"It's Not For Any One Country To Veto This Treaty..."

[liadnan]

..say Barroso, et al.

Um. Yes, it is. That's how it works when those countries that say no are, both practically and (because it amends and replaces other treaties to which they are parties) technically, necessary parties to the treaty. Go read some fundamental principles of international law, think about why the Dutch, of all people, said no, and stop being so arrogant.

Comments

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

Hear hear.

I am broadly pro-Europe, but I couldn't have voted for this constitution because it's so unbelievably badly written. I am watching how this plays out with extreme interest and not a little glee.

Who's your choice for next Tory leader?

[liadnan]

Oh, Ken Clarke, as ever. Looks like Davis though. The Tories seem to have lost the ability to learn from their mistakes. And completely fail to grasp that they desparately need a leader who is, y'know, likeable.

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

I know.

I would have seriously considered voting for a KC-led Tory party at the last election. Apart from the hunting thing, of course.

Although my father is surprisingly pro Davis, and I am hugely pro my father so am trying to keep a more open mind than my instincts urge.

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Although my father is surprisingly pro Davis, and I am hugely pro my father so am trying to keep a more open mind than my instincts urge.

*chuckles*

That is such a good description of the relationship shared by my father, Sonia Gandhi and me.

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

how funny. I would have seriously NOT voting for a K-C led Tory party (on the grounds of Europe) but probably would have done anyway because of fox hunting.

liadnan why is George Osborn in the running do you know, he is only about 13.

[ex-ms-katoni171.livejournal.com]

So why'd they make the treaty one that required unanimous support from all member states then? *rollseyes*

Don't mistake me, I'm pro-European, but for politicians in a democratic society to whine and blame the people when the people decide they don't agree with him is arrogant to say the least.

Suck it up and deal, as the Yanks say.

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

Precisely.

[chrysaphi.livejournal.com]

Ah, because in the past "unanimous support from all member states" meant "ratification by their legislators, except in pesky cases like Denmark where it's illegal not to have a referendum." For the most part, no problematic consultation with the populace. Ever. Until now. After all, the Eurocrats know what's best... (Witness, before Chirac called a referendum in France, how he was lambasting Blair for having agreed to hold one in Britain.)

Europe is a lovely idea, but the politicians involved do need a reminder about what democracy *is*, yes.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_hypatia_/]

Quite aside from the rights and wrongs of this specific treaty I've been hearing for *years* now about 'these terrible Eurocrats controlling the shape of our sausages' and whilst its an attractive whipping boy for the media and many politicians here I don't buy it. The legislators themselves are elected in each country or are the representatives of those elected governments. I don't have a say in the diplomats who represent the elected government and I don't see a lot of difference so long as they are answerable to that elected government (which ultimately they are). One of the key tasks of the elected government is to deal with complex legislation including foreign relations and international treaties on my behalf (or not if the party I voted for isn't elected but then that is national democracy UK style anyway).

Personally I think that this treaty was a pointless thing to have a referendum on as it stands, simply because it is so complex. I've read through the bulk of it, I'm hardly stupid but nor am I an international lawyer with side degrees in political history, economics and futures forecasting. I can also count on one set of digits the number of my acquaintances who have actually read the thing for themselves. I don't see why individual treaties or bits of international legislation should have a referendum any more than national legislation does. We elect based on principles, policies and objectives with outline proposals and leave the elected legislators to nail down the details (or in practice the civil service...). If they really *must* have a referendum based on a large issue of principle then so be it, but on hundreds of pages of legislation where no one seemed to be able to give a clear summary of its objectives and likely outcomes (which is why I went and read the damned thing myself) its just an exercise in futility.

I just about remember the referendum which was held to decide whether or not the UK should enter the common market and the quality of debate then was largely abysmal - mainly consisting of 'we hate the frogs' v ' the communists/fascists are coming' v 'they only want to come here and take our jobs'. I suspect it would be a damned site worse now with the bulk of the mass media in this country firmly in control of strong vested interests and even the mainstream parties being content to pander to the lowest common demoninators. Or to put it another way a 'x' in the box doesn't make democracy on its own it just creates the comforting veneer of it, especially when voters are inclined to use such events to punish or reward the government of the day rather than vote on the actual issue at hand.

As for the rights and wrongs of this particular treaty - my inner jury is still out on that. Having a common market without some form of comparative employment legislation flies in the face of genuine fair trade, much as 'free trade without a social chapter'is beloved of most large companies and the Conservative right wing. However there was plenty of stuff in there which I didn't like either or simply deemed to be fanciful or impractical.

I can remember my father saying about the common market referendum that any campaign which successfully united the extreme ends of the politics in negative campaigning was unlikely to be espousing a cause which he could support, I generally incline to the same wariness. I've been watching a lot of that same behaviour here and reported by foreign correspondents from other EU countries. Of those who have tried to persuade me one way or the other its notable that the 'yes' protagonists have at least tried to make some sort of case which rises above the hackneyed 'the french are out to get us, the Poles just want our jobs'. Just add the phrase 'hard working British families' to the mix and I start losing the will to live.

[gmh.livejournal.com]

Brecht said it best in The Solution;

"After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people

Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts.

Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

G.

