Dancing at Versailles to the EU Treaty
You could hardly choose a more dignified, grand place for an important political event.
I suppose France鈥檚 politicians could hardly have chosen a more appropriate one either to ignore the hoi polloi protesting outside.
The French politicians from so they could go ahead with the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon. And you can see my TV report here.
By the weekend, the Senate, the National Assembly and the President himself will all have wielded the rubber stamp. Indeed, at Versailles they bring in a real, live, giant stamp to endorse the document.
No plan B
President Sarkozy had made no bones about it, and repeatedly made it clear in his election campaign that if he was president there would be no second referendum. Few politicians are open enough to say 鈥渨e just can鈥檛 take the risk鈥, but I thought was pretty direct:
鈥 that gave the European adventure a constitutional look. That was the choice of the French people, and it had to be respected. But we cannot ignore the fact that in doing so we threw Europe, Europe that had hope in us, into surprise and confusion.
鈥淭here was no Plan B, so the European Union was paralysed and the finger was pointed at us. When we voted 鈥楴o鈥 to the 2005 text, we inherited a double responsibility - for ourselves and for Europe - that of giving it back the momentum and spirit that we took away.鈥
Surge of protesters
About 200 metres away from the building itself, a line of police confronts anti globalisation protesters chanting 鈥渨e want a referendum鈥. Some surge forward and it looks as if things are going to turn nasty. One protester tries to make it over the fences in front of their vehicles and is dragged to the ground.
This is an anti globalisation protest against the treaty and these are seasoned campaigners, with many grey beards and bright, knitted jumpers among the youthful piercings and dreadlocks.
One of the organisers, Susan George, tells me they should have the right to vote on this in a referendum. 鈥淭here鈥檚 only cosmetic changes in this text,鈥 she says. 鈥渁nd that鈥檚 what everyone in officialdom says. So we believe that we are being spat upon. They know we would vote 鈥楴o鈥 again.鈥
I asked what she didn鈥檛 like about the treaty. She doesn鈥檛 think a constitution should contain details of economic proposals and says the only other document like this was the constitution of the Soviet Union.
鈥淭his treaty submits us to ,鈥 she says, 鈥渨hich will always be headed by an American, and it says it is the basis of our defence. It makes us agree to increase our arms capacity: I don鈥檛 agree with that. It downgrades public services. It is only interested in the rights of trans-national corporations.鈥
By the time I leave, what seemed like a potential riot earlier in the afternoon has turned into more of a free festival: men and women, dressed in French Revolutionary red-felt bonnets, waltz gently to the sound of an accordion. I feel these class warriors would be rather surprised if the state did pause to heed their views.
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
鈥淭here was no Plan B, so the European Union was paralysed and the finger was pointed at us. When we voted 鈥楴o鈥 to the 2005 text, we inherited a double responsibility - for ourselves and for Europe - that of giving it back the momentum and spirit that we took away.鈥
Now we know what 'B' in premier Fillion's plan B means:
getting EU Constitution in through the Back door.
["Have some fish, baby; it's good for you.
- Mom, I don't like fish!
- But it doesn't taste like fish - have some!"]
An Asian official once said that "Europe will become a large museum we will come to visit". The historical success of Europe in economics, wars, world domination etc is based on a "golden middle" division of its nations/states. (For more plz read Guns, Germs and Steel by J. Diamond). That "golden middle" should be kept in place. The enemy of Europe though is called Dekadance.
NATO always headed by an American? The protestor you interviewed clearly doesn't know that the current Secretary General is Dutch and his deputy is Italian. In fact, since 1952, NATO has had three British SecGens, three Dutch, two Belgians and one each from Spain, Italy and Germany - never an American. Traditionally it has always been a European, although I think there is no reason other than tradition why it should not be an American or Canadian.
Is there no EUrophile who will jump to the EUrocrats' defence and say bluntly that we have to accept the EU Reform Treaty because 'it's good for us' - and to hell with what we, the people, actually think or want?
What really annoys me as a British citizen is that our Government brazenly lie to our faces -or take us for idiots - by denying that the Reform Treaty and the rejected Constitutional Treaty are substantially the same.
At least the French elites just ignore their peasantry and don't pretend to care about what they do or don't want.
So what was the point of any pretence at democracy - such as the French and Dutch referendums of 2005 - when our 'leaders' claim that there 'is no Plan B' and disregard the popular will out of hand?
Keep on like this and Madame Guillotine may yet make a comeback.
The impression I get from this entry is that the protesters at Versailles are short on details of what the treaty actually contains. Susan seems to be quite confused about teh treaty, especially her thinking that it has anything to do with NATO. Indeed, the end goal of these reforms is to reduce Europe's reliance on NATO and American protection.
鈥淭his treaty submits us to Nato鈥
What has this treaty to do with NATO?
