The 'reform treaty'
A meeting of top civil servants in Brussels to discuss the German draft of a new treaty is still going on. Much later than expected. And much less leaky. I certainly expected to have seen a copy by now. As I havenβt, it's difficult to make sense of the titbits I have heard. It's 11 pages long and would be called βThe reform treatyβ.
As I understand it:
- β’ The name foreign minister is dropped - but thereβs no suggestion of an alternative
- β’ The European Parliament and Commission wouldnβt get any more powers over foreign affairs... which upsets a lot of countries
- β’ Countries would have the right in to opt in or out of deeper co-operation in the area of justice and policing
- β’ The Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding
- β’ Thereβs a mention that the summit will discuss voting weights... the bee in the Poles' bonnet
This is a bit of a curate's egg for Tony Blair. Many countries will think that the Germans have caved into his demands, but thereβs plenty of red meat for Eurosceptics to get their teeth into. I suspect the meeting is going on so long because it's seen as giving too much away to the UK.
This is just a draft (that I havenβt even seen) and thereβll be a lot of tinkering between now and the wee hours of Saturday morning.
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
Mark, I have only just come across your blog. It is excellent. Makes up for the limited space given to European issues on tv and radio broadcasts. I have bookmarked you.
I am not sure from your latest reports if Germany want to include in the amending treaty the extension of qualified majority voting and co-decision to social security. Remember that for many EU members "social security" covers their insurance-based schemes for the provision of health care. So allowing extension of qualified majority voting and co-decision procedure (between the Council and the Parliament) could give the EU new licence to determine how, where, when and to whom health care services should be provided. Not something a UK Government would want to see happen.
Any new treat that further binds us to the EU must have public support which can only be given by a referendum. The last vote the UK had was in 1974 - 33 years ago which means that anybody under 54 years of age have never voted on the EU.
Labour will not give the public a say because a 'no' vote to any more ties to an unelected, corrupt organisation like the EU is 100% guaranteed.
Is this really the draft of a Treaty text, or just the draft of a negotiating mandate?
"top civil servants in Brussels" - there's an oxymoron for you. Unfortunately, all Mr Barroso's fine words yesterday have done nothing to dispel the image of a herd of pigs with their heads in the trough and their backsides towards the people who pay for their food.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights would be legally binding
Then Blair can't accept it. And if he does he will have lied to us (again) just a few days ago.
Before conceding more powers to Europe, it does seem reasonable to require an apolitical and objective assessment of what the EU has actually delivered so far - And if necessary press for a hold on new objectives until existing promises have been met.
It's a simple question - putting aside the political rhetoric, what exactly has membership of the Common Market / EU done to benefit the average UK citizen, and at what cost to them?
Sure we do a lot of trade with the EU now, but also proportionately less with former major trading partners as a result of tariff barriers around the EU.
Exactly what benefits does the average person gain in return for a higher cost of living (compared to world market prices and eliminating the cost of subsidies such as the CAP)?
As for influence, if anything acting as a member of the EU would appear to dilute this, and the actual process often seems to get bogged down in indecision.
Plus (where military intervention is concerned), the UK often seems to bear a disproportionate amount of the "workload".
As someone from the pre-EU generation, I ask, shouldn't we be insisting on delivery of the promised benefits before further "throwing good money (and resources and authority) after bad"?
Leaving the EU now would be unrealistic, but insisting that it does its' job with regard to benefiting ordinary citizens does not seem an unreasonable demand to make.
Why do they feel the need to change Javier Solano's job title anyway. I understood he was effectively treated as EU foreign minister during his recent trip around the Middle East.
Also, why are the countries complaining about no more powers to the commission on foreign affairs. Do they not already have mandates on the most important issues of energy, the environment and foreign aid?
I think the opt out on policing is just plain daft. Is immigration and cross border security not one of the most pressing problems of the EU?
I think the EU will be a much better place with the UK out of it!
Paul Chandler; Can I get my once-a-generation referendum on the continued existence of the UK as well, by that logic?
