Cameron's Lisbon problem
Dublin: Sometime on Saturday morning there will be the first indications of how Ireland has voted in its second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Political Europe will be on the edge of its seat - none more so than the Conservative leader, David Cameron. 
The expectation here in Dublin is that the "Yes" campaign will win, although some claim that on the doorsteps the "undecideds" are leaning towards voting "No".
If Ireland votes "Yes" almost immediately the Tories will face difficult questions. Their current position is that if they get into power they will hold a referendum if the treaty has not been ratified by all 27 EU members. If it has been ratified, all they have said so far - and rather cryptically - is that they would "not let matters rest".
Now Ireland is not alone in not having ratified the treaty. Neither has Poland nor the Czech Republic. If the Irish vote "Yes" a Polish signature is likely to follow shortly after.
The position in the Czech Republic is more complicated. In recent days a group of senators close to President Vaclav Klaus have filed a legal challenge with their constitutional court. The basis of their case is that the Lisbon Treaty could form the legal foundation for the creation of a European superstate and that would violate the Czech constitution. 
Previous complaints to the court have been thrown out, but this one may take longer to consider. Some say it could take between three to six months before the court rules. Others say there will be a decision before the end of the year. Certainly Prague will come under relentless pressure from other EU countries to decide quickly.
What is happening in the Czech Republic is central to how David Cameron is likely to respond to an Irish "Yes". He will be asked whether the Conservatives still intend to hold a referendum. In fact he was asked that on Wednesday this week. The Czechs buy him time to avoid defining precisely where he stands. "If this treaty is still alive," he said, "if it is still being discussed and debated anywhere in the EU then we will give you that referendum, we will name the date during the election campaign. We'll hold that referendum straight away and I will lead the campaign for a 'No'." That is clear as far as it goes.
What he did not promise was to hold a referendum if the treaty had already been ratified across the EU. All he would say was that if the three remaining countries have ratified the treaty then "a new set of circumstances apply and I will address that at the time". Some in his party may see that as preparing the ground to back away from a referendum.
So back to the questions that may flow from Saturday's verdict. It is quite possible that at next week's conference the Tory leader will come under pressure from both sides of the argument. Some within the party believe that if the Irish vote "Yes" it is time to accept reality and that the Tory leader should come out and say boldly "yes we have to live with Lisbon". Others will be pushing him to hold a referendum even if it has been ratified. David Cameron will have to tread carefully to avoid stirring up within the party the old arguments over Europe. This is where the Czechs give him valuable time and wriggle room.
To hold a referendum after it has been ratified across the EU carries big political risks. The row with the rest of Europe will be immense. Some will say that a "No" vote in those circumstances would be a vote to leave the EU. But here's the question: Would a new prime minister taking office with a vast budget deficit, and with a commitment to mend "broken Britain" spend precious political capital and energy on a ferocious row with the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy?
Some may argue that the Tories are keeping half an eye on those voters who turned out for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) at the European elections. Keeping the idea of a referendum alive may tempt them into the Tory camp.
There is another possible verdict on Saturday: that Ireland votes "No". In that event the Lisbon Treaty is effectively dead. As the Irish prime minister accepted on Wednesday, you can't hold a third referendum. The EU will be in crisis, although it will continue to function on the basis of the Nice Treaty. For David Cameron and the Tories there will be a new landscape and, for a period, the awkward questions subside.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~58~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
What ever he does it will be more anti EU the pro and more for the british the brown and blair
Complain about this comment
Cameron has a problem with Europe. If he is too anti he will drive pro EU Conservatives to vote for the Lib Dems but if he is too pro he will drive the antis to UKIP which is mounting a big challenge in Tory seats. In a Tory shire in the recent county council elections the Tories increased their majority by one. Beneath the surface were some interesting and for Cameron, alarming statistics. His party won ten seats from Labour but lost nine to the Lib Dems because of UKIP intervention.
Complain about this comment
It's fairly safe to say that most of the don't-knows — up to 80 percent — will actually vote no. But according to the most recent polls, such a result would still result in a yes tomorrow.
I would have though UKIP would have wanted a yes vote tomorrow. If that happens they might even have a decent chance of a referendum on EU membership itself instead of just the Lisbon Treaty.
http://purehearsay.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
Just hold the bloody referendum (on EU membership) and put the issue to rest.
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon Treaty is like a foreign war: very convenient to direct attention from national issues, thus avoiding many difficult questions.
Complain about this comment
If the Lisbon Treaty is finally ratified before the next British national election, and Cameron wins it (which seems quite likely now, but six months is a very long time in politics), then he'll be between a rock and a hard place. Withdrawing the UK's signature will not mean a return to the statu quo ante, but, in principle, Britain's withdrawal from the EU. I can't believe that the Conservatives' business constituency, after some earnest consideration, will be anything but horrified by the implications, and I suspect this is something that Mr. Cameron himself is increasingly being made aware of.
Indeed, as Mr. Hewitt notes, the campaign could become very agitated for Mr. Cameron if the treaty was ratified before its conclusion. The Tories would be forced to take a more defined position with respect to the EU than their current one of destructive ambiguity. If they insist on the referendum, they'll lose support to the LibDems and even Labour. If they relent, some of their core voters will be seriously demotivated, and others will switch to UKIP.
