Treaty endgame
The latest version of the European treaty has been agreed in French and it's now with the translators.
The lawyers have been hammering out the exact wording to be used. We had expected the document a couple of weeks ago but apparently the British had quibbles. As far as I can see, they were pretty political rather than strictly technical, trying to pin down things that opponents of the treaty might leap upon. One was to do with the authority of the courts over domestic law and another about the status of "mixed" treaties, which could be considered under the banner of trade or foreign affairs.
There has been some irritation at the British behaviour and the says the British government should be well pleased. That may of course be all spin, designed to make it look as if Gordon's people have won another stunning victory over grudging foreign chaps.
All eyes will be on Gordon Brown for the next few days. The Westminster gossip about an early election is blowing hard in Brussels, with people wondering what the fallout will be. Some of my colleagues back in Blighty are adamant that if Brown goes to the country in the autumn, he will give in to demands for a referendum.
in a very pointed way ("Shame if any of your beautiful election strategy got smashed, ohh sorry Mr Brown what a pity!") reports every story through the prism of its desire for a referendum. This may have confused its readers but certainly the politicians got the message. It's one of those curiosities of life that the tabloids, a byword for giving the punters whatever they want, actually employ highly-skilled political teams, not so much to inform their readers as to demonstrate the power of the editors and owners.
Mr Brown will draw his own conclusions. Politicians are surprisingly good at finding solutions to immediate problems while filing their consequences under "future". Certainly, an early election is the best chance the pro-referendum campaigners have got.
But I havenβt quite convinced myself. The government has put so much effort into that I don't quite believe it will do a U-turn. Labour holds a strong belief that when the Conservatives put Europe at the centre of a campaign they look mad and unelectable.
Iβm not sure, with the right campaign, that this is true but itβs a strong perception in the Labour hierarchy, who still fall about in laughter at the thought of This time they think it would be "Save the Brown". An election victory would allow the reinvigorated PM to "do a Sarkozy" and claim that his victory put the matter to bed.
But he is not the only player in town. Mr Hagueβs announcement that any future Conservative government would promise a referendum on any European treaty change, and indeed would make sure there was a legal trigger, is important. If there was a future Conservative government this would severely limit its room for manoeuvre and that is intentional. Other countries in the European Union would also know that it was pretty futile pressing for any more significant treaty changes, although I get the impression that even the most ardent lovers of internal structural debate have had their fill for the time being.
What of the other countries where a referendum is a possibility? Iβm writing this on the road in the Baltics (almost literally, on a dark road back to Riga, finding out my touch-typing isnβt quite as good as I thought) so forgive me if the following titbits are not up the highest standard of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ accuracy. Iβll preface them in typical reporter fashion with βI understand,β usually a hint at an exclusive, but in this case simply the state of my understanding, even if incorrect.
The Dutch will debate both the treaty itself and a rather peculiar suggestion that the cabinet would ignore parliament even if it did vote for a referendum. They wonβt vote until next Tuesday but it looks as though the Labour and Christian Union MPs will toe their party lines, which suggests strongly that there wonβt be a referendum in the Netherlands.
But the Danes, who were waiting for the treaty to be approved by the leaders at the summit later this month may consider it earlier. It seems that the Conservative part of the coalition is putting its weight behind a referendum, despite one spokesperson suggesting that it would be idiocy.
Itβs going to be an interesting few weeks, and for what it's worth, the Portuguese presidency doesnβt seem to think that the text will get a smooth ride at the summit.
UPDATE:
The has just issued a statement saying that its lawyers have come to an agreement that safeguards all of Britain's red lines on border control, policing and justice. Rather oddly, it adds that when the text is published in full it will be checked again to make sure it meets the criteria "the prime minister has insisted upon".
The pro-referendum think tank is predicting that if there is a referendum Gordon Brown could either snub the summit, have it delayed or engineer a row.
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
If the EU continues on its present course then every new EU law will mean one less law that can be changed by the people we elect until we reach a point whereby our national parliaments cannot change anything at all. Our national elections will then be a choice as to which party should send representatives to the EU Council of Ministers to wield an inconsequential 9% vote and then explain to us why we have to live under supranational law that we do not want and which will forever remain (due to the Commission's current monopoly on legislative initiative) beyond the influence of our votes to change. I do not believe this is a journey the majority of Britons will accept. If the EU truly cannot be reformed to make it democracy-compatible then we British must either un-hook our carriage from the runaway train or derail the thing by rejecting this treaty.