It's not much of a treaty in my view. The strengthening of EU Foreign Policy was something I was hoping for. Entrenching the CoFR is definitely welcome, and I defy any reasonable worker or consumer from arguing against it.
Something needed to be done to prevent a repeat of the Iraq war, and EU based foreign policy is key to that. This treaty will really be a missed opportunity if that's missing.
Barrosso said the EU was by the people for the people.. And yet? The people have had no say in its formation for fifty years here in the UK only to say we accept a trade organisation Yet here we are with a fully working single organisation preparing to take over europe. With no opposition parties and euro MPs who can only be elected to the EU..
Democracy?
We have in the UK three major parties.. Those parties elect their own leaders BUT WE ELECT which party we want..
The EU elects its own leaders BUT they have no opposition.. So we cant elect an alternative..
In other words a single state dictatorship..
The argument that euro MPs will represent us is ridiculous as the agenda is set by commissioners..
The Regional assemblies have no power of their own only the power to implement EU orders..
In other words we will have have no authority.. We can state our case within the Committee of regions AND thats where it ends...
In other words the commissioners run the EU and they can decide whenever they want to propose they all keep their jobs and who the hell can vote them out?? Only the euro MPs.. How much can we trust MPs from the UK to do whats in the countrys interest NOT their own? The only ones that can do that are the public voting for a completely different set of people...So making them at least look as if there doing whats best for the country... And at the end of five years. The public can vote them out....
Yes there is much subterfuge spin agenda red herrings etc..
We are told mass production big is best and how they kept the peace since world war 2
Can anyone spot the lies here???
The EU is a way to centralise and control everything from Billions going into brussels to lwamaking and control is within there fingertips A central computer with everyones details on file and an EU tax on roads using their purpose built satellites as an excuse..
Its about Money OUR money and boy have they already misused enough of it...
Compromising is a form of art which the British clearly have not mastered.
The EU is all about making compromises - you give a little, you take a little. Surely, the UK cannot expect other countries to just cave in on about everything...
I agree with Alex (#8 above) believes that the EU will be a better place without the UK. I'm not sure about that, but I'm confident that the UK will thrive outside the EU just as it does outside the EuroZone.
As we don't have kids to think about (or use as an excuse) let's just get divorced.
Whilst I consider this blog a good idea, I wonder how representative the postings can be.
The comments are mainly the usual xenophobic rubbish coming from people who embellish their ignorance with the title "euro-sceptic". In fact, they know very little about the EU, they really don't want to know more and oddly enough they consider themselves somehow superior to other Europeans.
I work for the EU and I have never come across (in 12 years!) a British "euro-sceptic" who had a real argument to make. It all falls apart once the facts are presented. People like steve don't even understand the difference between a free trade zone and a single market. It's pathetic.
Frankly, I have enough of this and I hope that there will be a referendum in the UK. Because, contrary to what little Englanders want to believe, a referendum will reveal the total lack of knowledge about the EU in the UK, and it will either force the UK out of the EU or it will stop this idiotic debate for good. Either outcome would be better than what we have now.
Sorry to return to this point but the EU has not forced itself on anyone and is not undemocratic. In Britain, after an initial "yes" in a referendum governments have been continually elected who support the EU. Other would say that is because there are domestic issues to consider, in which case the last EU elections (how peculiar for an undemocratic organization!) are a good marker. Only UKIP was advocating a withdrawal and received about 20% of the vote. Roughly the same as the Lib-Dems, who are very pro-EU. Labour and the conservatives took the rest, both support the EU to different degrees. In fact, most people don't want a total withdrawal in the UK. I big to understand the nationalists rage with the EU, it must be very frustrating having so little support, but that doesn't defend their position. However, the EU does respect and reflect Britain's will and thus it remains in in union.
As for Pigs in troughs, I agree there is room for improvement (probably why it's better electing MEPs who want to make a better EU, not destroy it from the inside), but already the EU gives so much to the UK both directly in development funds, but more importantly in business opportunities, reduced red tape and unrestricted market access to 27 neighbouring countries. The idea of developing ones neighbours by investing in infrastructure is well established and proved. Look at Germany after WWII, there was massive assistance in rebuilding and now it is the UK's largest trading partner. Money very well spent indeed.