The Czech senators' move is thus very clearly aimed, more than against the Lisbon Treaty itself, as a helping hand to their British friends. I nevertheless doubt that Cameron is currently very happy with having been led so far down this path by hardcore Europhobes such as Dan Hannan (who has already given him a hard summer thanks to his intemperate remarks regarding the NHS).
Complain about this comment
Hi Gavin,
I'm both surprised and not surprised about David Cameron's stance on Europe: surprised because the vast majority of the countries of Europe recognise how much they need each other in a host of areas (trade, cultural identity, defence, to name just a few), but also, not surprised in that the Tories, as do the Poles, see Europe as a threat somehow, in terms of jobs, and laws coming out of Brussls.
For me, Europe is a goldmine of opportunity for all peoples who live and work in a united Europe: freedom of movement, the exchange of cultural and technical ideas, and the powerful ideal of strength in unity.
Complain about this comment
'We'll hold that referendum straight away'
Really? Doesn't he need an act of Parliament? Doesn't the electoral Commission need to be involved? 'Straight away' I suspect would mean six months at least.
Complain about this comment
I think if he says no to a referendum, no matter what Ireland votes tomorrow, he will hand many many votes to UKIP and the BNP. Mine will certainly be among them. Gordon Brown has already offered and then withdrawn a referendum on this matter. People won't stand for Cameron doing the same.
Complain about this comment
Interesting analysis RCalvo @6. I suspect the czechs who earnestly dislike Lisbon (incl Klaus) do indeed want to drag their feet (and they have been!) to allow the British to kill Lisbon as the Czechs are not able to do so themselves. If I understand the history correctly, Klaus is simply withholding his signature while some of these constitutional questions are being probed but ultimately will likely need to sign the thing as his parliament has already approved it, so he is using the only maneuver available to him.
As Gavin states the EU is likely to hound the Czechs into getting these constitutional questions answered as quickly as possible but before they go overboard haranguing the Czechs they should recall that only fairly recently the Germans had to get court advice on Lisbon as well.
Complain about this comment
Hasn't Cameron secretly asked the Czech senators to try to stop ratification of the treaty until he'll be in charge next year in the UK to stop it by starting a referendum which he hopes will fail? Or is that a hoax?
Though I personally don't get what he really expects from the EU moving forwards leaving the UK behind. I think if Lisbon fails again the EU won't have many choices but to introduce Europe of two speeds. The way it is now it is highly ineffective and I doubt they will leave it the way it is for a long time. As part of the EU it is part of a farily moderate influencial power in the global game. Alone it is far less and I wouldn't count on the US being bothered to strengthen the special relationship after relieving that Lockerbye bomber.
Complain about this comment
Well now that Tony is on his way back as PRESIDENT OF EUROPE we all know why the Irish NO vote the first time around was really a YES vote or thats what they wanted, and we now know why he resigned! because he wanted to be President the first time around. No wonder Brown got the job of PM with out the British people having the right to elect him he has always been Tony's puppet and that way they could also stop a referendum taking place. next we will have CHANCELLOR Brown of Europe! yet another CHANCELLOR I thought we got rid of the last one in 1945.
These two have wrecked the UK along with there other blood suckers, now they want to rule Europe and the UK from on high and we will be powerless to stop them. I'll vote for Cameron but only if he keeps his word and gives the people their rights back to decide the future, but I really have a problem believing he will keep his word! he is sitting on the fence like every politian no guts and not really any better than the ones we have in power now.
GOD I HOPE THE IRISH VOTE NO and save us all from the furure with Blair and Brown ....... PLEASE VOTE NO IRELAND
Complain about this comment
kmoore0555xx: By someone like you advocating (and the UKIP) a No vote in the referendum, us Irish will have more of a will to vote yes. To go back in time (as I see you like to do that with your ill-thought out and quite typical 1945 reference), the last time the British told the free people of Ireland how to vote it was 1921. Look how that turned out!
Complain about this comment
What I want to know is how the European Conservatives and Reformists got so many delegation chairs and vice-chairs in the recent reshuffle.
Pan African Parliament: 1st vice-chair: Giles Chichester (ECR, UK)
NATO: 1st vice-chair: Charles Tannock (ECR, UK)
Canada: Chair: Philip Bradbourn (ECR, UK)
Ukraine: Chair: Pawel Robert Kowal (ECR, PL)
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia: Chair: Milan Cabrnoch (ECR, CZ)
Iraq: Chair: Struan Stevenson (ECR, UK
Euronest Parliamentary Assembly: 2nd vice-chair: Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR, PL)
4 chairs? The same number as the Socialists and Democrats?
Complain about this comment
" Hewitt on Europe: What will Cameron do if Irish voters back Lisbon Treaty?"
Good Question.
We were promised a referendum and we are entitled to have one. If Lisbon comes into force without a treaty, it is simply not legitimate.
Cameron should not concentrate his speeches on the fact that lots of other countries have signed but on the fact that millions in the UK and other parts of the "EU" do not want Lisbon, They do not want the Greater European Reich.