No matter how much spin and gloss the government applies, and whatever the last-minute fudges of translation that are clutched at, the fundamental issue remains: namely that the 'reform' treaty is substantially the same as the 'constitutional treaty'. Nu Labour promised a referendum on it - and this promise should be kept.
L.S.,
Just to clear up the most recent Dutch position: The Dutch labour party have decided not to support the referendum law, which makes it dead unless, when the actual vote comes, at least 10 or so of its 30 (?) MPs defect from the party line.
If, somehow, such a law did pass both houses, it has been suggested that the government would refuse royal assent, which it can do legally, just like the UK government can.
In the UK, this hasn't been done since Queen Anne, if I'm not mistaken, and in the Netherlands it is almost this rare: five times since 1900. (This reflects the fact that the government usually get what they want.)
Given that such a "veto" is extremely rare, and that virtually no one in the country even realises such a thing is legal (not even many journalists, I fear), to refuse assent would be an extremely unpopular thing to do, which is why it is quite surprising that the suggestion was even discussed.
Most likely, the initiative bill will simply fail to get enough votes in the 2nd chamber, and that will be the end of it...
If the Conservatives are going to get Brits worked up about Europe in the election, they will have to spell out better than they have what exactly the new Treaty will do that is a cause for concern. As you say Mark, I cannot see Brown risking the loss of necessary marginal seats by refusing to countenance a referendum on the Treaty, if the Tories manage to make it a key election issue.
If the Treaty is agreed by the Council this month, is there a timetable yet for its translation into all EU languages and for a signing ceremony (at a place which will give the Treaty its name)? Can the Poruguese really manage to do all this before the end of the year?
John, you may be quite right about what the majority of Britons will or won't accept.
There are, however, Europeans who want to make the EU not only democracy-compatible, but actually democratic, based on the citizens of the Union.
Democratic accountability is going to be on the cards long after the UK has decided to un-hook from just Fundamental Rights of its citizens and other parts or the whole Reform Treaty.
The new European Council on Foreign Relations could be seen as proof that some Europeans have a strategic outlook on security for the citizens of Europe. I hope they win the day, at least for the rest of us.
Regards
Ralf Grahn
No matter how much spin and gloss the government applies, and whatever the last-minute fudges of translation that are clutched at, the fundamental issue remains: namely that the 'reform' treaty is substantially the same as the 'constitutional treaty'. Nu Labour promised a referendum on it - and this promise should be kept.
The problem with a referendum in Britain on the forthcoming treaty is that hardly anyone is likely to read it, because (unlike for example the Swiss and the Danes) this country does not have a tradition for referendums, and the necessary sense of civic responsibility is thus underdeveloped here. The treaty, even in its draft form, is a long and boring document full of legal language etc., as most such treaties are.
Voters will almost certainly rely on the spin politicians and the generally mendacious British press put on it, and it is quite conceivable that a large number of politicians and journalists who can be relied on to pontificate on it won't have read it either.
For these reasons alone, a referendum is a stupid idea, and the offspring of political posturing.
To Ralf Grahn (5): The EU has no more citizens than does the WTO or the Red Cross. The concept of EU citizenship was dreamt up by the EU itself as one the trappings of the state that it would so dearly like to become. In reality EU βcitizenshipβ means nothing more than a citizen of one of its member states. A democratic state can only derive its legitimate power from a sovereign people and the EU does not have one. In the absence of a European people the EU can only exercise those powers conferred upon it by its member-states each of which separately derives its legitimate power from the sovereign people that are its citizens alone. In particular it follows that the EU as it is currently constituted should not be able to determine the limits of its own power (as the ECJ has done so often in expanding EU competence at the expense of our national parliaments). Nor should EU law superior to national law be imposed by QMV on outvoted nations against the will of their democratically elected governments without very good cause. Advocates of this Reform treaty say that 'efficiency' is sufficient cause but that could equally justify a one-man dictatorship on the grounds that it is the most efficient form of government ever devised. In my opinion the only circumstance in which binding supranational law may be imposed by QMV on a country against the will of its elected government is to protect people in other countries from harm originated within that country. In all other cases a free people should be able to accept or reject the laws they live under, which is becoming increasingly impossible in the current EU.
