BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Freeborn-John

Listed below are comments made by Freeborn-John between Wednesday, 18th November 2009 and Monday, 23rd November 2009 (6 Hours Ago) .

«Newer
Older»

EU back to the future? 10:19pm on 23 Nov 2009 Threnodio: There is no issue of any substance where the EU Constitution differs from the Lisbon treaty. The differences are either cosmetic or are differences of form rather than meaning. That is a fact which most government leaders acknowledge openly.
EU back to the future? 7:37pm on 23 Nov 2009 JorgeG1 (250): The EU is not an inter-governmental organisation. There has traditionally been a separation between the supranational 'first pillar' of EU law (which used to relate only to the single market) and the so-called 2nd and 3rd pillars of EU law which were inter-governmental. Lisbon collapses that distinction, by renaming the Treaty on the European Community (TEC) the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) such that the supra-national community method (now renamed the 'ordinary legislative procedure') becomes the norm across almost all policy fields. Therefore the EU is less and less and intergovernmental organisation and more and more a supranational one.

If i were you i would not accuse others of spreading a tissue of lies when you make such claims. Your post 250 is classic 'Monnet Method' (a.k.a. 'integration by stealth') where you support measures (i.e. Lisbon) that bring a federal Europe closer while pretending they do not. It is clear which side here understands this treaty and which side is lieing about its effects.
EU back to the future? 2:31pm on 21 Nov 2009 MA2 (106): I won't speak for other countries, but there is no need in the UK to "abandon hope" and revert to extra-parliamentary / revolutionary methods to get us out of the undemocratic EU predicament we are in.

Mathiason uses a phrase here – "eurosceptics have no chance". It is an interesting phrase not because he uses it (after all he has never been able to dent any EU-sceptic argument here, nor sustain a single serious pro-EU point in his discussions), but because German politicians use it. Thomas Kielinger is London correspondent of Die Welt, and a regular and respected face on BBC television to explain German views to the British audience. In a recent appearance he described how "There are a lot of eurosceptics in Germany on the ground - people who feel rather sympathetic to the way Britain is trying to re-evaluate what Europe is about, what Brussels should be - who don't speak up because the powers that be in my country are holding such a strong hold over public opinion that they won’t let these voices come to the fore". That is what this phrase "eurosceptics have no chance" means when you hear it coming from Berlin where all the political parties are able to suppress EU-sceptics internally, using devices like party-lists to keep such voice out of parliament, and Proportional Representation which guarantees more or less permanent government by coalition, with all possible coalitions being pro-EU.

I can understand that someone in Germany, or even the USA, might think a similar situation applies in the UK, but it does not. The different national interests, the scale of the discontent with the EU and the different political system mean that there s a good chance – even the probability – of a euro-sceptic majority of MPs in the House of Commons in less than 200 days. There may be a view in Berlin or British media circles that we will see a repeat of the John Major years when a Conservative prime minister struggled to suppress an EU-sceptic minority in his party, but the likelihood is that supporters of the Lisbon status-quo will be in a very small minority on the government benches next June, with only 1 of the old pro-EU Conservative guard (Ken Clarke) left. David Cameron will have a vast number of EU-sceptic MPs and will need their support to remain in office. There are scenarios where a pro-EU Prime Minister with an enormous majority could, with the support of the Opposition, force through a pro-EU agenda, but this seems an unlikely scenario for the next 5 years, not least because David Cameron is an EU-sceptic. The probability has to be that he really will do what he recently said he intends to do, which is to re-negotiate some powers back from Brussels. This may be a timid or inadequate step, but it is a step in the right direction and only a first step at that. I cannot say how those countries where 'EU sceptics have no chance' are going to restore their democracy, but in the UK at least it will not be by non-parliamentary means.
EU back to the future? 3:33pm on 20 Nov 2009 Another good piece Gavin, though i would disagree with the closing remark that in choosing a couple of unknowns the EU is signalling EU leaders do not want new power centres to emerge to challenge the nation-states.

In ratifying Lisbon they have given a far stronger signal that they want the EU Parliament to emerge as a single power centre with equal co-decision rights to all the nation-states together (i.e. the Council of Ministers) in deciding the highest law of 27 lands. By changing the voting rules within the diminished Council of Ministers they have signalled very strongly that they want to make it easier to overrule dissenting nation-states. And of course they have extended this EU system into many new policy fields that were previously exclusively decided by nation-states. Compared to these strong signals, enshrined with all the force of international law, the selection of a couple of unknowns at the EU Council (which is anyway the forum of nation-states) is a very weak signal and a temporary one at that, because they will be gone in 2.5 or 5 years at most, whereas Lisbon is quasi-permanent.