I have presented my views here with evidence, in a calm manner, not in an anti-EU rant with absolutely no instances to back it up. For the sake of the quality of discourse on this blog, rather than anti-EU tirades, could people actually support what they're saying?
Steve (10) - Whilst not wanting to dispute your fact that there may be something of a democratic deficit in the way that the EU is currently structured, please don't keep going back to that "we can vote for who we want here in the UK without Johnny Foreigner getting involved".
As has been pointed out before, if I vote for who I want in the UK, there's no chance of my vote counting as I don't live in a marginal constituency. Therefore, there aren't three parties (or more) for me to choose from), therefore my vote's effectively a waste of time. (I'll still carry on voting though)
So can you tell me how us leaving the EU and "running our own affairs" (i.e. bending to whichever way the wind blows us - especially the American wind, depending on a democracy where most people's votes don't count, hence the 40% or so turn out at elections) will make ME any better off? I'm afraid I just don't see it.
As for the "once in a generation" vote on whether I can decide I want to go back to pre-1973, all of the factors above are making me more likely to vote "yes to Europe", not "non" :-)
Even if some of the agenda is set by the Commission (and only some, big things like the Lisbon Agenda and the EU's response to Climate Change are definitely set by our elected representatives to the Council), the power to change and approve those initiatives is held by the Council (shared, in some cases, with the Parliament).
The new treaty should increase Member States' powers by creating a permanent President (French for Chairman) of the Council, which will improve the ability of national politicians to set the agenda. It should also increase transparency and democratic accountability by making the Council meetings public.
Confident declarations that the 'UK would thrive outside the EU' are meaningless without a vision or strategy as to how that would work.
One thing I am sure about - whatever the eventual outcome of these talks, the citizens of the UK will once again be denied any opportunity to vote on the result. The reason is simple: no mainstream politician expects to win a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in any shape or form. The "people" have at last come to see the whole corrupt, self-serving, unnecessary organisation for exactly what it is -a gravy train for failed politicians and bureaucrats, and a means of imposing the socialist agenda that British voters have been rejecting for decades via the backdoor.
Britain (almost alone in Europe) has a long history of democracy, independance and civil order thanks to our Common Law and the good fortune of being an island race. We don't need or want a "Charter of Fundamental Rights", a "Human Rights Act" or the outrageous judgements of a so-called Court of Justice which is no more in reality than a politicised arm of the Commission. We have all the rights and freedoms that we need,(conferred on us at birth) which is why we have the expression "Freeman" in our language. We certainly don't want a European Justice System, thankyou very much, any more than we want a European Defence Policy (which, forget Iraq, would almost certainly have prevented us liberating the Falklands Islands). It is high time that our politicians listened to the public on this issue, started to take stock of what is actually at stake here, and gave the people a say on this nonsense before it is too late. The sovereignty of my country does not belong to the Prime Minister, the Cabinet or even Parliament; it belongs to the British people and can only be gifted away with their consent, freely given. I detect signs that the lion is starting to stir, and woe betide any politician who chooses to tred on its tail!
Steve has it about right in post 10. The "people" have not been asked for over 30 years what they want from the EU. The last vote was in favour of staying in basically a free trade organisation. Since then we have NOT been asked, and even with our democracy the KEY question of Europe has just been one of many subjects in the manifesto's of the major parties. This is a fundamental question of how the people want to be governed. To move in a direction (for that is what it is) of a European super state, with the benefits that may give. Or alternatively remain as the UK, self governing, with free trade (as Norway, Switzerland) with the EU. This is what we need a referendum on, and not the spurious question of constitution or not.
Steve;
The STATES decide on who heads the Commission. We vote for who we want to govern our individual member states.
The Commission is then voted on by PARLIAMENT. We vote for who we want to represent us in Parliament.
Sure I'd love for the Commission to be directly elected by the people, but as it stands there's hardly this great deficit of democracy that the raving-right keep harping on about.