We don't understand the endless furore in the UK about the Constitution/Treaty - the British government has proved extraordinarily adept at only adopting and taking on the things that it wants.
Ask yourself Britain - do you really want to be outside the EU? Would it really benefit you?
Endgame or end run around the defeat of the constitution? What's most puzzling to me is that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberal Democrats have made a real issue of a referendum on continued membership even though this would apparently gain them increased popular support. It seems as though they are either resigned to Britain going along with whatever the EU does and only fighting at the margins as it did here or actually fully support the EU even if they won't say so vociferously in public. With no public debate or vote on how Britain is governed and who ultimately wields what power and by what authority, can Britain truly be called democratic? I don't think so.
Mark, Sorry to put you on the spot, and to reduce your detailed shades-of-grey analysis to black and white, but...
Is this treaty substantially the same as the constitution which was vetoed by other EU countries - Yes Or No ???
@ ralf (5): The European Council on Foreign Relations is not some benign organization spreading democracy anywhere. Its an organization focused on undermining the national sovereignty of European nations and establishing supranational rule (ie it will serve as a mouthpiece of the EU).
When will it finally dawn on you that majorities pretty much everywhere don't want 'ever closer union' and don't want powers transferred to Brussels.
We want our national democracy back. Economic cooperation is acceptable, political integration is not. I repeat: no mandate exists for such a thing.
The reason we want referendums and you don't is because you know the majority is with us.
@ Bedd Gelert (9): I can answer this for Mark and say: absolutely yes.
This is a view supported by (amongst others) the main 3 architects of the EU treaty known as 'constitution': Giscard, D'Amato and Dehaene.
Others who have voiced similar statements: chancellor Merkel, prime minister Zapatero, prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, prime minister Prodi, EU kommissar WallstrΓΆm, taoisech Ahern, prime minister Verhofstad. And that's just the top of the list.
Those people would know, wouldn't they?
Why do EU-philes keep ignoring popular sentiment? Those socalled Eurobarometer polls mean nothing as they are heavily slanted pro-EU and extremely biased. The reality is always different.
Dare I say: treason to national democracy?
Some people identify EU as an enemy? Why?
Because is a threat to nationalism in Europe?
I am not proud to be romanian or european. I am just proud to know that I am not better than others.
Of course, people of Europe need to have more power over EU decisions but we should fight for this rights not for some nationalistic ideas.
Many nations in Europe have been built by enslaving other people. Why they are not proud of this?
Europhobe #9
Is there one benefit you can name that the UK gets from being inside the EU which it could not get equally through bilateral trade agreements outside the EU? By leaving the EU it would no longer be a net contributor giving away money for which it receives nothing in return, it would regain all control over its laws and who could and could not enter the country legally. Frankly, I think if the UK had a referendum it would vote to leave and could start a stampede of others demanding the same right to vote from their own governments. Already according to ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, at least 10% of Britain's indiginious population has already emigrated to find greener pastures elsewhere. At the rate the demographics are changing, in two or three more generations, Britain will no longer resemble anything recognizable say 25 years ago.
In response to Patrick (7) and many others like him who miss the point. You do not have to read this document to know what it means.I do not have to go to the North Pole to know it is cold!
We elect people to make our laws and to run our country and yet those same people are wanting to give those powers away.Once they do that it does not matter if we boot out the government at the next election because we do not like the way our country is run. It will be too late. Let us say NO MORE and if we can get back the laws we have already handed over so much the better.One more thing is the Bill of Rights.If people are so concerned if we leave the E.U. version there is nothing stopping the U.K. having its own.
# 8
# At 07:25 PM on 03 Oct 2007,
# John wrote:
"A democratic state can only derive its legitimate power from a sovereign people and the EU does not have one."