Some federalists and some EU sceptics seem pleased by this week's events, but in my opinion the big losers of this EU Council are pro-EU supporters in Britain. For the next 5 years they will be no major British figure in Brussels, no Blair or Miliband or Mandelson nor any member of a likely new government, who they can point to as evidence that the UK can advance its interests through Brussels. Indeed the events of this EU Council will cast a long shadow in that Blair's humiliating rejection now becomes the symbol of where you end up when you aim for 'the heart of Europe'. Why should any future Prime Minister try so hard again?
EU opts for Belgian leader 11:41pm on 19 Nov 2009 Federalists will probably be smiling tonight to have a Van Rumpoy who will not overshadow the EU Commission president. But if, as seems likely, the UK renegotiates power back from the EU in the next 5 years then it is Van Rumpoy that will be on the other side of the negotiating table. If i were William Hague i would be far happier to have a Van Rumpoy in that seat than a Blair. Blair would have been 1 million times more politically astute with loads of links to the Labour opposition and to the British media to complicate matters. Van Rumpoy could also easily become an EU image problem. He does not seem to me to be someone who could appeal over the heads of the British government to the British people, and if negotiations get tough i would think the tabloids will have a field day using him to make the EU look old and worn-out.

I am not sure if Baroness Ashton is confirmed as the "High Representative". If so, she may or may not be very effective in foreign policy, but she is certainly going to be away from Brussels a lot. This will not only leave the UK without much input over sensitive issues like regulation of the City (which could become the casus belli on which the UK-EU relationship flounders), but it will also deprive the Brussels machine of a full-time Labour insider who could provide insight on dealing with the UK.

Overall, i would this Van Rumpoy/Ashton outcome is:
1. Slightly positive news for federalists,
2. Good news for EU-sceptics who want the UK out of the EU,
3. Bad news for EU-sceptics who want the UK to stay in the EU and 'reform it from within'.
Blair camp not hopeful 10:44pm on 19 Nov 2009 Zer-Matty (30): There is no ChiMerica or ChIndia. Maybe you 'foreign relations' insiders impress yourself with word games like that, but back in the real world there is only China, India, America, etc. And they are not turning our taps off, but are our supplying us with low-cost manufactured goods and services and high tech products which enhance our lives and buy stuff from us which pays our salaries. Your rhetoric belongs to the foreign policies of the 1930s, being nothing but fear-mongering that there is some conspiracy of foreigners out to get us.

Frankly people like you are a much bigger danger than your non-existent ChiMericans or ChIndians.

Deadlylampshade (47): Welcome to the surface.
Blair camp not hopeful 7:42pm on 19 Nov 2009 maria-ashot (20): Baroness Ashton is famous for being the only politician we have who has never ran for election once in her life. Who could be more perfect as the 'High Representative' of the undemocratic EU to the outside world than her?

When she visits the Chinese Premier they will immediately share the common bond of never having sought a democratic mandate in their lives. Blair and Bush only had the same brand of toothpaste, so just imagine how much better Ashton and Premier Hu Jintao will be able to get along.
Will EU flunk its big moment? 12:30pm on 19 Nov 2009 Me-rijn (22) said "You seriously need to stop postulating this stuff and come up with specific provisions of the Lisbon treaty. . ."

The 'broken' rules that will not prevent further centralisation of power of Brussels are in Protocol 2 "Application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality" of the Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately the document is a PDF so i cannot link to it, but it is easy to find.

Article 6 of protocol 2 says 'any national parliament or any chamber of a national Parliament may, within eight weeks from the date of transmission of a draft legislative act, in the official languages of the Union, send to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission a reasoned opinion stating why it considers that the draft in question does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity'.

Article 7.2 (yellow-card system) and 7.3 (orange card) define the 'broken by design' procedures that guarantee this will be a waste of time.

Article 7.2 (yellow card) says: "Where reasoned opinions on a draft legislative act's non-compliance with the principle of subsidiarity represent at least one third of all the votes allocated to the national Parliaments … the draft must be reviewed…. After such review, the Commission … may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw the draft. Reasons must be given for this decision". So under the yellow card system at least 1/3 of national parliaments must object within 8 weeks and the Commission can decide to maintain its proposal anyway! The yellow-card is therefore completely toothless as it sets one party in the case (the EU Commission) up as the judge who decides if its own proposal goes forward or not. The Commission will not find against itself.

