Barroso rallies Blair
I've been listening, on and off, to the debate on the constitution in the European Parliament, featuring both national MPs and the MEPs themselves. The overwhelming view appears to be that they accept that any new treaty will be slimmed down but that it mustn't be so small as to be worthless. If it is, then an inner core will have to be formed. I've been whilst doing other things, so I haven't names or nationalities for most of them but here is a flavour:
"If Europe doesn't get a constitution it can't modernise."
Italian MEP: "We can't go forward at the pace of the slowest. It's not the task of the fastest always to wait."
"Purely national concerns, partisan and narrow interests, could hijack the development of the European Union and unravel the constitution."
"There's talk of getting rid of any mention of the symbols like the European flag. It's a symbol that shows we've overcome division, cruelty and war. Undermine the symbols and you undermine people's confidence in Europe."
Finnish MEP: "Without the Charter of Fundamental Rights, it's not worth having a treaty."
Polish MP: "Let us convince those with reservations our only salvation is to move forward together."
The President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, also spoke. I strongly suspect newspapers will carry stories headlined: "Euro leader tells Blair to ignore public opinion." That, at least, is what UKIP is briefing. As it was one of the bits I missed, I've been back to listen again. He was talking about the strong backing the British government has given to commission policies on energy, competitiveness and reform, and continued: "We have to have the courage to stand up and say, 'You cannot have that, if you do not agree to a minimum consensus on institutions'. We have to stand up in front of our national public opinions and not give in to populism. We have to have the courage to say, 'If we want a strong Europe politically, an open Europe, we have to fight for it.'" But "Barroso urges Blair to persuade Britain" is a poor headline.
...And a date for all your diaries. Thursday is European wind day. Please mark it in an appropriate way.
PS - Thanks for the comments on my earlier post. I've replied to some of them - you can read my responses here.
Iβm Mark Mardell, the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ'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 
°δ΄Η³Ύ³Ύ±π²Τ³Ω²υΜύΜύ Post your comment
Well in a way if Europe wants to move forwards, it needs to ignore the public a bit. Some people fear Europe because its unknown and thus unloved. Many also take for granted what Europe has accomplished. Lets be fair here, no continent has succeeded in unifying different nationalities, except Europe and how is that. First of all, it is because in the beginning some people realised that killing each other does not get you a step closer to happiness. After that thought came the lets ignore the public period and this lasted until the euro-phase. Since then Europe has become very public, people see the Union everyday now, everytime they spend money. But since that day, Europe has been slowed down because the people start to matter know. Everything else Europe does, is public because all the non-public things already have been Europeanised. Now it is up to the bravery of the politicians in a very Belgiumesque situation. Europe tries to gain power, and in Belgium the Flemish try to take power away from the national level. This is going to happen in every country, local and European level takign away power from the nation states. It's not that bizarre that some national politicians are doing what they can to stop this from happening, because it could mean they loose power.
""Thursday is European wind day. Please mark it in an appropriate way""
I thought that everyday was hot air & wind day in Brussels?
The Constitution is the final undemocratic straw for me.
I am sick & tired of the EU Elite ignoring the little people & just plowing ahead with their superstate plans.
Enough. My Grandfather went to his death regreting saying Yes to Heaths Referendum.
He died believing that Heath had lied through his teeth to get a yes vote. My Grandfather voted for an Economic Community - not political union ending British Sovereignty & the rule of Englush Law.
I won't go out the same way as Grandad - I & millions of other Britons will have our say on further integration with Europe - one way or another.
Hi Mark,
Great Blog.
Since 1975, when most people thought they were voting to join the European Economic Community (no mention there of unions or constitutions), there has not been an opportunity for UK citizens to voice their opinion and/or approval for the ceding of sovereignty to the EU. (Small print at the fag-end of a party manifesto cannot be considered approval. Come general election time 'europe' is far from the top of most people's agenda)
The UK parliament gets its legitmacy from the people. It has not be authorised to hand over sovereignty to the EU. We need a referendum to answer two fundamental questions:
1. Whether the UK should remain a member of the EU.
2. Should further powers be ceded from the UK to the EU.
I am 33 and have never had a say in whether we keep going down this route to an EU superstate.