Could you please define exactly what you mean by a "sovereign state". Mark Mardell has pointed out that Scotland (for example) is a separate country to England. It used to have its own sovereign. Can you guarentee that the act of union was a democratically decided act freely and voluntarily undertaken by the people of both countyries? Is Britain therefore a "Sovereign state" (or not) under your definition (or does this only require that the state has a sovereign)?
Would you accept a "Sovereign British State" in which Scotland, Northern Ierland, Wales and England all had separate parliaments -and the ruling" governments of these parliaments subsequently made the laws of Britain without any further "democrratic" control or intervention from the (pan-British) public as a whole?
Would such a system make the "sovereign British state" more -or less democratic than now with only a single British parliament?
These are not "rhetorical" questions -but questions of fundamental political philosophy -which (in my view) really do need to be answered if one is going to have a rational debate about how the "sovereign British state" relates to "super-state Europe".
Fortunately, Polish government will probably veto the treaty since it is different to what has been promised to them at the last Brussels summit. They will do the job when everyone else including Britain will shy away.
Poles demand including into the treaty Joanina deal, which would allow to delay majority taken decissions for "resonable" time. Moreover, they demand key positions in some EU institutions and they also want to have the veto regarding the projects funded by the European Investment Bank. The latter would allow them to stop funds for the Gazprom pipe under the Baltic.
If a British referendum were to refuse the new treaty, the "two-speed Europe" will gai momentum and the EU will go the way of the Council of Europe (the first European organisation, sponsored by Winston Churchill) and probably will have its mandate limited to discussing the size of post stamps wil the "United Sttes of Europe" envisioned by Guy Verhofstadt, the Belian PM, will forge ahead
Michael (12): And you don't need to read "Pride and Prejudice" to know that it's a rip-roaring pirate adventure set in a 25th century moon base, right? Because that's what the Murdoch press told me it is, and I believe them.
John, it is hard to argue on a factual basis with anyone who refuses to accept the existence of Part two of the EC treaty 'Citizenship of the Union', articles 17 - 22.
Extending the political rights of of these citizens would create the sovereign people your dogms require.
Regards
Ralf Grahn
"I get the impression that even the most ardent lovers of internal structural debate have had their fill for the time being."
You haven't spent much time in the EP's Constitutional Affairs Committee recently, have you?
To John (8): Being an EU citizen does of course have a meaning, and confers a number of important rights, including in particular a right to travel to other member states, and to reside, work and set up in business in them - all rights denied to British citizens by the rest of the English speaking world, incidentally.
The EU also guarantees our right to take our money out, something which those under 35 take as self-evident, but did not apply to UK nationals until as recently as 1979 when exchange controls were abolished.
Nor is a supra-national citizen anything new or unusual - The UK is a supranational state itself, comprising 4 separate peoples and countries, with their own histories and identities. If it is possible to be English and British, it is also possible to be both of these and an EU citizen at the same time.
In theory a referendum would be a good idea, but as Mark's excellent article states, some of our Press wishes not so much to INFORM its readers, but to exercise power and to pursue a political agenda. In the case of some tabloids and at least one broadsheet, truth often seems to take second place to that agenda, and is as effective as any propganda machine in brainwashing some of their readers.
This is of course extremely dangerous for democracy in this country, and could undermine any referendum on any EU treaty.
Thank goodness that the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ at least provides us with objective reporting.
Are you aware that Ireland is constitutionally bound to hold a referendum?
The fact that conservative, anti-referendum parties in Europe suddenly demand referenda about this treaty could be called hypocrisy.
* michael brimacombe (16) wrote:
"In response to Patrick (7) and many others like him who miss the point. You do not have to read this document to know what it means.I do not have to go to the North Pole to know it is cold!"
I am afraid this is a ridiculous analogy. Who is voting about the North Pole? To know for certain if the proposed treaty really reduces sovereignty or not, it is necessary to read it, or at a minimum the relevant parts of it in context, instead of relying on spin by journalists, politicians and indeed you, Michael Brimacombe, as in the above example, which is a typical tabloid journalist comment. It shows that you go in for lazy-mindedness, and are closed to any qualified arguments for and against the treaty.
Unfortunately, too many people are likely to be swung one way or the other by such spin, which in my view should disqualify them from decision-making on such matters.