The European Union needs reform. There is not much choise. It will take years before a knew treaty is formed and we need reform now. The European Union needs to be more effective, democratic and transparant. They way our governments are imposing this treaty on us is not a very good start.
"Airbus, Dassault, Saab and Rolls Royce are all taking part in the 1.6bn euro (拢1.2bn) "clean sky" initiative.
Half the money will be raised by the European Union and half by industry.
The use of public money for a project involving companies such as Airbus could cause friction with its US competitor, Boeing." [91热爆]
Not 'could'. Yet another lawsuit will be most certainly filed with the WTO Tribunal for continuing multiBillion illegal state subsidies financed by EU taxpayers. Just like they've been already paying through their noses for A-350 R&D and Galileo project.
An yet, despite Galileo's claims,
none of those two white elephants moves.
Almost like French crack troops in Chad.
And this is just a harbinger of future EU's global competitiveness.
Dave #4
I think everyone is confused by this treaty. It's 250 pages long pared down from 400 pages in the constitution. I read Britain's Red Lines provisions which were only about 40 pages long and it was so full of legalese mumbo jumbo, it was all you could do to figure out what it might mean. I think the constitution and the treaty were made deliberately confusing and vague so that like any religious text, you could read whatever you want to in it. Compare it to the US Constitution which is only a few pages of plain English and still our Supreme Court has argued over what it means for 200 years. What will the EU Court do with cases based on this one? Probably decide on pure politics alone just the way it dismissed France's and Germany's violations of the Growth and Stability Pact in Maastrict.
The EU Superstate will not resemble a United States of Europe at all. It will more resemble a European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. If it was meant to be a kind of clone of the US then it failed miserably. It's as though someone saw a plane from a distance and without knowing any principles of aerodynamics carved one out of stone and expected it to fly. Like so many other European efforts, this one is a bomb, created from pure ego rather than long and careful reflection of the best way to obtain well defined objectives. It does not represent clear thinking but a confused muddled incoherent jumble, like a jigsaw puzzle with pieces that don't fit made to stay together with great force. How fortunate for its proponents that in Europe, democracy is not a strong enough counterforce to rip it apart. It codifies the kind of society America will have no trouble competing against. I like it.
My position on the E.U. is that I am broadly in favour of the U.K. staying in. From talking to people in the U.K. and Europe I believe this is a view held by a majority in the U.K. and Europe. However there are a growing number of people across Europe who are becoming disenchanted with the way Europe is operating.
There are a group, which is growing, who want to see their country withdraw from Europe. On the other side of the coin there is a smaller number who want to see ever growing political union. My own view is that the E.U. has gone far enough for this generation and it needs to take stock and consider what should be it's next move. It should not be hidebound by the dogma of a treaty that was signed over 50 years ago. Times have changed. It needs to look at where we are now and not deride people who do not agree with their version of what they want the E.U. to be.
It is almost beyond belief what France has done to prevent it's people having a say on this treaty. As far as the French are concerned this is the same treaty they rejected. Surely just because you may not get the answer you want is no reason to change your constitution to prevent people having their say.
The E.U. Parliament itself has recently tried to stifle viewpoints on this issue by changing the rules. We are sleep walking into an autocratic society whereby we are told what is best for us by our political masters.
Sooner or later there will be a public backlash about the way they are being treated. If the E.U. wants to continue (and I want it to) it will have to listen more.
When the National Socialists won a popular mandate in Germany, it was considered necessary by them to ban free speech to prevent trouble makers causing problems. Unfortunately there was not a public backlash of any size. I am not comparing the E.U. to the National Socialist party that would be stupid and grossly offensive. But the old saying is that if we do not learn from history we are destined to repeat it has some credibility.
It actually matters little what is in or what is not in the treaty/constitution. What matters is the utter contempt shown to the electorates of France, UK, Netherlands et al by the political elite who have decided the "great unwashed "do not deserve their promised vote.
To amend the constitution of a country simply to avoid holding a referendum shows exactly how afraid of losing Sarkozy and his puppet government were.If the new Europe is so wonderful why not persuade the electorate rather than ignore them.
I hope the legal challenge in this country allows a referendum which I am sure will go against Brown not least for the reason that he will be shown for the liar he is in even attemting to claim the treaty and constitution are substantially different.
It is time for legislation ensuring a manifesto commitment cannot be so easily disregarded when the "mugs" have voted for you.
The reality is; The Eu leaders do not have a clue what the whole EU project is for and its future. The unknown truth is that an Irishman, who became a british, wrote about a political alliance of European nations; how it would be developed, its charcter and future before the founding fathers of EU - Jean monnet and Robert Schuiman - were born in 1888 and 1886. The Lisbon treaty has paved the way for the Briton's prediction about the future of EU to come to pass. The EU's future is not bright.
