Tricky treaty timing
Could a Polish poll upset the timetable for the European reform treaty? While the campaign for a referendum in Britain gathers pace with the launch of a Polandβs political turmoil could upset the plans to have the new treaty signed off in October.
The Portuguese are pretty desperate for the presidents and prime ministers of the EUβs 27 countries to agree the deal then in Portugal rather than in December in Brussels. (No-one particularly wants a Treaty of Brussels.) The date for a Polish general election should be announced any day now and thereβs a strong possibility it will be just a couple of days after the intended big meeting on 18 October, which will be Gordon Brownβs first as prime minister.
Thereβs perhaps a problem for any government signing up to a major international treaty just days before it might lose office, but that isnβt the real worry. The concern among governments here is that the , which is of a nationalist bent, will either make new demands to look tough or simply ask for the deal to be put off to the December summit in the Belgian capital.
I am at a in Portugal. Itβs whatβs known as an βinformalβ because originally these were intended as a chance for ministers to chew the fat in a relaxed location without an agenda. Now it just means no official decisions are taken.
Thereβs one other big difference: βinformalsβ are held in the country holding the presidency. Time was when all major summits were also held in the nation states but that ended a couple of years ago. Now itβs only two summits a year and these informal meetings. All the rest are held in Brussels rather than at an impressive castle or rather less impressive exhibition centre.
The reason is obvious, that the EU wants to avoid giving the impression that itβs wasting money and paying for a junket. From a media point of view, it is certainly cheaper and much, much easier to operate from a home base than lug equipment half way across Europe and set up mobile studios and the like. The support staff from Brussels doubtless have an easier time of it as well, for similar reasons.
But I wonder if something is lost, at least from the view of those trying to promote the EU? I doubt the Portuguese people will be overly impressed by 27 foreign ministers and their staff descending on a seaside town in the north of the country. Certainly, driving from Oporto I wasnβt particularly endeared to the whole concept when I was forced out of the fast lane by police motor cyclists, lights flashing, ahead of a convoy of cars containing, presumably, some foreign minister, trailed by a minibus of support staff.
But it does make the point that the EU is made up of member states, whereas having all the meetings in Brussels makes it look like an organisation run from the centre.
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
Any EU treaty, whether named Brussels, Lisbon or Scunthorpe, is likely to be rejected by the British people in the referendum we were promised.
We are having a referendum, aren't we?
As an American living in what seems to be a future EU state, some of this seems kind of odd.
On the one hand they want a Union with a president etc, but on the other hand each state wants to be the one in charge, the one where the meetings are etc.
It would be kind of like the state department having a meeting in Montana because Montana also wants to feel important.
"But it does make the point that the EU is made up of member states, whereas having all the meetings in Brussels makes it look like an organisation run from the centre."
European Parliament makes this point consistently but in different way.
Every two weeks all the documents and transcripts of EU gobbledygook
are loaded on lorries (after being dutifully translated into 2 dozen languages) and moved to Strassbourg, together with European deputies.
Costs taxpayers a pretty penny, but, hey, the point is being made.
Yes - some interesting thought as aways. Perhaps it is about time the European Parliament stayed in one place even at the risk of becoming conventional and boring.
By the way you really should learn the rules of the road in the various European countries. You were not "forced out of the fast lane". Emergancy and police vehicles have absolute priority if showing flasing light and you should have pulled over immediately. Being forced in this part of the world means being given a good bump up the rear, and it happens, so be warned.
You suggest that holding all summits in the presidency country "does make the point that the EU is made up of member states, whereas having all the meetings in Brussels makes it look like an organisation run from the centre". While I agree that holding the summits in the presidency country probably makes sense from a communication perspective, I do not understand the point you make above seems misleading to me. After all, the mere fact that the EU is made up of member states is fully compatible with centralisation. A decision by the council is, if anything, only slightly less central than a decision made by the Commission. The main difference between the two is a matter of representation rather than centralisation. One should avoid the widespread, but misleading impression that it would be possible to decentralise the EU by giving more power to the Council.
Has there ever been a Treaty of Brussels? Come on Mark, you know that the Council can only agree a new Treaty at one of its formal meetings which as you say are held in Brussels (except in April, June and October when Council meetings are held in Luxembourg). Ministers can only sign the Treaty when the wording they agreed upon in a formal Council meeting is translated into all the Union's official languages and approved by jurist-linguists. That is why signing ceremonies are held usually in nicer places in the countries that have the Presidency at the time. Of course, that will change if and when there is a permanent Presidency.
Reuven,
"But it does make the point that the EU is made up of member states, whereas having all the meetings in Brussels makes it look like an organisation run from the centre."
This is certainly the illusion they want to create - but if I want to democratically vote against any of their proposals I might as well whistle.
See the earlier post about proposals about the road being built in Poland.
As it happens, I support the EU view about protecting the environment. But the principle is that this should be open to a democratic decision. If the boot was on the other foot and the EU decided it wanted to be a nasty, anti environmental organisation, how would we vote it out, exactly ?
Why should the people not have a say? I mean how is this true democracy if the government is deciding for people what is best? This is an outrage!! Maybe civil war is the only answer!! I cannot believe this. It is just like those impotent people in the european commision, who by the way are not elected. The political elite are just pushing their agena right along without the consent of the people. This of course means the slow erosion of our national soveriginty. It is no wonder the extreme right is gaining popularity. Of course in that case they just will start to bar certain politcal parties from running or holding office. How is that democratic?