Mathew Walsh (16) is clearly not aware that from the word go in 1957 the idea was to build a federal state with full political, economic and monetary integration. In fact, Arthur Salter and his friend Jean Monnet had this idea as early as the 1920s. And one of the core issues was their wish to conceal this federal wish from the public. Through stealth, subterfuge and deceit was this economic, monetary and political integration to be achieved.
Ted Heath (the British PM when Britain joined the EEC) deceived the British public in 1973 by telling them the EEC had economicic purposes only. Historical documents prove that he not only knew that full integration was the eventual goal, but also fully agreed with it.
Today's EU is fundamentally anti-democratic (rather than undemocratic). Its parliament is in essence no more than an advisory council. Decisions are taken by a small clique of ministers who see the Council of Ministers as a handy tool to bypass national parliaments. They do this together with the Commission which has no popular mandate whatsoever.
What Oliver Lewis (14) forgets is that politicians of main stream parties tend to have a vested interest in supporting the EU. The EU was deliberately set up the way it is in order to be able to sway mainstream politicians with dreams of a future ride on the Brussels' gravy train. You certainly don't think any mainstream politician is going to endanger a possible job in Brussels (highly paid, hardly taxed, double pension, generous expense account and overly generous travel reimbursements). And these days one can say that it is true that in Europe politicians are hopelessly out of touch with 'the people'. Is it any wonder since they deceived us so blatantly about the EEC's true goals?
People are being scaremongered by telling them an economy would collapse if one left the EU. In fact, Europe would be better off without the EU. Only mainstream politicians would be worse off.
And as I mentioned before, Heath and his people deceived the British public who voted in that referendum to such an extent that one can clearly say that the vote should be considered illegitemate. Heath & co told the Brits the EEC had only economic purpose, when he was fully aware that this was a lie. He later admitted this himself. A re-vote is therefore called for.
Mark
Perhaps you should point out that the UK's red lines are a useful political smokescreen for Mr Blair and Mr Brown. The Charter was only legally binding in the abandoned Constitution when the EU, or Members States implemented EU law not when they pass or implement purely national law. The EU does not have any direct legal powers over national employment market policy -a CBI red herring really. The abandoned Constitution did not propose that it should either. Nor did the abandoned Constitution oblige states to lose control over foreign policy, defence, police, social security system, taxation or significant aspects of immigration policy. (See Part 3 of the abandoned Constitution) Under the abandoned Constitution unanimity was still in reality required in these areas. In other word states could still veto. The no foreign minister red line is thus not serious except for journalists who perhaps have forgotten, if they ever bothered to read, what the abandoned Constitution actually stated. Our partners the Dutch of course now want to strengthen the powers of national parliaments over EU affairs. Well there has never been anything to stop the Dutch strengthening their national parliaments input in the way their government conducts EU affairs -nor the UK for that matter. The abandoned Constitution did in fact provide that national parliaments could refer an EU law to the European Court of justice if they thought it breached the principle of subsidiarity.. in short that the EU had no competence to legislate on the matter. No doubt the Dutch Government know that very well but do the dutch electorate ? The objection of the Polish Government the double majority system of voting is sad but perhaps understandable. However, the EU project has always been about sovereignty trade offs (pooling of )for mutual and individual benefit and from time to time resulted in enhanced individual and collective global strength and influence for European States. 19th and 20th Century views of State sovereignty have lttle place in the EU and its raison d'etre.
Oliver (post 14):
You make the same claim as every other EU enthusiast about people voting for pro-EU parties in UK elections, therefore conferring legitimacy upon our membership. There are two major holes in your argument (which disingenuous politicians regularly trot out as well):
1) People have other concerns in UK elections - mainly because politicians from major parties always down-play the EU issue for fear of igniting internal divisions like John Major. This really is a cross party issue, and should be treated as such.
2) As all three major parties (likely to form a UK government) refuse to offer an alternative vision for UK membership of the EU, who else can people realistically vote for but a "pro-EU" party? In the 1992 general election, when the Maastricht Treaty, which funadmentally shifted the position regarding the EU (actually it created it), was being thrashed out in parliament, all three major parties refused to offer a referendum on its implications, and all supported signing it. Where then was democracy? It was like living in a one-party state (the kind our politicians like to decry for lack of democracy). How could a voter unhappy with signing away so much sovereignty register a protest while at the same time adressing other important UK issues like tax, health, law and order, education etc?