If the passengers who boarded the Great Titanic had known that the unsinkable ship will sink, would they have joined the ship? The Forgotten Briton warned Ireland and Britain niot to take part in the EU Project. Had British and Irish politicians examined the works of this Forgotten Briton, they would have torn the EU treaty into pieces and withdrawn their countries from the European Union. Through ignioance they are blindly following Mionnet's fuzzy vision of a 'fused' Europe - the great Titanic of the 21st century which was doomed to sink before its construction began on 9 May 1950. "Knowledge is powr; ignorance is weakness" Verbum sapientis est
Stuart Bower, a UKIP member has issued a summons against Prime Minister Gordon Brown for breaking the implied contract between the Labour Party and the electorate about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The case will be heard at 10.30, Thursday, 7th February at Brighton County Court.
Stuart Bowers' case against Gordon Brown is over the referendum Breach of Contract of the Human Rights Act (the right to a free election). His argument is that the manifesto pledge to have a referendum was a binding contract which has been broken. A barrister from the Treasury is also attending.
I hope the 91热爆 will be covering this.
To Graybo (#3)
While it is true that the secretary general of NATO is traditionally European, the supreme military commander has always been American. I'm assuming that's what the protester refers to. Not that it's really relevant either way.
What Mark (post 6) and many commentators cannot get their head's around is that teh Europe Union is not a State at all. It is a large and increasing family, rather like those large Southern European families which spend a great deal of time fighting, verbally, but unite into a common front when it suite them.
EU without a Constitution is train wreck waiting to happen. Just see what is going in Silvio Berlisconi Italy. A country or State of the union so dysfonctional to a point that it make no sens to qualify it as a democracy. And the Union has no power or right to fix what is going on there. The fiscal laws or rules are been violated with impunity by member countries. This treaty will not work in the long run.
Mark #6,
Your pronouncements on the imminent collapse of the EU into some sort of undemocratic Dark ages seem somewhat premature.
The Reform Treaty clarifies many existing institutions of the union, and gives greater powers to the directly elected ones (European Parliament).
The treaty also incorporates the previously ratified European Convention on Human Rights, which exhaustively lists a lot more human rights than the U.S. Constitution and its amendments ever did, including the prohibition of torture and capital punishment, the right to education, freedom of movement and spousal equality, among others.
The Reform Treaty is not a "religious text," nor was it "made deliberately confusing". Most modern treaties that involve multiple parties do contain a lot of legalese, and if you've never come across a bill in the United States Congress, then maybe a quick look at the EULA that came along with your iPod or your computer's operating system will bring home the point.
To treaty is complex because it covers many aspects of the relationships of its institutions, its 27 member states with their respective democratic institutions, and its half a billion citizens. The U.S. Constitution, in contrast, was drafted when the inhabitants of the former colonies numbered under 3 million, of whom only a small fraction (the wealthy white men) could participate in the political process.
The treaty does not repeal national and local legislatures. It does not enslave its members, but rather it specifies, for the first time, a legal path for any willing members to leave the union. What does the U.S. Constitution say about secession?
The Reform Treaty is an imperfect compromise, but it is a continuation of those "many other European efforts" you so despise. Things like civil rights, the welfare state and, yes, democracy, may indeed be "bombs" for a few right-wingers, but for most Europeans they represent some of our most basic values.
The unconcealed joy in your prognostications of Europe's downfall would be troubling if it didn't indicate some deep insecurities. I can't blame you for those!
I am quite often in France and it is pretty clear to me that the French are massively embarrased by their "non" vote in 2005. Of course, their pride does not allow them to admit it openly (but share a bottle of wine with them and you will see).
The French referendum was about many things, but not about the treaty. I would estimate that 50% of the no-voters wanted to say no to Chirac and his pompous style of governing. Another 20% found the treaty too "anglo-saxon", i.e. neo-liberal, while another 20% came from the nationalist corner (mainly those who hate the "beurs", although they have nothing to do with the EU). Maybe some 10% of the no voters were actually concerned about the deficits of the treaty, one way or the other (don't forget that there are people who voted no, because for them the treaty lacked "federal" ambition).
Generally, the French confused EU enlargement (which had already happened a year earlier, but went unnoticed in France) with globalisation, and capitalism with the single market. It's hard to believe, but many French balk at the term "fair and free competition" because they see it as a door opener for the return of the brutal capitalism of the 19th century (thinking of it, they may not be entirely wrong, and let's see how Britons feel about their economic system once the economy tanks).
It seems that most French have now understood that you cannot stop the world and get off. This explains also the defeat of Royal in the Presidential election as she was still feeding the old utopia of "l'exception francaise".
Sarkozy has now done the right thing with a ratification by Parliament. The UK europhobes should not place too much hope on those who still demand a new referendum. I cannot see any momentum for that in France. Moreover, contrary to many Britons the French have always understood one thing: There is no alternative to the European project and in particular to the Franco-German reconciliation.