The EU messes up everthing it touches. We are in affect paying billions to be told what to do and have surendered far too much, for far too little.
Anger is growing. Give us a referendum now, or there will be trouble ahead.
The formation of an inner core of countries is already a reality, the Euro being the most obvious example (as well as Schengen).
Granted the constitution will make it more obvious, but my point is that the process has already started.
A constitution will come. The only issue is whether UK, Poland, Denmark et all will have a voice in its writing or will just sit outside and end up accepting it as is when they eventually join.
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
I was hoping a more positive aproach also from politicals.
Is the EU a reality? IS it needed? I think it is!!! Can we stop here in the middle of an Economic EU or we want to move forward?
Looking in a Globalisation of the WORLD the full integration of the states in one EU is only a small step, and even a protecting one for the Europeans.
Europe achieved a status that nobody else achieved in the rest of the WORLD, if we want to keep it we need to fight for it.
Should the politicians avoid the public to achieve it? In the actual scene i think it is not possible. Every governement only has 4 years to rule and this is the problem we always talk in the short term.
The world is more ruled by the media than ever. People in reality are bombarded with information, without having time to understand it so is easier to follow some leaders that are not necessary the politicians that are now taking the decisions. Maybe the politicians should search a better way to meet the public, teaching and educating the public on the advantage of having an United Europe
Hot from the streets in Kent - the tolerant British people have had enough, and are finally waking-up to the effects of unwanted interference from the EU in their daily lives.
The Finnish EU representative in London tells us to lose our island mentality, we say, keep your advice and give us back our independence with sole governance from an elected Parliament in Westminster.
The next General Election, European Election or a Referendum will give the Euro-fanatic politicians and the EU a belated lesson in Democracy.
Peter Kerkhove fails to understand that the foundation of the EU (ECSC, EEC) had nothing to do with any wish for peace, but rather with the American demand for German rearmament because of the 'cold war'.
France of course wanted no such thing and then the Americans introduced their man (Jean Monnet, who happened to be a Frenchman, someone the French would trust).
A political union has been the target from 1950 onwards. Politicians just never bothered to tell us (and in some cases just blatantly deceived us). And those who think this isn't true don't understand why the EU is now set up the way it is. Everything serves only one purpose, federation. The EU courts and civil service is stuffed with nothing but federalists.
I do not feel unified with other nationalities at all, particularly not with the French who refuse to let go of Strasbourg as a parliament seat or of the CAP (which should be abolished asap).
I feel it is time to reverse 'ever closer union'. Back to an economic cooperation I say. This political union stuff will never work.
Frankly, one point of view I miss in all this discussion is that of the public opinion in the countries that did approve the constitution.
In my own country it was ratified in an overwhelmingly positive referendum. Do our votes count less than those of the French or the Dutch? Isn't ignoring our public opinion just as undemocratic than those of Poland or Britain?
Holding national referanda for an European matter is fundamentally undemocratic. Instead, any future referendum on the EU's structure should be EU-wide, and any country with a different result should be given the stark choice of putting up with the majority's vote or leaving the EU. That would have the benefits of cutting down both the number of new treaties and of referenda, and of concentrating minds, both among those drafting any new treaty and among the voters.
From an outside perspective the British-English discussion seems absurd. What are you trying to tell us? You want economic benefits but nor burden?
As long as the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ does have categories like "England", "Wales", "Scotland" and "WORLD" (in fact "Europe" is seen as part of "WORLD", far away) I do not see a future for the UK.
Either the people from the UK see themselves as part of "EUROPE" ! or they should leave the European Union.
We do not need a longer arm of the US in Europe. The UK as a bridge to Europe is only justified by the language the US and the UK is sharing.