Ralf Grahn #5 & #20
Yes, you are absolutely wasting your time trying to discuss the real issues and challenges facing all European citizens (and those of the wider global community as well) with John because his disposition and arguments are predicated resolutely upon an unchanging environment in which traditional old style sovereign Nation States (a la United Kingdom, France, Germany et al) are the sole and exclusive arbiters of individual identity and political affinity, internally for their citizens/subjects and the pursuit, externally, of state preferences (what most people might understand as National Interest) in an anarchical post-Westphalian international order.
Waltz and Morgenthau would be so proud of him!
The idea that domestic groups outside respective state apparatuses might just have some influence on indivudual state behaviours has escaped him. The fact that we now (as humans, rather than Brits, French, Germans et al) live in a global environment in which change is the norm (and the pace of that change is faster with each passing year) and networks of influence outside the scope of Nation-State actors to control, let alone influence, dominate our fears/concerns for a future measured in decades rather than centuries (Climate Change, Globalized Economics, Migration Flows, International Finance, Organised Crime and Terrorism to name just a few of the more obvious candidates) also eludes his reasoning.
I have tried to point John in the right direction by illustrating the transforming geo-political face of Europe but I know his mind is closed to the possiblity of dynamic change and fixed upon the invention of ever more elobarate schemes designed to perpetuate the myth of Nation-State sovereignty in its present form.
Mr Davidson - I think your point, while interesting, misses the real nub of the argument, which is that there is a real 'democratic deficit' in the EU.
What I would like someone to explain to me is how, if the EU were suddenly to introduce laws that made the EU more like East Germany [ID cards, phone tapping, restricted personal freedom, censorship and so on], how could I, as a voter at Westminster, get rid of those laws and the people that passed them.
You seem to have such faith in the EU that you are willing to pass all your national powers to them. But absolute power corrupts absolutely, and while we can vote out Westminster politicians, we seem unable to vote out the EUrocrats. And if we vote against the Constitution [as many did] it is renamed and passed any way !!!
Go and see the film 'The Lives of Others' - and if that doesn't scare you into how Europe could end up again, then nothing will !!!!
To JulianR (22) & Ralf(20): Citizenship implies a relationship between an individual and a state and the EU is not a state no matter how much it desires to be one. This is shown clearly because it is impossible to have this make-believe βEU citizenshipβ without being a real citizen of one of its member states. The βcitizen rightsβ to which Julian refers to in post #22 already existed prior to the 1992 Treaty of Maastricht articles mentioned by Ralf in post #20 by virtue of EEC membership. This is because EU citizenship is an entirely empty concept dreamt up in a 1990 meeting by former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe GonzΓ‘lez. True citizenship is something people feel in their hearts and imposes serious obligations on the citizen, including even β in exceptional circumstances - the need to fight and perhaps die. It can only be based on the strong solidarities of the nation, forged by common language, history and culture and is not something that a politician can invent during a tea-break.
Supranational organisations have no citizens (nor borders nor soil) β they only have member-states. And Ralf - the UK is not a supranational organisation.
To John: It is only in England that the UK has not widely been seen as a supranational state - and even that is now changing as the legal status of the other constituent nations change with the coming of devolution and moves towards independence. The view in Wales and Scotland tends to be quite different, and I am far from alone in thinking of England (not Britain) as my country.
Each of the countries of England, Wales Scotland and Northern Ireland engender fierce loyalty from their peoples. All have their own national flags, national saints days, sports teams, and traditions. Wales has its language, Scotland its own legal system and Parliament (now styled the Scottish government of course), and each country has a different culture, history and identity - drive into Wales from England for example, and it even feels like a different country.
For many reasons, government may (or may not) be more efficient more influential or stronger at state (UK) level, but it is styled as a "country" by the government itself because - just as some accuse Europe of doing - governmental bodies always try to create a sense of identity and therefore loyalty among those they govern.
Southern Ireland was part of the UK until 1922 - but was always a separate country; if (when?) Scotland goes fully independent, does John think it will still part of the same "country" as the rest of the UK? Obviously that cannot be.
Therefore the UK must logically be supranational state - but my point is that that a supranational state is not necessaily a bad thing.