The Daily Telegraph 23 Sept 09, page 17:
"The EU with the reforms to its structure contained in the Lisbon Treaty, could be a global power, he [Miliband] said"
Further, Miliband: "I don't want to live in a G2 world. I don't want ..."
Indications as to what Miliband wants but nowhere in the article can I find any indication that Miliband has any interest in what the people of the UK or other parts of the EU" want.
Quite on the contrary.
From page 1:
'He criticised .. Cameron ... and Hague ... for surrendering to "euro-extremism." '
Miliband is the extremist. 82% want a referendum. He is part of the 18% who do not want one. The fact that he knows we want one and doesn't want us to have one makes him worse. The fact that he got elected on the basis of his party's promise to give us on and shows no shame makes him even more of an extremist.
Complain about this comment
Julius Caesar
Napoleon
Kaiser Bill
Abe Lincoln
Adolph Hitler
JFK
Indira Gandhi
President Tony Blair?
Complain about this comment
From Open Europe:
Quote of the week:
"The European Union lacks democratic legitimacy, and instead of dealing with that issue head on, the EU conspires to avoid popular endorsement or rejection. Voting No is a way of stopping these anti-democratic capers, and in voting No we would be acting as surrogates for the people of Europe as a whole."
Vincent Browne, Irish columnist and broadcaster, writing in the Irish Times, 30 September
Complain about this comment
Cameron? Cameleon?
Complain about this comment
#14. Simple, the sceptic group supported Barosso and in return of their support they get these chairs.
#12. Tony Blair was already 'President of Europe' back in 2005, for 6 months. You do realise that the so called 'President of Europe' or to be really exact president of the EU council is a glorified 'Speaker of the Senate' and not some US President equivalent as the (ignorant) English media likes to imply? Or hasn't anyone told you this?
Complain about this comment
"The Czechs buy him time to avoid defining precisely where he stands."
Cameron has already run out of time. His refusal to take a firm stand early on one way or the other and stick with it proves he is basically unprincipled, as much an opportunist as any other politician in Britain is. European to the core.
"To hold a referendum after it has been ratified across the EU carries big political risks. The row with the rest of Europe will be immense. Some will say that a "No" vote in those circumstances would be a vote to leave the EU."
Yes, it would be a sharp blow if a leader of a memeber nation actually stood up for the right of his own people to democratically decide for themselves just how much of their power they want to cede to a supranational government. After all, the very concept of the European superstate is the abolition of all traces of democracy among its member states who will meekly give up all power to the secretive faceless unaccountable Eurocracy in Brussels whose strings are pulled from Paris and Berlin. Standing up and saying enough could not only wreck the plan, it just might give people in other memeber states ideas of their own.
"Would a new prime minister taking office with a vast budget deficit, and with a commitment to mend "broken Britain" spend precious political capital and energy on a ferocious row with the likes of Merkel and Sarkozy?"
So the plan to fix Britain is to send more billions to subsidize inefficient bankrupt farmers in France and build more highways and bridges in Hungary while continuing to accept legal economic migrants from the rest of the EU who would like to compete with Brits for whatever jobs Britain's expensive stimulus creates. Great plan.
Complain about this comment
Gavin, I thought this was a nicely balanced analysis.
If Ireland votes "Yes" Cameron is in the proverbial. If they vote "No" ditto. Politics is like that.
Watch and wait is all I can offer.
Complain about this comment
MAII
Spot on.
The Irish did want English / British rule why are the prepared to accept European rule?
Complain about this comment
Wow, the EU as we know it is on the line.
And it was America that encouraged the EU to bring in the Czech Republic. What have we done??
How are we going to put all our responsibilities on to the EU now? Darn.
Complain about this comment
@Gunota
"You do realise that the so called 'President of Europe' or to be really exact president of the EU council is a glorified 'Speaker of the Senate' and not some US President equivalent as the (ignorant) English media likes to imply? Or hasn't anyone told you this?"
The Lisbon Treaty will create a "President of the EU" which is a permanent post with rotation every 2.5 years - and more powerful than the current "President of the EU Council" position.
Complain about this comment
Tomorrow I'm traveling from Northern Ireland to vote NO.My sister is voting no also.
The EU needs to understand that no means no.I'm angry that the EU ignored us that last time.The EU wants to become like America and I'm not happy with that.I'm proud that my country is neutral and I want to keep it that way.The yes crowd are playing on our financial fears and implying that if we do not yes, that we will be kicked out of the EU which I doubt can happen.
Us no voters aren't ungrateful.Yes we got a lot off the EU, but we have given a lot back too.We opened our arm in welcome to the newer poorer countries.I've met Poles, Latvians and Romanians in Ireland.Those who have children in their home country still recieve child benefit.
Oh, and if O'Leary is encouraging a yes vote, it would be better to vote no.
Complain about this comment
If we vote yes, the EU will later change neutrality laws and we will be unable to stop it.
Complain about this comment
sB
"Wow, the EU as we know it is on the line."
