to the excellent consolidated document put together by the Institute of International and European Affairs (as recommended by Mark in an earlier post), "The common foreign and security policy ... shall be defined and implemented by the European Council and the Council acting unanimously ... [and] put into effect by the High Representative" (Treaty on European Union Title V, Article 11.1).
So to answer The Secret Person (post 3), where the Member States don't agree on a policy in an area, there's no Common Policy for the High Representative to put into effect. Which is likely to disappoint Jacek in post 5, but should reassure Angry John in post 6 - we won't be required to sing along together, but once we've agreed we shall, the proposal gives us a conductor to follow!
Amazingly, some posters seem to know me or at least my level of knowledge in foreign affairs. Sorry, but you don't.
Equally, people make a lot of assumptions about the majority opinions in Member States. Well, read Eurobarometer and learn.
The europhobes also forget that 2 referenda went in favour of the constitutional treaty, 2 went against. Hardly prove that Europeans are against it. Rather prove of a selective perception in some quarters.
And "the secret person" (#3) should just familiarise him-/herself with the modalities of the EU. Reading Mark's blog is a good start.
Europe is going to get more than they bargained for: not just a king, a wannabe divine emperor promoted by the pope. Herbert W. Armstrong warned about the final revival of the "Holy Roman Empire" for years, and now it's happening before our eyes. The EU is a German ruse.
Ronald Gr眉nebaum wrote: ".... it seems a bit too intellectually challenging for simple souls like Mr Hague."
How typical of the admirers of socialist philosophy - they cannot refute the argument so they launch ad hominem attacks on the speaker.
I think Hague has summed up the main problems very well and my own position is that the UK needs to be more loosely coupled with Europe, not necessarily separate from it, but certainly not run by it - too much of that happens already.
The simple fact of the matter is that the thought of losing control over the UK terrifies European politicians. Without british money many euro-projects would simply have to be scrapped.
Twas ever thus. Look back through history and see how many european nations and leaders have coveted the UK's wealth - start with the Celts, the Romans, the Vikings, the Normans, the Spanish, the French, the Church (thank you Henry VIII!!). Our history is one long repeat for foisting off europeans who simply want their snouts in out trough.
The battles and invasions have failed. The EU is simply version 2 of a very old ploy.
I think Mr Hague has a very good point. This links to issues raised in you previous post.
The Council will adopt legislative acts in respect of commerce, trade, development aid, environment, energy etc., all of which may have implications for the EU's common foreign and security policy. Will these limit what Foreign Ministers can decide? Or will Foreign Ministers and the High Representative have a role in determining the policy to follow in those other areas?
In Council meetings the President will as Chair have the task of facilitating agreement on action to be taken on a proposal from the Commission. That means the relevant Commissioner will be at all Council meetings to defend the Commission's proposal.
I don't understand what is supposed to happen in meetings of the Council when it considers foreign and security policy, where the High Representative will, apparently, be responsible both for defending the Commission's policy proposal and facilitating Council agreement on it.
Nor do I understand the respective roles of the Commission's staff (the relevant DG) and the Council Secretariat in this process.
Ronald Grunebaum always seems more fixated on Britain's imperial history than any Briton I know. His posts often have a touch of envy about them. For the record, Ronald, like William Hague, most of us are quite capable of thinking for ourselves; we do not like what we see about the way that the EU has developed, wish to have no further political integration, indeed wish to repatriate powers to ourselves that should never have been surrendered in the first place. Britain is still a free democracy, and its subjects are just waking up to the fact that if we wish to remain so, then now is the time to stand up and be counted. Thank God for politicians like Mr Hague who have both the wisdom and the courage to articulate the views of the majority.
eu treaty no no no get brown out save our country britain belongs to the british not the eu and all this forcing together of different countries will one day blow up in there faces lol
i find Ronald Grunebaum to be unrealistic and in no way credible in his comments about Mr Hague. He is no simple mind. As i don't completely agree with Mr Hagues spin on things over the points of the foreign minister or the president. this will lead to total loss of Sovereinegty and democratic government of and by the people.
i for one will not live under this yoke. i don't beleive my Scotland will give its identity up the the EU back room government. this is ploy for power over all of Europe and it cannot be allowed.
We must have a referendum on the signing of the EU constitution. parliment must understand the thoughts and wishes of the UK. Which they are bound to listen to and act on.