I was at the barricades at Versailles,and what Andrew Mardell failed to mention was that there were 3 separate demonstrations kept apart by 44 buses of riot police. According to L'Humanit茅 there were 1500 leftists and greens, however there was also a protest by 500 members of the moderate-right Debout La R茅publique headed by Nicolas Dupont-Aignon.
He left Sarkozy's UMP party over the Lisbon Treaty about a year ago. He later went inside the palace to vote No. Also there was Paul-Marie Couteaux an MEP of the Independence Democracy Grouping. They laid a wreath at the war memorial, carried tricolors draped in black, it all had a strange 1940's feel to it. There was even a vintage black London Taxi in the parade adding to the Gaullist connection with his June 1940 "Appel de Londres". They think it's all over. It probably is in France.....but the struggle goes on across the channel in Ireland and the UK. Expect to see more of the youthfull Nicolas Dupont Aignan. He told me at his office in the parliament before the demo, that he was in this for the long haul!
Finally the Third demonstration was that of the supporters of the Treaty of Lisbon. Yes there were some but only in dissapointingly small numbers. I photographed them all in one frame. There was only 24 of them at the hight of their rally.
Mark #6,
Why is it that Americans like you are always underestimating Europe's ability to get things done? Remember the Euro, it was ridiculed by people not unlike yourself up until and even after its launch, and it is now proving its strength in the current climate of global uncertainty. Also, even with its universally admired constitution, the US has proven itself time and again to be very capable of making highly political decisions without being democratic or, indeed, constitutional (for example, the manner in which it finalised its Presidential Elections in 2000 or, regrettably, the way its behaving in the current war in Iraq).
And, as far as competing against societies is concerned, I much prefer Europe to be a continent that is not over its eyes in debt to the the rest of the world while still borrowing more and more money to keep financing its global military overreach.
According to a Frenchman who was present and who commented on Lib茅ration's blog, there were about 300 people in that demonstration. A statistically significant amount ?
The text is indeed confusing for most people. However this is just because it's really really precise in everything. The reason that it is possible to argue so long over the US const. is just because it is a few page's of plain English.
Mark,
Your comment does not make sense. The European Union will secure European interests in this world. Those interests are not much different from American interests. I don't know why you are thinking that the European Union is like the Soviet Union. The only connection between those two is the word 'Union'.
'It codifies the kind of society America will have no trouble competing against'
The Neoconservatives make such comments. They see the European Union as an enemy and they are hostile towards it. They're doing the same with China. A strong European Union is good for the USA and the Trans-Atlantic Alliance. Lucky enough, all American president candidates, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, have a more positive opinion about Europe and the European Union.
John McCain might be the most positive. He made statements like: 'NATO defeated the SU' and 'a strong EU is good for the USA'
The days of the Neoconservatives are over.
* 4.
* At 10:49 AM on 05 Feb 2008,
* Max Sceptic wrote:
"Is there no EUrophile who will jump to the EUrocrats' defence and say bluntly that we have to accept the EU Reform Treaty because 'it's good for us' - and to hell with what we, the people, actually think or want?
What really annoys me as a British citizen is that our Government brazenly lie to our faces -or take us for idiots - by denying that the Reform Treaty and the rejected Constitutional Treaty are substantially the same."
Ok Max. The EU is good for you on so many ways that you can't even imagine. It brings a level playing field for Eurepean free trade -and it offers an alternative to the American abuse of their hegemony. To that end an independant Eurpean army is essential -but that would have the UK's master in Washington foaming at the mouth -as indeed does any civilised social system that undermines the US cowboy system of colonial divide and conquer through the creation and exploitation of poverty.
Unfortunately, the UK (for whatever reason) is full of crazy irrational people who also foam at the mouth whenever anybody mentions "federalism" -even though they still foam at the mouth (perhaps even more -if that is possible) when somebody proposes centralism. On top of that, several people here have already pointed out that it is people like you who hold back the democratic reform of Europe-while screaming the hardest that Europe is undemocratic.
Given these circumstances, any serious, honest and dedicated politician (should such a thing exist) would be forced to lie, cheat and steal to push through sensible reforms in the face of such irrational lunatic opposition. Unfortunately, such, perhaps neccessary but dishonest, behaviour enevitably leads one into embarrasing paradoxes. Ufortunately, dishonest people (who, for example, support global cultural genocide by calling it "free marklet forces" and oppose any form of protectionism -except for themselves) proudly ignore. However, more sensitive people discover shame and embarrasment when caught lying.
So, on one level, yes -the EU supporters have, in defence of their faith, allowed their opponents to push them into positions that are not easilly defendable. Perhaps that is what always happens when a "reasonable" person tries to deal with unreasonable people -think of Munich and the peace in our times piece of paper.....