[eccles.livejournal.com]

It is certainly an interesting time to be in Europe. I personally believe this represents a great opportunity to take a step back for a moment and really think about what everyone wants. Whether the UK in their turn at the presidency have the guts to do something really positive I don't know but one can hope.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Well said, sir.

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

Today on National Public Radio (rough equiv of Radio 4) they had a discussion programme (with "experts" in the studio and a short period of Q&A with listeners ringing in) about what the French and Dutch "no" means.

Among the outrageous things generally uttered by both these experts and the listeners:

1) The Constitution should never have been put to referenda: it would have been better for the national parliaments/governments to have just signed their countries up and forced through the changes without consulting the people, because the people are not capable of recognizing change is necessary.

2) The principal reason European integration is slowing down is because we are all anti-Islamic racists.


I got so mad I actually considered phoning in and giving them a piece of my mind. I mean, the whole reason many people don't like Europe and voted no is precisely because it is not accountable. The European Commission: unelected and virtually unaccountable. The European Court of Justice: unelected and unaccountable. The European Parliament: elected but more or less powerless and unable to introduce new legislation.

One hardly needs an in-depth understanding of the Constitution to understand that Europe is already working in a very undemocratic way, and failing to hold referenda before dramatically increasing the number of ways in which it can undemocratically exercise power (viz the European Foreign Minister...)would be utterly unforgivable.

There was one great quote I read in the WSJ (and it may have been reported in the UK as well) about how a very senior European official in FAVOUR of the Constitution told the journalist:

"[The French people] have not read it. If they had read it, they would not understand it. If they understood it, they would not like it."

But he still thought they should vote yes anyway.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_hypatia_/]

I mean, the whole reason many people don't like Europe and voted no is precisely because it is not accountable. The European Commission: unelected and virtually unaccountable. The European Court of Justice: unelected and unaccountable. The European Parliament: elected but more or less powerless and unable to introduce new legislation.

I still don't buy this 'faceless them' argument I'm often given, I think its an easily used cop out for politicians and others to evade responsibility for alternatives (or even their own actions). Whenever I ask for examples of this I'm cited legislation which was passed within the European parliament which is not only elected but is the only election I vote in which actually counts my vote (since first past the post means my vote genearlly counts for nothing in the local constituency since I didn't back the winner).

The European Court of Justice - no it isn't elected but nor are the Law Lords or the Supreme Court. I may have reservations about the appointment system but I'd also have reservations about their being elected in a beauty contest.
European Commission - again appointed by the elected government of the day, just as all beaureaucrats and diplomats are both within and extra to the national structure of government.
European Parliament - well as I said where people have cited laws they don't like they happen to have been those passed by this body which is elected. Many of my friends 'on the mainland' think our first past the post voting system is quaintly undemocratic.

There is plenty wrong with Europe, but not everything. I have no intention of letting politicians of any hue hide behind some faceless 'them' when they have cheerfully made use of it negatively or positively as it suited them. Europe's successes are invariably claimed by national government (all persuasions, all nations), national problems are too often conveniently off loaded. Having read the proposed constitution I found plenty to object to but a lot of that was the lack of pragmatism rather than all the objectives.

regarding Gorgeous George - I believe he started shaving recently but suspect liadnan is correct and Davis will lead the Tories back to the '80s. KC made the great mistake of being pro Europe, rather as Heseltine always did. That seems to be the one crime which is utterly unforgiveable with the hang'em and flog'em brigade who currently form the key electoral base in the party. I'm anticipating no small amount of entertainment value as actual MPs try to change the mechanism to get a recognisable human being elected without actually stating the reasons in quotable form. Pseuds corner could reap a rich harvest :)

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

I beg to differ. The European Commission is nothing LIKE a civil service, in that the European Commissioners could not be less like "bureaucrats and diplomats": they are a hugely powerful unelected executive branch which not only executes policy but also decides upon it. In contrast, in the US the executive branch (ie the President)is directly elected, and in the UK although the executive is not directly elected, most ministers do at least stand for election as MPs and there is a very clear divide between ministers and civil servants. And in both countries, the legislative branches are able to initiate their own legislation.

The problem with Europe is that the link between the people who are ruled and the people that do the ruling is getting longer and less clear.

Think about when you cast your vote for the European Parliament: whose agenda are you actually voting for? The British Labour MEPS in the European Parliament, for example, make up only a tiny percentage of the overall body. They can waffle on about their Labour European manifesto during the election campaign, but once elected cannot possibly get anything done, unless it is part of constantly shifting alliances with other party groups from other countries: who usually have very different agendas to those of the British voter who put his or her MEP in Parliament. Similarly, when you vote for Labour in a UK general election, you (usually) tend to have a good idea who will be leading the country and directing policy if Labour wins. How many voters in a European election can say the same thing?

The main reasons the vast and diverse US has survived as a democracy for 200+ years is because a) its system devolves a huge amount of power to the individual states (who, because they are smaller and more homogenous can actually get things done rather than be stalled by endless compromise and horsetrading) and b) there is a direct and very strong accountability between federal representatives and their home state electorates.

What concerns me is that Europe is far more diverse than the US is or ever was, but it seems to be going in the opposite direction: trying to paper over regional diversity and bring more and more power into the center.