Gordon Brown might as well be known as Emperor Gordon Brownaparte the Dictator, he has decided not to listen to the public he is supposed to serve. now he serves the EU and Angela Merkel. i wonder what back room deals have been made for him to betray us all in the UK. this man and situation must be stopped and he must be brought to heal. we in scotland want our independence.
Should Mr Brownshirt sign us away to the EU and then try to get it through commons i think he will be surprised how fast he will be out of a job. He may also find he is no longer welcome were he was borne . now that he serves england along with his disregaurd for Scotland and the UK people in general
Marcel et al, I have to ask. In your world view, should Californian troops not go to Iraq? After all, California voted by a wide margin against President Bush. Twice.
No, that's right. Sometimes their viewpoint comes through, sometimes it doesn't. In order that when their viewpoint comes through it may be expressed, they need to respect when they are outvoted, and act in such a way as they would expect others to when they are in the majority.
The same is the case in the EU.
Hague is, of course, not an academically 'simple' man. That does not change the fact that in every pronouncement he makes on Europe, he selectively takes facts, and spins them in order for his opinions to sound more reasonable than they are. Just as every politician does.
And what is your obsession with things being legislated for? Systems evolve, they always have and always will. It's a good thing. It's called progress. Written law cannot react to it with any speed. Unwritten convention can and does.
The best approach to the EU is what one uses in one's everyday life. If you don't trust someone or something, you avoid them/it like the plague. So, if we do not trust the EU's High Representative not to sometimes act in a manner that we won't always approve of, then we should avoid having anything to do with someone in that position. And, by extension, if we don't always approve of the EU's actions & intentions, then we should avoid it too. And how do we avoid it? Just by leaving it! Simple, really! And, as in most complex situations, the simple solutions are always the best ones!
Prior to June 2007, Labour were the party with the better credibility on Europe. Gordon Brown had kept the UK out of the Euro where as the Conservatives were the party of Maastricht. But the deceit of Brown in marching his MPs through the Westminster lobby to vote directly against a manifesto commitment is unprecedented in the history of our democracy and is not something that voters should let him get away with. What price now a commitment in the next Labour party manifesto to hold a referendum before joining the euro? What purpose indeed in writing a manifesto at all if politicians can violate it once elected and by doing so at EU level ensure that we cannot reverse their action by electing a new government later? In his recent Oxford speech Barosso said that the EU creates a de-facto solidarity between European leaders. What he means is that these leaders are compelled by the institutional mechanisms of the EU to take actions favoured by a majority of their colleagues even when this action is not supported by the voters who elected them. The de-facto solidarity between EU leaders that he champions breaks the linkage between voters and government and is not something that can be tolerated any longer.
That the Liberal Democrats should also hold liberal democracy in similar contempt is perhaps even more unforgivable. What are we to make now of Nick Clegg鈥檚 2003 article in the Guardian arguing for a referendum?
Few politicians are improving their reputation through this sordid affair, but William Hague is one. It is encouraging to hear the Conservatives will regard any ratification of the EU Constitution without a referendum as illegitimate. While I can understand that he is reluctant at this stage to spell out the implications for a future Conservative government I am more than distrustful of half-promises on the EU from politicians that come to nothing or turn out to be blatant deceits. The Conservatives need to pull Britain out of the EU in a 2nd term and their manifesto for a 1st term should include measures to prepare public opinion. For example a promise to hold a cost-benefit analysis of EU membership (which can only show that costs now exceed benefits) and a promise to negotiate real reform in the EU which if not successful could form the 鈥榗asus belli鈥 for later withdrawal. As this blog amptly demonstrates, when argument is joined supporters of the EU prove completely incapable of defending a project that has in truth become indefensible. The argument, our freedom and greater prosperity outside the EU are there for the winning if the Conservatives use a 1st term to prepare for it.
I agree with R.Grunebaume (1) except that Mr.Hague is not simple. He is a clever politician who sees that there are votes in kidding a gullible (see WMD)jingoistic part of the British public that it is better for Britain to remain marginalised and separate from the rest of the EU. This euroseptic group still live in 1945 and are an impediment to Britain assuming her rightful place as the leading or one of the leading European nations. Today British foreign policy in most areas (see Mr.Mugabe) only has meaning as part of a wider EU policy. To paraphrase the Croatia football coach's recent statement to Britain: "Wake up! Who do you think you are? The world is moving on and you are left behind!"