Not really. Those who dream of a European dictatorship that controls everything from the Ural Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean, from the North Cape to the Mediterranean Sea will stop an nothing. A no vote for them is just one more temporary setback. In the end, they will have exactly what they want. The largest ant colony in the world. Even China will have more freedoms than the EU will allow. Every aspect of every life codified, controlled, put under a microscope for scrutiny, and judged. No dissent, no deviation, no individualism, no unsupervised initiative will be tolerated. I could hardly imagine a more desirable competitor for the USA if I invented it myself.
Complain about this comment
First of all I'm happy once again to have the possibility of making comments on European politics here on BBC.
Some weeks ago the constitution court in Germany ruled in favour of the Lisbon treaty, just as we said it would do, and I expect that the Irish voters today will accept the Lisbon treaty.
Right now the situation is this: If it is a no in Ireland the negative impact on the EU will be very big. If it is a yes, the leader of the Tories will have to consider his position.
Let us wait and see what the Irishmen say.
Complain about this comment
Marcus have you been bullied again on the Americas board that you have so much time to spread your claptrap here again?
I don't think Gordon Brown will have be President of Chancellor of the EU - he is far too unpopular, not only among Brits but among other Europeans as well. Mr. Blair lost a lot of credit as well for blindly supporting the wars in the past ten years, but I wouldn't go so far as saying he won't get the job as he is not as unpopular as Mr. Brown.
Complain about this comment
@24. tornadotdi
"The Lisbon Treaty will create a "President of the EU" which is a permanent post with rotation every 2.5 years - and more powerful than the current "President of the EU Council" position."
You're quite wrong. The two most significant change is that the position will last 2.5 years, as you stated, and that the position cannot be filled by a leader of a country. The position will still be called 'President of the European Council' (not president of the EU, that something the British media made up to scaremonger its readers) and it will have no new 'powers' (not that it had any to begin with)
Complain about this comment
If Ireland votes 'Yes', Cameron will be left clinging to the somewhat forelorn hope that the Czech Constitutional Court will drag the challenge out beyond May next year and the UK general election. (If he is really lucky, another election in May 2010 may see another Gordon - Gordon Banai in Hungary - replaced by a Eurosceptic centre/right coalition.
These are very long shots indeed. Merkel's significant victory in Germany would have presented a significant opportunity for the Tories to form a natural alliance with the centre right in Europe but they have chosen instead to migrate to the lunatic fringe of the distant right in order to keep their eurosceptic credentials alive. This leaves those who long for an opportunity to dispense with the services of Brown, Mandelson and co but cannot live with the rapid euroscepticism of the Tory right with no place to go - again.
So Cameron's best hope is a 'No' vote which will throw the whole thing into disarray. Disarray would suit the Tories very well as it coincides very neatly with their policy on Europe - they don't have one. But this too is a long shot.
It seems to me that, given a choice between long shots, the chances are that they will aim for an easier target - their own foot - but does it really matter? We all know that, however heated we might get about it on this forum, the next election will not be lost or won of the European question.
Complain about this comment
Interesting titbit in the times entitled "Blair set to become Europe's first president."
Now I know this is the Thunderer speculating wildly, and even they have to concede that Blair may not even want the job as it will affect his other commitments to his Foundation and his Middle Eastern duties, but it is certainly a great piece to get the Little Britainer's blood boiling!
The Boy David, like many better informed Eurosceptics has a problem with Europe that he is being less than honest about. On paper, throwing out the political waffle from both sides of the argument, not only do we need the EU, but we need it to be as powerful as possible and we need to continue to be one of the most influential voices.
With an increasingly powerful Russia and Chinese/Asia block, we now have FOUR major trading blocks. Previously Europe and the US were dominant, the UK benefiting more than most from its strong US ties (which, despite a BBC attempt at trying to say they are cooling, are as strong as ever) and legacy arrangements from Empire days that give us good building blocks with countries.
But that latter situation is now changing very fast. Although we still maintain some privileges with former colonies, the priority of most are understandably to their own, local trading block. This is simple, business pragmatism.
Unfortunately, that means that on its own the UK would be rapidly losing much of its clout.
To make matters worse, the recent financial crash around the world has jeopardised London's unique international role - more international business is conducted through London than most other financial centres combined.
In the future, Europe and European countries must be able to maintain a combined front if they are to remain a major trading force. If we are not part of that, then we will be sidelined over the coming decades and will become also rans with few remaining natural resources, specialisations or useful connections. The world is going global, and the UKs special position in the mix will eventually be seen as completely unnecessary. If we are not well and truly part of one of the big boys, we will be nowhere.
Cameron knows this, but it conflicts with his innate wish to put up artificial barriers between us and the rest of the world, and more importantly, he knows it conflicts with the wishes of much of his voter base.
He is now trying to do an almost impossible balancing act between his support and pure pragmatism.
He DESPERATELY needs the Lisbon Treaty to be ratified before he hopes to get into power. He can then march up and down saying "of course I would not have started from here," while using the new system to try and get what he wants for Britain within Europe.
It is a kind of best of both worlds for him, if it happens.
But very, VERY, dishonest.
I cannot think of anything funnier that Cameron as PM seeking an "Audience" with President Blair when he needs something!!!