So together, the people of Europe have all screwed up pretty badly (both opponenents and supporters of the EU). Apparently modern marketing techniques have taken over from old fashioned political debate. This has proven to be a disaster -but was probably neccessary because consumerist media and education systems have reduced human intelligence levels (including univesrity graduates) to such low levels that intelligent political debate is probably almost no longer possible. The only outcome possible is the current debacle -for which those who want the UK to be an unoffical state of the US, rather than an official participant of Europe, bear much to blame.
Now I've answered your question Max: So perhaps you will now tell us all how to get out of the mess you and your friends have driven us into.
Mark (of #6),
I do find your attitude to the EU depressing. The view that it will become a USSR is nothing but rhetoric designed to smear a beneficial organisation because of your warped attachment to the administrative division in which you live.
The whole UKIP(or other)lobby reeks of nationalism and should not be taken seriousy. They live in the past and are determined to keep us there. Their scepticism is dangerously ideological but has a simple base. Fear of the outsider and a view of their inferiority. This is what prompts them to highlight Britain's (or England's)past with examples of victory over other nations - there is a very depresseing facination with WWII. This is bad in two ways. Firstly it does not make sense to flout past martial (or other) prowess when we clearly lack such prowess now. Secondly, going back to an earlier point, it implies the inferiority of other nations - which, despite the difference of the past to the present, is reflected onto the modern world. True - they might back up their arguments with some economic ones (we can save money if we leave the EU), but the smear campaign labelling the EU as a stalinist institution allied with the facsination with past British prowess and foreign inferiority displays the hardline Eurosceptic lobby for what they really are. Deranged nationalits.
To Mark Mardell: personally I think your reporting is a bastion of objectivity and is enlightening and stimulating.
Europe happens to be our home. Long live Europe. Lets hope it floats because if it fails the world will lose a splendid culture.
The fall of the eu is very slowly underway forced into being, will be its undoing ,the french dont want it either .Well Mark one day you will be reporting on the EUs downfall.The soviet EU thinks we are going to sit back and watch our nations be destroyed i dont think so,people power will rise and bring down the EU.
Trevor Batten, (11. At 02:12 PM on 06 Feb 2008),
Your reply - or more precisely, it's dismissive tone - illustrates my point exactly. I shall try to comment on some of the points you make:
Firstly I can quite imagine the many benefits that the UK would have from belonging to an association of free trading European nations (That is what most British people believed they were voting for in the referendum of 1975: the EEC - a European Economic Community. They were obviously mistaken. Or misled).
If you think that the EU brings a 'level playing field' then you're obviously blissfully unaware of the distortions evident in most (other) EU states with regard to their own state-supported industries. French 'economic patriotism' and Airbus are just two obvious examples.
As for a European Army - looking at the performance of most of our European 'allies' in Iraq and Afghanistan, that would be as effective against any real enemy as a eunuch in a harem. And, when it comes to choosing between Europe and the open sea, I'm with WS Churchill.
Your anti-Americanism is unfortunate. It is totally due to American material support (the Marshall Plan) and it's nuclear umbrella (and NATO) that continental Europe (and the EU) was able to rebuild, develop and prosper in the post WW2 years - secure from the very real Soviet threat and free of the crippling burden of a realistic defence budget.
But I'm sure I'm wasting my time trying to argue my case - as I'm just a "crazy irrational [person] who ...foam[s] at the mouth". But then, what did I expect from someone who equates 'global free trade' with 'global cultural genocide' (What - apart from the irrational use of emotive words - is 'global cultural genocide'? There is no such thing. It's a nonsense). Then you go on to equate opposition to the EU with Nazism. You didn't say that? Really? Then what was "Perhaps that is what always happens when a "reasonable" person tries to deal with unreasonable people -think of Munich and the peace in our times piece of paper....." all about then?
Your last paragraph is, of course, highly deceptive. Akin to the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' type of trick question. I do not accept the premise. One mess that I would like us to get out of is the one-way process of 'ever closer union' offered by the EU. There is a simple way to do this: hold the promised referendum on the new Reform Treaty and abide by the people's will. But, of course, you don't trust the people, do you?
Why in the world are all Europeans worried about a document that can be changed at anytime by any European nation. The United States is one nation, and not a nation made up of states speaking different cultures, or for the most part not speaking different languages. Europeans are starting to remind me of New Yorkers in the United States..What's the fear all about?? The United States and its people don't even pay attention, and do not even know what's going on over there. What is?? I certainly cannot figure the fear.
It looks like "smoking the people" although the ban of smoking in public places. How could that happen when most of french said clearly "NO" to the text of the constitution? Is this misrespect of the will of people or of what kind of democracy in Europe are we taking about?