Tel Tetel (11): You are absolutely right. The first post (Mr Gr眉nebaum) nearly had it, your modifications are correct.
Unfortunately, those 1945-dwellers control the media and political arenas, with money and vested interest in the petty status quo.
Tel Tetel (11): You are absolutely right. The first post (Mr Gr眉nebaum) nearly had it, your modifications are correct.
Unfortunately, those 1945-dwellers control the media and political arenas, with money and vested interest in the petty status quo.
It is far from my intention to call Mr Hague (or anybody, for that matter) a 鈥榮imple soul鈥 but it seems to me that the Conservative EU policy is something that it's either been conceived by pre-school children or, alternatively, it is the work of some superior mind which is far above the comprehension of the rest of us, mere mortals. I, for one, cannot make any sense of it. We do know one thing; there are a lot of EU-haters about in Britain, including HM鈥檚 Opposition and probably the PM himself. This is a very legitimate stance, the problem is, what to do with this 鈥榟atred鈥? What next? Out of curiosity I politely asked the Tories, through their website, to kindly explain to me what their policy on the EU was. They said things like 'we will be extremely vigorous in pressing for EU reform', 'to promote a positive vision of an outward-looking Europe, rather than an inward-looking EU obsessed with its own bureaucracy 鈥.an EU that has gone too far down the federalist route'. All this, again, is very interesting and legitimate, but then comes the difficult part, which never seems to be forthcoming: What next? What does this abstract statement of principles mean in practice? They, like many posters on this blog and the wider British population, hate the EU 鈥 passionately 鈥 but hey, presto, only a few of them, i.e. the likes of UKIP, want to actually LEAVE the EU. So, what exactly is it that they (the others, not UKIP) want?
I am the first one to admit that the EU is far from perfect, but is the UK a shining example of democracy or being 'outward looking'? I don't want to go into minutiae, but 鈥. the 'First past the Post'? The House of Lords? Political parties financed by wealthy businessmen who then 鈥 surprise, surprise 鈥 turn out to be the first beneficiaries of PFIs and other government largesse? Is that TRULY democratic? Sorry, not in my dictionary... As for the UK being outward looking, this would be the first news I have about it after so many years spent in this part of the world. If it is 鈥 outward looking 鈥 its compass must have got stuck pointing towards a certain geographical point across the North Atlantic.
Going back to my main point, it is totally legitimate to dislike the EU, to hate it even, but what to do next is a very different matter. As I see it there would be two grown up positions to take. One, if the British think that the EU is 'beyond hope' then why not hold the 鈥榤other of all referenda鈥 in this country, an IN or OUT referendum (that's what I would call DEMOCRATIC, never mind 鈥榰nelected Brussels bureaucrats鈥). The other position would be to join the REAL EU (i.e. signing up to Schengen, the Euro, the Bill of Rights, etc.) and then, once inside the real EU, to try to 'press for vigorous reform' of the EU, but acknowledging that the UK is one out of 27 members, and it looks like the majority of EU members see things rather differently (for starters, virtually all of them have signed up to Schengen, the Euro and the Bill or Rights, unlike the UK). Is the UK (i.e. its dominant political majority) pursuing any of these grown up routes? Nope, it is just adopting the following stance: Throwing endless abuse at the EU and/or sulking from the sidelines indulging in the new national sport, EU bashing, and demanding referenda on technicalities, after opting out from virtually all the key EU policies (as mentioned above) without any referenda, purely on the decision of politicians, no doubt of very high intellect, nurtured as they were in highly elitist institutions.
It is significant that several commenters here appear to give a low priority to the sovereignty of their nation states.
Fortunately, some democrats who have real historical knowledge, like William Hague, are aware of the political necessity of preserving the appreciated, accumulated safeguard of the nation state.
For the philosophical underpinnings for this, see the Foreward to Prof. Roger Scruton's book, 'England and the Need for Nations (Civitas):
@ Tel Tetel (27)
wrong, its you EU-philes who desire that the EU insulate you from the rest of the world. We who favor freedom and parliamentary democracy (and thus oppose the anti-democratic EU) look to the entire world. Trading with New Zealand should be as easy and burden-free as trading with Greece. And thanks to the EU, non-EU countries face hurdles and countries trapped in the EU cannot trade freely with the rest of the world without the EU's consent.