PS: Of course, there is the little matter that whereas it seems that the Boy David actually dislikes Brown, it is pretty obvious that on a personal level, he and Blair probably got on very well indeed. THAT puts an interesting twist on things!
Complain about this comment
The ratification is one thing (it has its own structure and agreement protocol, and has been accepted by NuLab).
A referendum is another, and may be held within its own framework and protocol.
What any party or government does with the results of any referendum has yet to be specified.
Any "no" vote in such a referndum would be a wonderful bargaining tool in future EU negotiations.
Complain about this comment
By the way, Gavin, good to have Euroblog back. MM is a hard act to follow but good to see that it has lost nothing of it's edge. Keep up the good work!
Complain about this comment
The Lisbon Treaty has no mandate here until we get a vote on it. We were promised one and it is our deomcratic right as a soverign nation.
Please let's hope that the Irish vote No and save us from a further death to democracy.
Complain about this comment
Why isn't anyone mentioning the British constitution? Are we so dumbed down and ignorant of history that we really believe it when they tell us a British constitution doesn't exist?
Look towards the 1689 Bill of Rights, and the oath of allegiance a Privy Counsellor must take; there you'll find such words as:
"You will do your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance to the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all civil and temporal Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates."
Parliament is NOT sovereign. This is supposed to be a free country, and ultimately sovereignty belongs to the people. It is vested in the Queen (our Sovereign) on the condition that she governs according to our laws and customs; this she promises to do in her coronation oath. MPs swear allegiance to her.
Parliament does not have the right to give governance of UK Peoples away to Brussels bureaucrats without our consent! That sovereignty is not theirs to give away, and to do so is treason under common law.
Without the consent of UK Peoples, the Lisbon Treaty is illegitimate. No freeborn English / N. Irish / Welsh / Scotsman should be bound by it.
Consider what allegiance we owe a government that betrays us by trying to implement such an agenda. As sovereignty does not belong to Parliament, it can be claimed back again -- refusing them the consent they need to govern us.
Precedent exists in Magna Carta for allegiance to be withheld, and a state of lawful rebellion to be entered into.
Visit 'The People's United Community' at www.tpuc.org.
Complain about this comment
expatinnetherlands wrote:
Any "no" vote in such a referndum would be a wonderful bargaining tool in future EU negotiations.
I think if that no vote was from the UK, it would be a very weak negotiating tool indeed.
Many in Europe hate the status that London has is the financial global world (to which everyone is subservient to, at the end of the day)
So they either want to have the major financial centre on mainland Europe, or they want the UK and London as part of the team.
If the UK is determined to stand outside of the mainstream, then the pressure will mount for European and international based banks and institutions to migrate to Frankfurt or elsewhere.
Since the financial crisis of the last two years, that is actually a working possibility, whereas before it was little more than a pipe dream.
I think the only thing a no vote would gain for the UK is being negotiated to a second stream of Europe with no influence what so ever.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I agree with you Gurubear, I neither think they would ask the Irish people a third time nor would they ask the British twice seeing how "well" this second attempt already goes.
Personally I like Britain and met many kind people there when I went there - even have some relatives in Scottland and my grand father made friends with some others in Cornwall when he was PoW after WW2.
However if the majority of the British don't want to be part of Europe and cast this decision in vote, I'd say it is better to move on with that parts of Europe that want to move on than to force them into joining it. However they would be pretty isolated. I can imagine that many of the fiscal indutries operating in London would move elsewhere though I am not an expert on that and won't claim I can tell the future in this scenario.
I would rather have a smaller healthy Europe with people supporting it than one with many parts having had no choice - and by that I also don't think that the latest expansions were such a good idea. You just shouldn't use Europe just to ensure that certain cuntries don't flirt with Russia. If they want to be a part they are very welcome, if they don't let them do what they think is best.
If you just look at what happened to the Euro for a second:
Though Denmark doesn't have to introduce it is always everywhere possible to pay with it in Denmark as it proved to be a reliable currency and far stronger than the dollar for example.
Even in Sweden recent polls suggest that the majority favours the Euro over the kronor and that in a country with hardly any borders with the Eurozone.
So the only country inside the EU in 10 years without the Euro will probably the UK as it is somewhat more isolated than others.
Complain about this comment
If you would give me a post of yours and everytime it says "europe" or alike words in it and then compare it to how others "defame" america by modifying it in the same way, then I am pretty confident I would always choose yours to be more insultive and to be referred to the moderators more likely.
You are probably the most hypocritical person I have ever met by applying double standarts in every way possible and I don't even feel tempted to go into detail on this. The most "magnificent" job you ever did was probably stating that "the bronx is the toughest place on earth to grow up in" but yet "America is the very best place in the world" comment in the very same topic. If you don't even see how you are often contradicting yourself any discussion based on facts and trying to show you that not everything you say is divine truth is just pointless.
However I can only guess your reasons to post here:
If your aim is to freak out as many people as possible by writing stuff even your fellow Americans declare you stupid for - which is my best guess - then I am tempted to feel pitty for you.