Trevor Batten, (11. At 02:12 PM on 06 Feb 2008),
Your reply - or more precisely, it's patronising and dismissive tone - illustrates my point exactly. I shall try to comment on some of the more comprehensible points you make:
Firstly I can quite 'imagine' the many benefits that the UK would have from belonging to an association of free trading European nations. That is indeed what most British people believed they were voting for in the referendum of 1975: the EEC - a European Economic Community. They were obviously mistaken. Or misled.
If you think that the EU brings a 'level playing field' then you're obviously blissfully unaware of the distortions evident in most EU states with regard to their own state-supported industries. French 'economic patriotism' and Airbus are just two obvious examples.
As for a European Army - looking at the performance of most of our European 'allies' in Iraq and Afghanistan, that would be as effective against any real enemy as a eunuch in a harem. And, when it comes to choosing between Europe and the open sea, I'm with WS Churchill.
Your anti-Americanism is unfortunate. It is totally due to American material support (the Marshall Plan) and it's nuclear umbrella (and NATO) that continental Europe (and the EU) was able to rebuild, develop and prosper in the post WW2 years - secure from the very real Soviet threat, and free of the crippling burden of a realistic defence budget.
But I'm sure I'm wasting my time trying to argue my case - as I'm just a "crazy irrational [person] who ...foam[s] at the mouth". But then, what did I expect from someone who equates 'global free trade' with 'global cultural genocide' (What - apart from the irrational use of emotive words - is 'global cultural genocide'? There is no such thing. It's a nonsense). Then you go on to equate opposition to the EU with Nazism. You didn't say that? Really? Then what was "Perhaps that is what always happens when a "reasonable" person tries to deal with unreasonable people -think of Munich and the peace in our times piece of paper....." all about then?
Your last paragraph is, of course, highly deceptive, akin to the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' type of trick question. I do not accept the premise. One mess that I would like us to get out of, however, is the one-way process of 'ever closer union' offered by the EU. There is a simple way to do this: hold the promised referendum on the new Reform Treaty and abide by the people's will. But, of course, you don't trust the people, do you?
The main issue to my mind is the utter lack of regard for the views of the electorate shown by politicians across Europe. I am furious that Gordon Brown, as Prime Minister of this country can tell an outright lie to the british public to justify denying us the promised referendum (or did I misunderstand Giscard D鈥橢staing when he commented that the Lisbon Treaty is 鈥渋n fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the Constitutional Treaty?鈥) and face no consequences.
He is in office to serve this country, not his own interests or the political agenda of his party and certainly not the ideological whims of a bunch of unelected bureaucrats across the channel. I love Europe as a collection of countries - I have lived and worked in several of them 鈥 and appreciate that there are certain benefits of working together (free trade to name but one) but I totally reject the idea of 鈥榚ver closer union鈥 which I perceive as a purely political aim being blindly pursued by a political elite who refuse to consult their electorates for fear they will give the 鈥榳rong鈥 answer.
To John Somer #20
I'm not sure I saw your "Frenchman" at the gates of the palace. I was there from 13.00-18.00 and saw the whole thing for myself. I agree with the front page of l'Humanit茅 which put the "gauchistes" alone at 1500. I took a photo of the Pro-Lisbon Treaty demonstration and there were clearly only 24 people there at its height. According to French oppinion polls the 16 million of the people who voted no on 29 may 2005 have not changed their minds. Mr Sarkozy agreed "that any referendum on this treaty in any EU state including France would be lost"..by his side (speech to European Parliament 13 November 2007).. So you were cruelly misled by your "french informer".
Bon courage!
Paul CADIER
The United States Constitution follows a libertarian philosophy. The Soviet Union was a socialist effort derived from the Marxist philosophy of the abolition of private property. The EU constitution follows the philosophy of a form of socialism known as "social democracy", but that philosophy is at best experimental, arising as it does from the failure of other forms of socialism.
So we have the bizarre spectacle of socialists who think the EU may be neo-liberal, capitalists who think it is a socialist project and democrats who illustrate the EU's democratic deficit to the agreement of its supporters.
Whatever else the EU is, it is an undemocratic bureaucracy meeting few needs but offering the hope of a vague and distant utopia. It's an old problem:
"The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without, they come from within. They come from a peculiar type in our country who if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength.
Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism and the promise of impossible Utopias?"
鈥 Winston Churchill, St George鈥檚 Day 1933
EU reform is essential.
Re post 12, the following is the reply from the Government -
Cecilia Ivimy, for the government, said: "A manifesto promise is incapable of giving rise to a legally binding contract with the electorate. It is a point which is so obvious that I don't want to labour it."
It is breath taking in it's audacity. Basically it is saying no one could ever expect any party keep any promise made in a manisfesto. Atleast this is honest, we will just need to remember not to believe anything we are told and we should be ok, won't we ?