Giving away national parliaments competences to an unelected bunch of kommissars, who do you people think you are?
@ John (26)
indeed, what you write is true. The EU was set up in the way that it is deliberately so that national politicians who go to Brussels will, when forced to choose between 'colleagues' and their own electorate, always ignore their electorate beacause cozying up to one's EU friends is beneficial in the long run (ie more jobs to be divided amonst the 'colleagues'). Who needs an electorate when one has achieved the dream of the founding fathers such as Monnet: the de facto elimination of national parliamentary democracy.
And therein lies the core cause/problem. National parliamentary democracy has been rendered effectively obsolete (national parliaments cannot block EU directives churned out by the unelected crowd). Legislative powers now reside with government ministers and their colleagues. This is a direct violation of separation of powers. In the EU, legislative and executive powers both reside with the Council. This is an extremely worrying development, how did we allow this to happen?
@ ROnald Gr眉nebaum
remember that some referendums were cancelled in 2005? It is not coincicental those were all referendums where real opinion polls indicated another mass of no's (Ireland, Britain, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Poland, Czech Republic).
The Eurobarometer you refer to is notoriously unreliable and more often than not wide off the mark. For example, 2 years ago it predicted 70% of the Dutch would vote FOR the constitutional treaty, with 11% opposed and 19% undecided. The Eurobarometer consists of loaded questions and its interviewees do not represent a broad cross section of the public, but instead only of EU-philes.
The Financial Times poll I mentioned is clear indication the majority everywhere wants an immediate referendum.
I am certainly an EU-phobe, because I love freedom, liberty and national parliamentary democracy. You love the idea of having an unelected elitist neo-aristocracy making all decisions. EU-philes are all democracy-phobes.
Pro EU = anti Europe
As a student of politics at university I have followed this European Treaty for some time, and it is clear that there are significant differences between this and the former proposed constitution. We are not going to lose our ability to make decisions in all important areas, the very point of negotiation was to ensure we got a good deal out of this, which we are going to. Now I understand that there are indeed worries about whether or not a sort of federal European system will be to the benefit or detriment of the member states and even those who are not, but surely in a time when sectarianism and nationalism are so rife a small sign of cooperation with international allies is not too much to ask for.
As for calls for a referendum, I do not believe it necessary. After all even if the government called for one they would not have to abide by it, and we elect a government to make decisions on our behalf, they are representatives not delegates and if you don't like what they are doing - don't vote for them at the next election. We can't just shove our way into the decision making process when we wish to, we were not promised a referendum on a treaty and it should be accepted as inevitable this European body will expand - and as long as we maintain our sovereignty in the process and keep close scrutiny on the issue there should be no problem.
Whatever the pros or cons of this Treaty, William Hague (who rather than being a 鈥榮imple soul鈥 Ronald @ # 1, is actually one the best politicians of our time) is absolutely right, i.e., if it is not ratified via the promised referendum then it will have no legitimacy whatsoever in this country.
But whilst Mr. Hague apparently 鈥渄oesn't want to spell out the practical implications of that for a Conservative government鈥 I as a lowly District Councillor, have no such reservations, because the implications are I鈥檓 afraid blindingly obvious; the Conservatives must promise the people a post-ratification referendum.
And we have to do this, because if we don鈥檛, then there will be no escaping the fact that we would have let the British people down over this issue every bit as much as Labour.
I believe that Gordon Brown has no right to sign us up for the EU. I whole heartedly support the efforts of William Hague, and trust that the conservative party would give the country it's say on the issue once they are elected back into power.
This is a fundamental right of the democratic processes, and one that the labour party has failed to deliver from two previous mandates as given at the last two general elections.I say that we don't want to languish in the double dealing clutches of the "Brown Stuff" a minute longer than we have to.Let's give the tories a chance to deliver after the next general election.
It is quite clear that the political elite believes that "The end justifies the means". Denying us a referendum on the shape of this new EU regime bodes ill for the future. The modus opperandi of the Union is not in the least democratic.
Democracy has made positive advance over time but since the rise of The European Union it has gone into reverse. The politicians will simply not trust us the people any longer. No wonder we no longer trust them.