If you are actually only posting to raise and strengthen stereotypes in the mostly European readers, the pitty would even exceed the previous.
If you are being sartirical which at least is some form of humour I would acknowledge it but be saying that it is not my favourit kind of humour.
If you are part of the BBC crew and your job is to keep the level of posts here high - well good job but that would be confession of failure of the BBC. (However that would explain your weird times to post for an American - must be like 7 or 8 in the morning in the US now)
I lately dropped the last choice that I thought of for a long while, that all the things you write is what you think, because in that case you by now would have realized that nobody is buying your stories and that you have become a nuisance the majority wouldnt mind to see disappear in the Euro blog, so that in this case actually scenario 1 applied again.
Complain about this comment
I 'm not so sure that the British are intrinsically anti-EU, but they are bombarded by a lot of Euromyths by the (largely foreign-owned) British press. These myths would be recycled over a referendum campaign and there is a real possibility than a 'no' vote would result, whether it was on the issue of Lisbon, or the issue of EU membership. Of course, referendums in the UK are only advisory, since Parliament has sovereignty, and it would be possible for a government to ignore the result of a referendum, but it would be a very brave government which did so. If Cameron holds a referendum on Lisbon, and the 'no's win, there will be pressure from parts of his party to hold a referendum on EU membership. That could very easily split the party in two.
Complain about this comment
#36 - Justdonotbelieveit
#41 - Iantownhill
These two posts betray a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the British Constitution. No.36 is right to say that there is a British Constitution in the sense that one has developed over a period of time by the accumulation of conventions and by legislative extentions and amendments. Some of these have wrought fundamental changes in the way in which we govern ourselves of which the 1689 Act is one. Nevertheless, No.41 is correct. Parliament is sovereign and is not bound by the outcome of any referendum unless it choses in advance to be so bound by act of parliament. Even then, it cannot bind a subsequent parliament not to repeal.
The problem with these arguments is that they provide a neat mechanism to avoid the central issue. One of the key pieces of legislation to which I refer is the Single European Act (1986). It's intention was to open the way towards European Union and it is no coincidence that it came into force under a Tory government. Neither is it a coincidence that Maastricht was negotiated by a Tory government. A new generation of Tories, doubtless scarred witless at the prospect of a eurosceptic backlash is backpeddling with unseemly indignity. The bottom line is that, since the advent of the SEA, there is little about the way in which the British govern themselves which is not inexorably tied up with the European project and it is fundamentally dishonest of any mainstream political party to seek election without having a clear policy about Europe and the UK's role in it.
This criticism is not confined to the Tories. By proclaiming themselves to be good Europeans in "the mainstream, not the slipstream" of European policy making while persisting in being agnostic about the single currency and downright obstructive over Schengen betrays Labour to be every bit as ambivalent about Europe as the Tories. I posted earlier that we understand the next election will not be fought and won on the European issue. Both main parties know that they can carry on almost indefinitely fence sitting unless events force them off the fence. A 'No' vote in Ireland today will play straight into the hands of the mainstream UK parties as will further legal games in Prague.
I have come to the conclusion that the ideal would be a situation in which there is no obstacle to Lisbon coming into force, not because I particularly favour it but because finally, it will force the Tories to come out of the closet and proclaim themselves either committed or opposed to the European project as a whole. This would drive Labour out of cover and we could finally have an open and honest debate. This game of hide and seek has simply got to stop.
Complain about this comment
Why is the future of the UK being decided in a referundum in Ireland - Give us the vote now.
Complain about this comment
@ threnodio
"By proclaiming themselves to be good Europeans in "the mainstream, not the slipstream" of European policy making while persisting in being agnostic about the single currency and downright obstructive over Schengen betrays Labour to be every bit as ambivalent about Europe as the Tories."
Spot on, threnodio, but on a previous post you say that:
"So Cameron's best hope is a 'No' vote which will throw the whole thing into disarray. Disarray would suit the Tories very well as it coincides very neatly with their policy on Europe - they don't have one."
It is not so much that they don't have a policy, they do have one, but like the NuLab one, has no bearings on reality. Both the Tories and NuLab's policy on the EU suffer from the same fatal flow: They claim to support membership of an EU that only exists in history books. The EU that exists today has the single currency and the border union (aka Schengen) as inextricable elements of its persona. Take away these two crucial pillars and you go back to the EEC of the eighties or even the seventies, i.e. somewhere between a free trading area and a single market with an array of loose political institutions but, in any case, an altogether different animal from the EU of today.
In ten years time or so, when virtually all EU countries are both in the Eurozone and Schengen, Britain will find itself in a very lonely and peculiar position. The pretence that it will still be a full and equal EU member will also become farcical, as it is rapidly becoming now. Britain will also find to its dismay that self-inflicted isolation doesn't pay the bills as more and more foreign investment will shun Britain as a base from which to do business in the 500m people single market.
In the end, this is the greatest achievement of the Anti-EU brigade and their unelected tabloid bureaucrats, an achievement that they never shout about (I wonder why?). Without bothering with democratic niceties, like having a referendum on Eurozone and Schengen membership where both camps would be allowed to defend their corner, they have forced the hand of successive UK governments to cut Britain loose from the core of the EU project, overturning the initial democratic vote in favour of the then EEC and (albeit people now claim that they didn’t bother to read the small print) full British participation in European integration process.