That is my view as a "foreigner" from the EU living and working in the UK, paying my taxes, getting work from the EU to the UK and insuring jobs to UK people.
We could commemorate the European Wind Day by eating Brussels Sprouts?
By the way, in response to no.1: "no continent has succeeded in unifying different nationalities except Europe" - the USA covers a large part of the continent of North America and has been reasonably successful in unifying many different nationalities. Certainly seems more unified than Europe appears to be...
I'm 22 years old and an Englishman who's also a European Confederalist. I for one welcome any move to... destroy "Britain" and create a stronger England and Europe in its place. It's an unusual position I'll admit, but when explained I've found it popular.
However as you state it's hard for any real public debate to take place in the atmosphere of ignorance perpetrated by tabloid headline writers. If everyone had a background in economics and political science, or didn't get their opinions from their choice of Murdoch's daily rags then yes a public vote might be good for our four countries.
As a democrat first and foremost though, you have to accept that the will of the people is paramount, and that eventually there may have to be a referendum on the final shape of our European destiny. It will be a hard battle to fight; where those able to shout loudest and decry "Jonny Foreigner" the most are in far better position to win than those whose slogans are models of economic growth and an ideology of politico-cultural solidarity. But it's a necessary battle.
I would ask Max Sceptic one thing though; when did we get a referendum on handing over sovereignty from England and Scotland to the United Kingdom?
The European perspective of the EU is always so much more cynical and condescending than what one finds on the other side of the Atlantic.
All too often, people get boiled down looking only at the issues and ignore the great work done by their governments.
As a Canadian, I can say I'm impressed. Through government action and nationalist reactions, you've succeeded in maintaining a united front all the while ensuring the strength of your nationalities.
Truth be told, it will be a long while yet before we forget that the EU is not simply that, but that it is "The British allied with the French who are allied with the Germans, who are allied with the Dutch..."
To all those little Englanders who keep on banging on about "I haven't had a chance to have MY vote on whether to be in an EU superstate - I want out", ponder this...
Suppose we do withdraw from Europe to "run our own affairs", how will that work for me? I live in a safe Tory seat and without PR being implemented, my vote will not count for anything unless I happen to want to vote Tory. The same is true of a large proportion of constituencies in this country. What do these sceptics say to this? Will they insist on us having PR so that our voice can really be heard? No, I didn't think so. Therefore, my voice would not be heard even if we weren't in the EU.
I for one think that we should be involved in Europe and not just harping at the sidelines - far better to be in the middle of things, shaping and influencing them so that they meet our needs (as well as our partners') than being on the periphery as nothing more than a large irrelevance.
We need to have a little more realism in what's going on in the wider world and stop trying to pretend that we've still got an empire and don't need anyone else and as Mathew Walsh pointed out, we also need to think for ourselves instead of being spoon-fed by Murdoch, Farage and much of the rest of the current Tory and Labour leadership.
Please Please, UK leave the EU ASAP.
You are the obstacle to a Federal Europe that everyone knows it's coming. But the stupid and false British Politicians and the media, try to mask as something else. The EU Core is really federal Europe and I fully approve it.
As someone who studied in London and knows many people in South England (Kent), I never truly understood the foolish anti-Europe stance. Please, you make us a huge favor, leave the European Union and never come back.
Britain wants out. And rightly so. The number one problem is the European economy. It's a disaster. They claim 2.5% inflation for the Euro. It's averaged 15% inflation since its launch. Unemployment is high. Non-government jobs are low. There is no economy yet in place to place so much ambition upon. Until the EU demonstrates that it can run an economy, it has no right to crush democracies and replace them with unelected corrupt officials. Out. Out. Out.
There is a need for European military cooperation, however, which would would bring Germany and France out of military isolation. Russia is rearming and threatening. But that too needs money. Europe must make money if it wants to play. At the moment it's a basket case that is lying to itself. The more it digs in, the worse it will get, and the more danger Europeans are in.