Re post 12, the following is the reply from the Government -
Cecilia Ivimy, for the government, said: "A manifesto promise is incapable of giving rise to a legally binding contract with the electorate. It is a point which is so obvious that I don't want to labour it."
It is breath taking in it's audacity. Basically it is saying no one could ever expect any party keep any promise made in a manisfesto. Atleast this is honest, we will just need to remember not to believe anything we are told and we should be ok, won't we ?
Have been watching six oclock 91热爆 news, not been reported yet, what a surprise. Although it is tcuked away on their website, can't expect too much I suppose
* 22.
* At 01:51 PM on 06 Feb 2008,
* Dubya, Netherlands wrote:
"A strong European Union is good for the USA and the Trans-Atlantic Alliance."
I'm curious about how you might feel when the above sentence is rewritten: "A strong Indian continent is good for the British and the British Empire."
Personally, I do not see why the whole world should be organised to satisfy any particular country's interests.
You also say (elsewhere):
"The European Union needs reform. There is not much choise. It will take years before a new treaty is formed and we need reform now. The European Union needs to be more effective, democratic and transparant. They way our governments are imposing this treaty on us is not a very good start."
Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying something like "This airplane is heading for disaster -we must change course immediately. Air traffic control and the pilot must discuss with passengers and crew about the new course. Telling us to stop running amok in the aircraft and ordering us back into our seats is not a good way to start debating the bext step".
So what alternatives would the pilot have under these circumstances?
To me, your words are an example of the way mass media are propagating an image that promotyes American interests as the measure of all things -while alsoundermining people's ability for rational argument.
However, I certainly agree with you about the need for change -but not in support of US interests, which seem opposed to those of the rest of humanity. Please come to Manila -and see how fast food chains and commercial food-suppliments are being advertised in a country where many people do not get enough real food to eat. Come and see how many poor people suffer from poor diets -made worse by constant advertising for unhealthy foodstuffs. Come and see the rising health hazards from increases in obesity as a result of following commercially promoted unhealthy food fashions. Go then to the hospital and see how many doctors and nurses are left after the others have immigrated to the US and other such places.
Of course one can argue that this only proves the superiority of US products and lifestyle. However, the Philippines is also a country where the rich live behind high walls protected by armed guards. I suppose one could argue that the need to keep others out proves the superiority of a lifestyle based on appropriation of most of the resources that the others need to live.
However, I suspect that conditions here force many people to want to escape to a place that has all the amenities that have been sucked out of their own country. I'm sure that the Philippines is not unique in this respect.
The global destruction of local culture and economics by a reletively small group of people who believe that they are inherently superiour and use all their political, military, economic and media propaganda advantages to enforce their power -is what I call "global cultural genocide". The victims physical bodies may remain (just about) alive -but their minds and souls have been poisened to believe their oppressors are heros.
"The only connection between those two [Soviet Union and European Union] is the word 'Union'." [#22]
No, it's also the world 'Soviet' which means 'Council' in Russian.
And what after all is EU if not a Union of Councils?
[European Council, Council of Europe, European Economic Council,
Sharia Implementation Council, etc.]
@Max Velarde (24)
there is nothing beneficial about the EU. Nothing at all. Any socalled benefit that you and other democracy-hating EU-philes mention are 'benefits' we could also have without the EU.
The EU was only ever constructed for one reason, and one reason only: to effectively eliminate (bypass) national parliamentary democracy. National parliaments are increasingly being rendered powerless.
I've seen references to 1938 and I agree with those, this is 'treason in our time'.
In order to love the EU, one must increasingly despise (parliamentary) democracy.
Mark, thanks for the blog.
For me, the core issue with this treaty is democracy in Europe. Many people have written complaining about the lack of referenda on the treaty, but I agree with the view I infer from Ronald's post (no 17) that people rarely vote in referenda on the question actually being asked.
What concerns me is that our national leaders have again sidestepped the opportunity to introduce democratic accountability in the European project. For me this means (i) give parliament the power to initiate legislation, (ii) make the commission president appointed / dismissable by parliament, (iii) make the other commissioners and bureaucracy appointed / dismissable by the president. These three changes do not require any transfer of more power to Brussels. These changes would make the European Union more accountable, efficient and relevant to people. I find it hard to understand how anyone could argue against these changes, but nobody ever seriously proposes them.
For me European democracy is a chicken and egg issue. There is no voice of the "European public" because Europeans speak so many languages and have no common identity. But I think one of the surest ways to forge such an identity would be to create a meaningful democratic dialogue with the EU whereby the European public votes for a parliament that actually does something visibly useful.
I suspect the real reason nobody ever proposes these changes is because the only ones in a position to do so - our elected national leaders - have no interest in giving the European project an impetus that they cannot control. Much better for them to keep the project shrouded in miscompehension and negotiated behind closed doors.