Our membership of the EU will always lack a democratic mandate until it is addressed as a single, seperate issue from other domestic UK issues, and the only way that this can be achieved is via a referendum. I am always amazed at the reluctance of EU enthusiasts to accept this. It couldn't be through a fear of losing surely?
I think Hertfordian points out very well this simple fact:
Yes, there is a democratic deficit in EU, as in every democracy of the world. But that doesn't make EU any less democratic than UK.
I cannot understand why English keep complaining about EU procedures, when the English voting system is hilarious - a party can get 20% and elect practically no MP.
(BTW, I live in Scotland where UKIP is getting practically no votes :D.)
Does it have a mechanism by which states may leave the "EU"? The constitution of the USA did not. More Americans died in their Civil Wat than in both world wars together
Unfortunately, I would have to agree with Ronald that a lot of the comments here are filled with the usual xenophobia and ignorance that are usually passed off as "euro-skepticism". But I can't say I blame them - the reporting on the EU in the British media is so unbalanced and one-sided, it's untrue. Problems and deficits (which the EU has its share of, like any political organization) are blown out of proportion, while the benefits (which far outweigh the problems) are never even mentioned.
The "European superstate" that the self-professed critics keep muttering about is a chimera. No one wants it. What countries like Germany, France etc. want is simply more coordination in fields such as foreign policy, and a system where majority decisions can be made more easily without a million veto threats. Because if it stays divided and immobile as it currently is, Europe will be increasingly marginalized on the world stage of the 21st century.
The is a lot of talk about the EU lacking democratic foundation, and some of it has a point. But the irony is that the proposed reforms aim to solve precisely these problems - by giving more strength to the parliament etc. But people don't even want to read what is on the table, it seems. They have an a priori dislike of the EU, and that's that.
Let's see what comes out of the summit. I'm currently pessimistic, but you never know. Everybody was predicting that the G8 summit would fail, and Merkel still managed some better-than-expected compromises. Might be the same this weekend.
Given the general prevalence of so-called "Euro-sceptics" in the UKβlately and to my dismay joined by Blair, Bennett, and the whole Labour partyβI think it is time that the younger continental Europeans (who are generally Europhiles and believe that the EU is the best thing to happen to this continent since 1945), should become "UK-sceptics" in turn.
Thus, I support Alex's sentiment above. I think that it is in the best interest of the rest of the member states that the UK be thrown out of the EU, whether it wants to stay or not.
How precisely this could be done is of course a difficult diplomatic and political matter. Essentially, the core founding states would have to create a new Union. But I think the UK has been party-pooping for too long, dragging its feet on political unification. However, an "ever closer union" is what the Treaty of Rome agreed upon, and this is what generally less xenophobic (and usually bi-lingual) younger continental Europeans wish. It is clear that the British have never felt European. They use the word "Europe" to refer not to themselves, but to those crazy people over on the mainland. The only reason the UK ever joined this club is for the money (i.e. trade and commerce), they have never shared any European ideals.
Thus, in the long run, it will be better for all if the UK leaves. If it so wishes and if the pressure of globalisation becomes too strong, the UK could always apply to become the 51. State of the U.S.
I voted NO in that referendum as did most of the people I asked or they divulged voluntarily. Most people at the time were surprised at the result. The subsequent creep across the Channel to beg DeGaul to allow us in by that band leader feller was the last Straw, well almost, he turned up years later.
Who can remember the butter mountain, who can remember fish in the North sea, the sea off Cornwall was loaded with mackeral until the Russians sucked them all into factory ships.
The Spanish having devastated their own waters came and devastated ours, no control just take everything.
Now it is all too late, Europe is one, or is it, the old soviet union countries need our dwindling resources and a bigger piece of the pie, without putting much in. Where will it all end, my guess is a big bust up and a lot of tears.