Britain could get its economy going a lot better if it detached from the EU. London is providing millions of jobs for Europeans. London is France's second biggest city. 400,000 French now live there. But even Britain is now getting bogged down in high taxes and regulation. Europe needs to keep growing, not get sunk in the political economic nightmare of the EU.
Just a quick correction: European wind day is, I think, actually on Friday June 15th.
See
Regards.
Henry Curteis is worried about the euro-zone economy. Until last year, so was I. But recent figures show the euro-zone economy is now growing at a healthy rate. The EU growth rate as a whole is set to overtake the US this year. Unemployment is falling steadily. The euro is strong against the dollar. Inflation is indeed around the 2.5% mark, and has been kept in the two to three percent ball-park since the euro currency came into use five years ago. Five times three percent comes, of course, to the 15 percent Henry refers to.
The trouble with referrenda is that come referrendum time the referrendum is also far from many people's minds: just look at the way that Welsh/Scottish/Local elections are so often NOT about local issues but about 'wiping that smile off Tony Blair's face'...
...the French and Dutch 'No' votes (just like the Irish 'No' to the Nice treaty) were also about their unpopular governments and entirely different EU initiatives (inflation blamed on the Euro in Holland and the Services Directive in France). They cannot be said to have rejected the idea of a COnstitution in principle.
Every club needs a constitution.
The UK regularly pools its sovereignty in other situations and abides by agreements made with other countries: NATO, 'the Special Relationship', Trident, WTO, UN - why not the EU?
It has delivered peace, prosperity, a single market, fruitful cooperation and freedom of movement.
Henry Curteis, your views don't make sense at all. How do you think London and the UK are doing so well....they are relying on the European MARKET and the European labour force. Take that away and London would be a lot less prosperous than other European cities.
Is it not time that some of the tired old canards extolled by Mathew (12) and Hertfordian (14) should be put on the backburner? I think you do a disservice to people by continually patronising their views and characterizing them as xenophobes. If you harbour a strong belief in a federal Europe, why not argue it positively? Moreover, should people forget some of the rather strenuous and specious claims that the Indy espoused with its β50 reasons to love Europeβ front page. At least the Mail and Indy do share something: a passion for indulging in Euromyths.
However, I believe the press doesnβt so much form opinion, but seeks to reflect the opinions of their readerships. In effect, the sections of the press are manifesting an opinion that has already developed strong roots. After all, theyβre still businesses and need to tailor their needs to the customer.
Iβm inclined towards the view that British (or English, perhaps) EU sceptism is more a product of the continual failure of British political elites to either sell the βprojectβ or engage in frank debate; Rather the exchange has become a hallmark of deceit and disingenuity.
Media moguls may have input into shaping policy at government & cabinet level, but to what extent, who knows?
Nevertheless, itβs quite remarkable to see, even today, the difference in the terms of βEU debateβ when comparing Britain with some continental countries.
French citizens, IIRC, were mailed a copy of the constitution and engaged in a rigorous debate. Itβs was also quite interesting that despite (IIRC again) the vast majority of the French media supporting the constitutional treaty, the citizens still had the temerity to reject it.
Should these people be castigated and denounced for delivering βa mistake that will have to be correctedβ as Giscard once said? Or should faith be put in accepting a democratic will and seeking to ascertain what people's concerns are, and asking exactly what they want from this organization? Iβm firmly of the latter camp. Indeed, Britain has become a classic example of the resentment that can swell if significant changes regarding the EU are not founded on popular support, or public will.
David Jones (19), please get a reality check.
The EU delivered neither peace nor prosperity. We'd have that both even if the EU didn't exist.
But in fairness I will give you a chance, please prove the correlation between the EU's existence and peace and prosperity (which means you must prove we would not have peace and prosperity if the EU didn't exist).
Good luck.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments, Tony (Post 21).
I wish that the government of this country (whatever its politics) WOULD do something like they did in France and properly ENGAGE with the electorate about Europe - i.e. mailing out copies of the constitution/treaty/whatever you want to call it.