The first mistake I think a lot of "Europhiles" make is that the EU is not a popular political movement but a religious movement. That is why at its core it is antidemocratic. It will not tolerate dissent. The main tenets of this political movement are anti-Americanism, anti-globalization (another way of saying anti-Americanism), using whatever means it can to attack America including is one sided position on climate change and what to do about it, and hatred for Israel and Jews (also bound together with anti-Americanism.) How do I know this for sure? Because Chirac and Schroeder said it again and again and that was BEFORE 9-11. This position resonated with the electorates of France and Germany and that is the reason they came from behind in the polls to win re-election, it reflected the true sentiments of those nations. This is the result of intense European jealousy to the point of rage over a civilization which was based on a rejection of everything Europe held dear and which has enjoyed a meteoric rise from total obscurity far eclipsing every other civilization in human history despite overcoming one seemingly impossible adversity after another in a mere 11 generations.
Of all the fatal mistakes Western Europe has made, the worst was not merely being indifferent to America's concerns over its own national security from threats based in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of 9-11 and the anthrax attack but that it betrayed America by demonstrating that it would do whatever it could to obstruct any and all effective measures America could take even alone if necessary to protect itself from what it perceived as real danger. As a result of this betrayal, whatever little remaining trust and friendship Americans had for Europe before the debacle in the Security Council in 2003 is gone probably forever. Europe has declared itself America's enemy and it is a position it will not be able to retreat from in the eyes of most American people when it finds it has made an error no matter what government officials may do in front of the media or what new treaties might be signed. And it will find America to be a very formidable enemy.
Mark #40
You've got to get out of your mom's basement! 2003 is ov-ah and you just sound like a nationalist crackpot now. America is a country of 300 million people and there is not even a common consensus on what the national interest is, let alone some kind of universal distrust of Europeans. Most Americans don't know anything about Europe unless they have business interests there anyway.
To Mark Mardell,
A week ago i sent in a letter which has not been put on your blog.I have sent in many which have.Can you tell me if my last one was 'over the top' in its content or ????
Sanford from NYC #41
You think 9-11 is over? It's barely the beginning. Future attacks will make 9-11 look like small potatoes. I do not know one American who gives a care anymore what happens to Europe. For any American politician to suggest that America make any kind of sacrifice to defend Europe the way it did in 2 world wars and how hard it worked to prevent Europe from getting caught up in a third would be instant political suicide. Most Americans don't know anything about Europe? The inverse is at least as true. Proof? The very well educated Sir Christopher Meyers the UK's Ambassador to the US for over 5 years when asked on "The Interview" by Owen Bennet-Jones why America is so rich said because the US was first. Frist at what? When America was an empty wilderness 400 yars ago, Europe was a civlization over a thousand years old. When America was a remote sprinkling of villages 232 years ago, Europe had many vast wealthy cities. The industrial revolution came to Britain before it came to America. Meyers either doesn't know history or forgot it. Anyway, I lived in Europe for nearly two years and for me, to know it is to hate it. Blatant racism and anti-semitism. A group of overcrowded, underworked, overpaid, ignorant, narcissistic populations whose civilizations are in rapid decline. With only contempt for the US, why should Americans give one whit what they think or feel or do? What have they EVER done for America?
Mark #42.
Unbelievable, what a biased and bitter misconception you have of an entire continent. You, a typical disillusioned American, have the audacity to generalise Europeans as racist, ignorant and narcissistic? Do you have any understanding at all about how blacks and latin-Americans feel in modern day USA? And as far as ignorant and narcissistic are concerned, to legions of people all across the world (not just in Europe but pretty much everywhere else as well) it would be hard, if not impossible, to find words that would more adequately describe the two main characteristics that, unfortunately, define such a worryingly large proportion of American people today.
To Mark Mardell,
Again i would like to ask what reason is there to not put my letters on your blog. I would just like to know.I have no problem if you do not want to show them anymore.It is just that i would like to know as it will save me time in sending them!
Your articles are very interesting, but why aren't you and the 91热爆 discussing the most important thing ever to come before Parliament ie. the Lisbon Treaty. Why haven't you mentioned the ludicrously limited parliamentary discussion time imposed by this government?
Why are you apparently so biased towards Europe? Why have'nt you explained truthfully in simple terms why this Treaty will ultimately remove sovereignty from the UK?
Why are you saying on Feedback today that you can鈥檛 discuss it yet because you don鈥檛 know how it will evolve 鈥 this is exactly why it needs discussing; we all know that the Treaty is too woolly and it will lead to the UK鈥檚 ultimate demise as a sovereign nation, by future amendments? Why can鈥檛 someone as knowledgeable as you, speak openly now about the potential consequences of this treaty 鈥 surely the 91热爆 as a public service has a duty to do this.
Forget Prince Harry; this subject is the biggest cover-up in the whole of Britain鈥檚 history.