To those who say the UK should have a referendum please tell our govt as they have a habit of not listening to those whose interests they are meant to represent.
As for the money we get from the EU,
it is considerably less than we give.
Just how many new schools, hospitals, road the UK could have had with the money wasted on the EU.
The EU has major problems with corruption - if it were a business then its mangement would be on fraud charges. No organisation or company would have 10+ years of unaudited accounts and seem unable and unwilling to do anything about it.
The sooner the UK gets out, the better.
rkowal,
perhaps if the UK application to join at the outset was accepted rather than rejected by De Gaulle we might feel less hostile. He only rejected our application so as to allow the CAP to be fully in place which is well known to be a method of supporting inefficient french agriculture (at the expense of our own)
The majority of the UK would like us to leave but our govt will not give us the chance
rkowel (20) uses a typical smear tactic often used by EU-philes. Anyone who doesn't agree with their federal agenda is a 'xenophobe'
rkowel, I am a 'young' continental 'European' and neither myself nor any of my friends, family or colleagues (bar 1) are interested in any form of federal Europe. And myself, I'm not just bi-lingual but tri-lingual (and know a bit french too).
If you study the EU's history, particulary the 1950-1970 era, you will find it was Britain who was outward looking and the original 'six' EEC members who tried to build a closed shop keeping the nasty outside world out with external tariffs.
I don't think there is any country which would vote for federalization if asked in a referendum. For years politicians stressed the EU was only 'economic' even though all original treaties clearly imply 'full federalization'. They deceived us and pay the price for it now.
Reference 26 on kicking the UK out of the EU.
Good god man, please, don't leave us with this lot!
Ref. 20
As for whether politicians have vested interested to remain part of the EU, I sincerely doubt, given the massive amounts of politicians across Europe, that the chance of an individual getting a "comfortable" job really makes a huge difference to their thoughts. If that's what they're after, I'm sure there are plenty more private sector posts that pay better and involve far less negative press.
I'd loved to know why Europe would be better of economically with the EU. Where would massive investment in the eastern block come from? How would we build markets? Would having 27 different sets of national legislation really make things easier? Will global warming enrich our lives?
Ref 22.
1) People in the UK really can't care that much about the EU if after three decades they haven't punished a government once regarding the EU. But of course, maybe there are domestic concerns. That's why I reference the EU elections, where people did show their feelings on the EU, and UKIP took 20% of the vote. Face the facts 20%. It been observed as a common trait of the right the assumption all feel they same way they do. I understand why they are angry, but look at it. The culmination of 33 years of "national discontent" with the EU and 20% of people vote for the party offering withdrawal. It may be trendy in the UK to make glib remarks about the EU, but I think for most people they remain just that, glib. Elections are where people show their true thoughts politically and they have.
People can vote for UKIP, in fact they have shown they are willing to vote for UKIP in quite large numbers (20% in fact), so that is their alternative to the big three who are accused of denying people a voice.
As for an "alternative vision" of the UK and the EU, like what? A union of one? Economically and internationally very poor for the UK. Perhaps the EEA? Receiving many of the rules from the EU without any say, hardly likely to please those who complain of democratic deficit.
Could it be that neither the conservatives, lib-dems or labour possess the ability to magically create an alternative to the EU? That may explain their reluctance to leave the EU.
How interesting to read this debate. The Soviet style EU really is alive and kicking.
I suggest the pro EU lobby read Booker and North's book on the European project. They might be less in favour of the EU if they could see how a political elite grab our rights and freedoms.
As for Britain being poor if we left, think again! Anyone for the Euro?
BTW, I find the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ more than makes up for an anti EU press, they are without doubt a part of the propaganda machine for the EU.
The reform treaty is the constition by another name, I want my vote and my Country back.
We were promised a vote by Tony Blair about the EU,he has went back on his word, because he knows this treaty would be thrown out be the British people.The Government must allow the British people to have a say in their own future,I like millions of other people have grand children I want them to grow up in a free Britain as I did and not a Britain controlled by a corrupt EU.The best way for Britain in the EU is for trade only without having to pay extortionate yearly fees which could be best spent on the welfare of the British people.