That way, we may actually get to debate what we want to happen in the future and come to a reasoned decision, instead of the knee-jerk eurosceptic comments that are all too prevalent in the press, and fair enough, I'll admit it, the "wet-dream"* euro-fanatic views/myths that are expounded elsewhere.
*I didn't coin this phrase in this context, it was used elsewhere on this blog, but it's quite a good description! ;-)
This is a classic case of the EU elites trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
No new treaties without a referendum on:
1) Continued UK membership in the EU.
2) Further transfer of powers from our elected parliament to Brussels.
I don't really believe/want somekind of Federalist/Confederalist super-state, like some people pretend EU is meant to be(which isn't, it aims something different, just read on about the Treaty of Rome), but I don't want just an Economic Union, which again, it was never meant to be just that.
Truth is, EU should be seen as something unique, like a framework or as the most exclusive-club in the world as I like to think about it, and, until people start thinking 'for the good of the union' which later reflects into the member state and in the quality of each individual, we are going nowhere..
The problem is, people are uniformed about the union and people are too attached to the concept of Sovereign-state, which was introduced in 16th century in Europe(until then there were entities as city-states, feudal territories etc..), in such countries as Portugal, England, Spain and France as a way to keep people united under the same thing, and creating a 'patriotic' feeling. Today, I believe we are entering a new phase, defining a completely new concept which people aren't able to identify and try to make comparisons with other identities they believe are more approximate, as the United States, but that is wrong, since it's a sovereign-state, and it's only natural, people to be afraid when their political leaders are unable/unwilling to explain the benefits of the Union(not in it's current form).
Add that, to the fact that many member-states are just greedy and are just interested in the money/instant factor rather than what the lowly common citizen can win with the Union. I find rather ODD the problem with the British government to accept the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I challenge anyone to read it and tell me what's wrong with it:
What's wrong with defining these requirements for every state in the EU??!
A Referendum about the withdrawal from EU should be hold in UK, but before the referendum there should be a national 'campaign' on the EU, discussions, educating people on how the EU works, the Constitutional treaty, how they can reach and participate in it etc.., and then have the referendum.
Now, either you are truly IN(with no Opt-ins and Opt-outs) or just stop being greedy and WITHDRAW already from the EU and let us advance.
I don't agree with Marco Teulings' riposte at all.
When the Euro was introduced in 2002 there were widespread predictions of London's demise as the financial capital of Europe: Frankfurt would become Mainhatten!
The UK's relative prosperity is epitomised by London's ascendency as one of the top two INTERNATIONAL (not European) financial markets. Talent is welcomed in an open market where the best economic solution is usually given primacy.
I would argue that London has become the 7th largest French city not because it needs French people per se, but rather because these people, who were either looking for work or an entrepreneurial leg-up, found more opportunity in London than back home.
London and the UK have plenty of problems for sure, but the confidence to establish a relatively level playing field and let allcomers (mainly Europeans I would think) participate in the benefits based on merit strikes me as rather egalitarian; dare I say it, European.
Marcus, joining the euro and the EU are 2 different things so there isnΒ΄t much point comparing them.
One of the reasons why UK has been so successful is because of itΒ΄s open policy towards accepting workers from countries all over the world, however it would be very naive to think that if the UK would leave the EU, that this wouldnΒ΄t affect it at all. Leaving the EU would restrict workers from the EU coming to UK and more importantly restrict the UK entrepreneurs from entering one of the worldΒ΄s largest trading block.
Also it is quite often mentioned that Britain is economically doing great, and I agree that compared to countries like France and Germany, the UK has far out performed them, however, compared to Ireland whom have the same open policy as the UK, the results are quite different. Is it because they have engaged a lot more in the EU and have reaped the benefits a lot better than the UK??
We should not have a referendum for this as the great British "public opinion" (i.e. a reflection of the tabloids) is not to be trusted.
If we had a referendum on the death penalty, "public opinion" would be overwhelmingly in favour. The British are simply too ignorant to be allowed to vote in a referendum on anything.