Complain about this comment
#44 - JorgeG1
As both of us are uncomfortable with the 'pick and choose' philosophy of the British political mainstream, I would guess you would agree with me that the most frustrating element is the refusal of the parties to have the debate at all.
I could live with the riotous slanging match that would take place and might even be willing to accept with something resembling a good grace defeat. What I find so difficult to accept is the refusal to engage in the debate. Brown seems determined to ensure that the UK is locked into Lisbon before May and locked out of the single currency forever and a day. Boy Dave appears not to care one way or the other providing he can stop the drip-drip defection to UKIP which might spoil his party in May. Neither of them are serious about Europe.
If Britain consigns itself to the outer reaches of Europe of its own free will, fair enough but if they do so because neither party is prepared to engage in a proper debate, that would be a monstrous betrayal of Britain's future and - as I posted earlier - fundamentally dishonest.
Complain about this comment
Regarding Blair's presidency.
In my mind Iraq overshadows everything. Why? Because it was literally a matter of life and death, of human rights, of being truthful to the young in the army sent to risk their lives.
He said the number of killed would be less than Saddam would kill in the comparable time. Actually the dead are in a different order of magnitude to that (see the Lancet report, which the Chief Scientific Advisor of the MoD backed).
He insisted there was am imminent threat from WMD's even though the IAEA experts on the ground said they were getting more and more certain Saddam had no WMD's. When they asked for a little more time to clear it up, they did not get it, with no reason given.
He strongly backed Bush in his systematic and widespread human rights abuses across the globe.
For someone to be a representative of the EU, and thus me as an EU citizen, I want them to genuinely believe in human rights and to be truthful. Is that too much to ask for?
Complain about this comment
I would say that in my opinion his greatest problem in international affairs is that neither the EU nor the USA need GB any more. These days, Britain has no more clout on its own that Spain or Florida for that matter.
The President of the United States talks, in Spanish, with the President of the Spanish Government as the European Union link with the whole of Latin America.
They also appear to get on at a personal level, which I do not see between Blair and Obama, but this is only my own observation.
Complain about this comment
It is quite evident that Cameron and the rest of the front-benchers support the treaty, and that their soft opposition is just a sop to backbenchers and dyed-in-wool conservatives. Their position is essentially this: if Europe says yes, then yes; if Europe says no, then no. Thanks Dave for letting others make the decision for us. We will not get a vote if Ireland, Poland and Czechs ratify it; Ireland has already buckled under the pressure. Their cosiness with Sarkozy and Merkel are what clearly matter to them, not our sovereignty. I had to laugh when Cowen said the sovereignty of the Irish people is what matters here; yeah, up until the treaty gets passed!
Complain about this comment
I like Britain alot, too, Seraphim. And The U.S. probably depends on it more than they realize ...for money investment (they are the biggest investor in the USA)
I watch their programs many, many times on TV each week. Is everything produced or co-produced by BBC? Recently, I watched "Blue Planet" probably old but, new to me. Also, their comedies are unmatched even in America..excuse me for being partial to the USA.
Also, France had for a long time said "NON" to Britain, time and time again as if they were philistines...the reality being their close relationship to America (a spy for us?)
Also, welcome back (this year...I know I'm actually newer), THRENODIO. How is your life? ....And, if you ever know of a posting by WebAliceinWonderland, please do point it out.
She was a wonderful writer....such a refreshing perspective, too--I, last year, realized how little I knew about Russia, the Ukraine and more.
Her personal anecdotes were amazingly, new and actually endeared me to Russia (always fascinating to me) and therefore,
Don't you think if y'all invited Russia into the EU (not my business, I know) it would promote peace in Europe for many years to come. Russia would be under realistic pressure to join....how does one become wealthy today--by joining the EU.
We need more opinions in this world of ours than ..the Heritage Foundation and other "think tanks." Also, it would guarentee that an assertive Russia would be stable and non-threatening..whatever one thinks of them.
Oh well, I'm for the EU, no offense to anyone. It is hardly a dictatorship--its more of a place to employ more people (from the political classes--they need jobs too--lol)
Complain about this comment
#42 - threnodio
Well, sovereignty certainly does not BELONG to Parliament. It can not give it away.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, if we wanted to leave the EU we would have to have their permission to do so. That is not acceptable; the right to govern ourselves is not something UK Peoples have ever consented to giving away -- why should we need permission to take it back?
The United States has had problems with secession in the past hasn't it? Just because we wanted to leave, doesn't necessarily mean they'd grant permission -- look how undemocratic and authoritarian they (the EU) are!
It is an interesting game the political parties play. I think there is a basic agenda in the background -- all the mainstream parties (at the top) are playing to the same tune. Every now and then a new band comes along, but the music is basically the same -- just played in a different style!
The LibDems also did some strange voting which ensured a referendum never happened, didn't they?
We can't trust a word that politicians say, and once in office their manifestos are not worth the paper they are written on. You've got to ask: who do they really represent? They don't represent me. I think they are a bunch of salesmen for the agendas of big business and plutocrats.
