Politicians with severe symptoms of reform fatigue have hailed the Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty as a victory for the European Union, prepared themselves for parliamentary ratification in most member states and vowed to dedicate their efforts to more rewarding causes for a long time to come.
In Poland a new government promises to become a more constructive team player than its predecessor and a new Danish government is thinking about a referendum on abolishing opt-outs from the treaties. In France and in the Netherlands the main parties look set to choose parliamentary ratification, although there are pockets of resistance with roots in the no-camps of the 2005 referendum campaigns.
In contrast, British media, public opinion, the Conservatives and campaigners seem to continue in the vein of Groucho Marx: Please accept my resignation. I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.
Even the UK government seems to laud what it managed to scrap of its 2004 signature, what it did not sign up to now and what sets Britain apart from the other members of the club. What is Britain’s role in Europe going to be? Even after Gordon Brown’s and David Miliband’s speeches we cannot be sure.
Is there going to be a meeting of minds any time soon?
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 23 November 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
Comments
You wrote
ReplyDelete"What is Britain’s role in Europe going to be? "
To dismantle that bloated, anti-democratic monstrosity in Brussels, I hope. To save the Europeans from themselves, yet again.
They never learn.
Jo, in my view European integration shows that Europeans in general have learned.
ReplyDeleteThere are, of course, exceptions like you.
I agree that the European Unionion is not democratic enough, but the Treaty of Lisbon is a step in that direction.
Supporters of intergovernmentalism are the ones who are to blame for the democratic deficit.
Perhaps you find any public administration with 30,000 civil servants a bloated monstrosity. There are lots of them around.
What can I say. As the writer said previously, we want out.
ReplyDeleteReasons if they are necessary are:-
The EU federal police force, EUROPOL, has been given powers to operate anywhere in the Eurozone, including Britain. It's officers and agents have been granted a blanket, life-time immunity from prosecution for all their acts and deeds performed under Article 12, Chapter 5 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EU. THIS is EU democracy.
Other statements:-
Under the power of international treaty, British law is superseded by European law.
And:-
The European parliament and the commission are allies against the member states. Together we have to prevent the member states from taking back power.
President of the European parliament, speaking on BBC Radio 4,July 1999.
Also:-
"The future belongs to the Germans when we build the house of Europe. In the next two years, we will make the European integration irreversible".....Chancellor Kohl
Rayacov, do you mean that England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom as a whole wants out of the European Union? Or does "we" refer to some smaller group of secessionists?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Commission, which represents the general interest, and the European Parliament, directly elected by the EU citizens, are sometimes useful allies for our interests as citizens, against the particular interests of certain member states (depending on the question).
Without the primacy of community law, EC legislation would be a wish-list, not a legal order.
It is one of the oldest rules of international law that diplomats and servants of international organisations are allowed certain privileges. Why would you want to single out Europol officials?
I am reminded of the following saying
ReplyDelete"Nobody is as deaf as those that do not want to hear."
If the EU is only half as good as you profess and the Prime Minister tells us, why not a referendum on the Lisbon/constitution treaty. Surely the Government would win easily wouldn't it?
Don't come the old reasoning that we didn't have a referendum on the other treaties. The reason we didn't is because we were lied too about the contents of same by successive governments and particularly by Edward Heath.
"30,000" ???? You wish!!
ReplyDeleteI assume you are referring to the 30,000 civil servants who work in Brussels.
You don't mention the thousands who are working for the EU at all levels of governance throughout all 27 member states and in offices throughout the world. Or the thousands employed by the 3000 committees, secretly beavering away on policy and in some cases forming it.
The EU will never be democratic. It is specfically structured to be ANTI-democratic. If it were democratic, it wouldn't be the EU, now would it?
For any organisation to be democratic, it needs a demos. There is no EU demos and there never will be, therefore there can be no democracy and without democracy the EU will go the way of all other artificial constructs. It will collapse inward on the fetid heap of it's own greed and corruption.
Come that day, I would hope Britain is well out of it.
JO
Most of my writing concerns two apects: 1) what the European Union is like according to the treaties and practice, and 2) how the EU could become better by maturing into a democracy, with EU citizens bound together by a common democratic constitution (not etnicity, religion etc.).
ReplyDeleteJo and Rayatcov, you seem to campaign for Britain's secession. You are free to do that, since we share the same democratic freedoms.
Your blog seems to attract some Euroscepticism now, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAs far as rayatcov and his limited view on Europol is concerned: there is no way Europol - as you put it - is the EU federal police force. Their main activity is gathering information and setting up a system to exchange information between the Member States.
Ever since the Tampere convention (2005) Joint Investigation Teams are envisaged, under very strict conditions. The crime has to qualify as a cross-border offense, concerning at least two MSs, amongst others.
It is just bullocks to say that Europol can investigate anywhere in the Eurozone; these possibilities are strictly limited, in order to provide YOU with an area of freedom, security & justice. So if any such thing is ever established, it is for your own safety.
I really can't stand this mistrust, or for that matter the entire attitude of the UK towards a better, stronger and healthier Europe.
Admittedly, until now there has been little democratic legitimation of EU acts, but this is exactly why the Lisbon treaty is of great importance (double majority voting system).
Your blog seems to attract some Euroscepticism now, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteAs far as rayatcov and his limited view on Europol is concerned: there is no way Europol - as you put it - is the EU federal police force. Their main activity is gathering information and setting up a system to exchange information between the Member States.
Ever since the Tampere convention (2005) Joint Investigation Teams are envisaged, under very strict conditions. The crime has to qualify as a cross-border offense, concerning at least two MSs, amongst others.
It is just bullocks to say that Europol can investigate anywhere in the Eurozone; these possibilities are strictly limited, in order to provide YOU with an area of freedom, security & justice. So if any such thing is ever established, it is for your own safety.
I really can't stand this mistrust, or for that matter the entire attitude of the UK towards a better, stronger and healthier Europe.
Admittedly, until now there has been little democratic legitimation of EU acts, but this is exactly why the Lisbon treaty is of great importance (double majority voting system).