Article 7.3 of the protocol also defines an 'orange card' system which at first glance seems tougher. It says if "a majority of 55 % of the members of the Council … is of the opinion that the proposal is not compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, the legislative proposal shall not be given further consideration." However any Commission proposal requires the support of 55% of member states in the EU Council or it will fail to clear the QMV blocking threshold anyway! So the 'orange card' criteria adds no ability to block measures on the grounds of subsidiarity which would not have failed anyway! The 'orange card' system is therefore a complete charade.

It is for these reasons that i say that the Lisbon rules on the limits on super-state power are 'broken' and will not prevent an unchecked centralisation of power in Brussels with consequent loss of national liberty.
Will EU flunk its big moment? 03:12am on 19 Nov 2009 Democracythreat (8): I think you should drop the old cliche about the UK being an aristrocacy. Some of us live here after all and could be counted on to complain about it if it were true. ;-)

The UK did not avoid socialism or communism in the past by remaining an aristocracy. You only think that must be the case because you have heard of some Victorian accounts of a class-riven society that has very largely disappeared and think that if the most populous group in british society (the working class) had got a shot at directing the power of the state against its class enemies, then it would have resulted in the same dictatorships of the proletariat that appeared in Eastern Europe. It is most certainly the case that we have had numerous British governments enjoying popular support that wanted to tax ancient landowners into the poor-house, but we never had one that wanted to guillotine them or send them to the gulags as might be seen elsewhere in Europe because it was never accepted here that any majority has a right to do such things.

This concern for limits on state power saved us from Continental excess in the past and applies to the super-state today. It is the relentless 'more Europe' campaign to continually expand EU competences into ever more policy fields, combined with a zeal to over-regulate, which particularly offends from a British point of view. This is what deprives each national majority of its liberty to act according to its free will as determined in its general elections. I cannot see that direct democracy has a big role to play in addressing this problem and indeed would be concerned that it would make it worse. Direct democracy at EU level could easily lead to more cases of EU law being inflicted on small or unpopular countries as a kind of vindictive punishment, just as the 'tyranny of the majority' persecuted unpopular minorities and dissidents after many past Continental revolutions. You only have to look at eurovision song contest voting to know how many ordinary people would use direct democracy to air historical grievances.

I therefore prefer to put my trust in limits on super-state power (which unfortunately are broken by design in Lisbon), and to think that direct democracy in a multinatonal context known to lack any real solidarity would only make EU matters worse than they already are.

You are a supporter of direct democracy and I do believe that some degree of direct democracy can be beneficial at national level (in particular when constitutional changes are being made, and in allowing voters to shoot down unpopular laws that their representatives have designed). We both agree that political power belongs to the people. But i do believe there is a need for full-time representatives to design legislation and policy because most citizens have not the time, the interest, nor the skills to come up with a joined-up set of policies so that without a full-time body of representatives there would never be any coherent program of government. Direct democracy can play a useful complementing role in rejecting the worst of their designs without having to wait up to 5 years for an election, but i don't believe it can replace the need for representatives.
Will EU flunk its big moment? 5:28pm on 18 Nov 2009 Gavin asks "if it comes down to majority voting, what formula will be used?" . . . One former Europe minister said "they'll never again get away with something like this".

As i understand it, it would be a qualified majority vote using the old voting weights (i.e. requiring 255 votes from a total of 345 to pass, or more importantly 91 votes, i.e. about 26%, to block). It is just as well the old voting rules still apply for a transitional period, because if the new Lisbon voting rules (which do not come into force until 2014) were to be used it would very much allow the Franco-German alliance to impose a Benelux candidate as France and Germany together have 30% of combined population and would only need the support of two small countries (Belgium, Luxembourg) and one more the size of the Netherlands to exceed the new 35% threshold and block anybody else’s candidate. The former Europe minister would therefore be more correct to say "they cannot get away with something like this until 2014".

Even so, as the former Europe minister will know (unless it is Caroline Flint who admitted to never having the treaty) it can be quite difficult for the UK to assemble a blocking coalition, whereas the Franco-German-Benelux coalition already has 87 votes between them under current rules, which is within touching distance of the 91 needed to block anyone else's candidates and leave their guy the last man standing.

Of course the professional UK team will fully understand the voting rules and will not be relying on Tony Blair's smile, nor promises made to him in 2007 when Sarkozy needed him to renege on his manifesto promise of a referendum on the 'mini-treaty', nor on good old Continental bonhomie towards Albion and will have already have formed a coalition of the unwilling to avoid having federalist candidates like Van Rumpoy and Moratinos imposed on them? Won't they??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_European_Union

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Freeborn-John