The House of Commons has been abusing its position for a long time; I don't really see that as a very good reason for why it should continue doing so though. Just as the 'divine right of kings' was an intolerable doctrine, the 'divine right of Parliament' is equally obnoxious to freedom -- and it is unlawful! Whatever the King could not do, Parliament certainly can not do either!
Brave, conscientious patriots (like Albert Burgess), alive to the threats which our freedoms face, have dutifully reported these crimes (including sedition dating back to Ted Heath's day) to the Police. Predictably -- considering how corrupted by political influence they have become -- nothing has yet happened (itself the crime of compounding treason).
I can understand why the Police may be reluctant to do anything, I'm sure proper investigation in this area would open up one massive can of worms! Ever heard of the Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst? Link that with the "Red House Report". I think plans for the EU have been very long in the making. The intentions are not good, and they are by some very 'bad' people!
The agenda itself is as old as the hills though -- global domination.
Complain about this comment
Don't hold your breath... The EU issue is like one of those ridiculous wrestling fights where contenders are dressed up with silly costumes and everyone cheers up despite knowing well that the outcome of the fight is already decided. And yet there's a never ending carry on fighting and encouraging the audience to distract their attention, after all the new ways of power control are all about distracting the audience. I would be very surprised if the UK were to leave the EU and I would be very ashamed if Tony Blair were to become our EU president, not surprised though. He is a liar who should really be behind bars for lying to its country and forcing it to war sending the country's most courage men and women to die under the false pretext that they are doing it for the sake of security in the UK. If you are really serious about taking some level of control over your own destiny and that of you country's you would do well voting for any party promising to renegotiate or even leave the EU if elected. Sadly many of you like in my country identify with a major party and cannot vote anything else, despite that party having been absorbed by a common will of a very small group of people for whom country is where the power lies.
Complain about this comment
Doubters who think government didn't know exactly what they were doing when signing up to the EEC in 1972, along with the loss of sovereignty that ensued, need look no further than the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's own document -- FCO 30/1048, dated April 1971. Even then they had a fairly accurate picture of where we would be at today.
Treacherous scum!
Complain about this comment
#50 - Justdonotbelieveit
Bagehot writes that ". . .the peculiar excellence of the British Constitution lies in a balanced union of three powers. It is said that the monarchical element, the aristocratic element, and the democratic element, have each a share in the supreme sovereignty, and that the assent of all three is necessary to the action of that sovereignty. Kings, lords, and commons, by this theory, are alleged to be not only the outward form, but the inner moving essence, the vitality of the Constitution".
Given that the monarchy has long since surrendered it's powers to Parliament and the monarch is now said to be 'sovreign in parliament' and that the power of the aristocracy has been more or less stripped away, it follows that sovereignty is now vested solely in Parliament from which all other branches of government derive their authority. There is a convention that treaties are by definition solemn and binding undertakings not to be entered into lightly and are assumed to be binding on future administrations unless events render them voidable. Lisbon is indeed a treaty and it would be very difficult for a future government from wriggling out of it altogether although it could seek to renegotiate. The only real option open in the event that they could not renegotiate by agreement would be to withdraw completely under the provisions of the treaty and essentially start back at square one.
I think we can agree that this is not going to happen. If a future UK government withdraws completely from the Union, it is likely that it will seek an entirely separate free trade agreement - possibly with a few whistles and bells attached - but with no commitment to what has become known as 'deeper union'. You may or may not approve of such a course of action but it does not serve your argument well to pretend that the electorate does not volunarily surrender it's sovereignty to parliament for the lifetime of a government at each general election. Thus, de facto, parliament is sovereign and supreme.
In any event, it is a bit academic now since it seems likely that the 'Yes' vote has prevailed in Ireland and, short of a long drawn out legal process in the Czech Republic, Lisbon is a done deal. Cameron must surely now come right out and state a public position unless he can find a way of forcing an early election before Prague makes up it's mind. Now that really is a long shot.
Complain about this comment
#53 - threnodio
The concentration of power in the House of Commons -- which is perhaps even concentrated down to as few people as those in the Privy Council -- is a corruption of a system supposed to provide checks and balances.
When sovereignty is given to Parliament for the lifetime of that Parliament -- we jolly well expect to get it back again at the end -- in tact! If they wanted to make a solemn and binding agreement giving away sovereignty, and the governance of UK Peoples -- for which we are expected to ask permission before being able to claim back -- then they should have gotten the proper authority to do so beforehand.
Complain about this comment
Cameron has said that he will give the UK a vote on Europe IF the treaty is NOT in force by the time he comes into power.
That is a perfectly open and publicly stated position.
It stands to reason that having a vote on joining the EU is absolutely meaningless IF we are already members before Cameron takes power.
So Cameron needs to say what he would do if that situation occurs, but there is no reason why he should make that public now!
Don't blame the Conservatives for the position that the UK is in. Blame Labour and Gordon Brown for telling us that we can have a vote and then reneging on that promise.
Labour do not like democracy. That is why they have denied us this vote!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS