from
EU clears hurdle to Lisbon treaty
EU leaders meeting in Brussels have agreed a deal designed to win Czech backing of the Lisbon Treaty, clearing a major hurdle to its ratification.
The Czechs were granted an opt-out from the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, similar to that of the UK and Poland.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus was satisfied with the concession, Czech PM Jan Fischer told reporters in Brussels.
But EU leaders failed to agree on funding for a climate change pact to help developing nations.
Ratification deal
“The road to ratification stands open,” said Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose country holds the EU’s rotating presidency.
Gavin Hewitt, BBC Europe editor
The Czech Republic is the only one of the 27 EU nations which has not ratified the treaty, which aims to streamline how the bloc operates.
The BBC’s Oana Lungescu in Brussels said Mr Klaus – an ardent Eurosceptic – had feared that without the opt-out, the charter would allow thousands of ethnic Germans who were expelled from Czechoslovakia after World War II to reclaim their lands.
“Vaclav Klaus was content with the text. He has been informed about all modifications… and does not have a problem with it,” PM Fischer said after EU leaders agreed on the text at a summit.
But the opt-out is not the final hurdle to Prague’s ratification. The Czech Constitutional Court is expected to rule next week on whether the treaty complies with the country’s constitution.
But EU leaders are now free to discuss who will fill the post of president of the European Council, which the Lisbon Treaty will create.
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Luxembourg Premier Jean-Claude Juncker have been touted as the leading candidates for the job.
On Thursday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown reiterated his support for Mr Blair, saying he would make an “excellent” first president of the European Union.
Climate woes
On climate change, the EU failed to reach a united position ahead of December’s United Nations Copenhagen summit, which aims to hammer out a new global climate treaty to replace the UN Kyoto Protocol.
read complete Story Here
To promote the current EU as either constitutional or democratic is arrant nonsense. As a UK national I am appalled at the reckless manner in which the EU have pushed through the Lisbon treaty, the re-running of the vote in Ireland was tantamount to vote rigging. In the UK, no-one who is eligible to vote has had any opportunity to do so, and the Lisbon treaty was signed by a Prime Minister who is in power after not one solitary member of the UK population voted for him. If anyone believes that this is ‘democratic’ they are in ‘la la land’.
The EU constitution is built on:
– deceit (pretending the constitution is not the same as the Lisbon treaty)
– electoral malpractice (re-running vote in Ireland)
– institutionalized corruption (accounts have not been signed off for more than a decade)
– scandalous disregard for democracy (why accept ‘signatures’ from countries that will not let their own electorate vote).
The strength of a constitution is measured less through written terms than by deference of a government and society to principles. Unfortunately for the EU, or more particularly its’ peoples, the principles of the EU have been laid bare in pushing the Lisbon treaty through.
Bottom line, the EU has no real electoral mandate and in its current configuration is doomed to either abject failure or dictatorship to survive. I regard this as a terrible indictment of the current European leadership as it is probably more essential that Europe speaks with one voice now than it has ever been. History will be the real judge, but I suspect the Lisbon treaty will go down as the start of the end of the EU in its current form.
Rowland, I did not realise that. However, I’m only 62 so there’s still time to learn. I was always under the impression that we didn’t have a written Constitution; now I know better.
On a purely picky note, is the “Bill of Fights” a typo, as I suspect ?
The Anti EU /Pro EU has many similarities to Anti AGW/ pro AGW.
(I am anti EU and Anti AGW)
Whereby the ‘discussion’ on both are being suppressed, and behind the backs of ‘the people’ decisions are being made. There seems to be a linking to both AWG and a World government (which the EU is a cog in).
Firstly there is this from the dictionary
\Trea”son\, n. a giving up, a delivering up, fr. tradere to give up, betray. See Traitor,
1. The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery a crime that undermines the offender’s government [syn:
Whereby the Sovereignty of Britain is being given away without the consent of the People. N0-One in Britain under the age of 53 has had any say at all in this process.
(anyone older voted in 1975 to ‘carry on’ trading with the then ECC, after the government signed a trading agreement in 1973, again without asking the people).
No-one expected to one day, be ruled by them, and on very many occasions this has been said by ‘our’ government “to never happen, never will happen” … and yet here we are!
The EU is an unelected political state, and is a single party system who the founders of which said “must be brought about by stealth and deception” .
who is the ‘opposition party’ ? answer there is none…
The EU is corrupt the EU’s own accountants refuse to ‘sign off’ the books for 15 years now.
We in Britain ‘give’ the EU some 45 million pounds per DAY (soon to rise to 50 million) just to be a member.
Stargazer (A member of UKIP) (the United Kingdom Independence Party) http://www.ukip.org/
Many of you are probably aware of Christopher Booker, who has a column in the UK Sunday Telegraph. Over recent years he has campaigned tirelessly against the climate change delusion, for which I’m very grateful. But over many years he has also campaigned against the European Union, which I regard as a completely corrupt and anti-democratic entity.
About thirty years ago the British voted in a referendum to stay in the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Common Market. This institution was relatively benign and appeared to be little more than a free trade area. Of course, even then the existing Treaty of Rome made it clear that it would become a single political state in the fullness of time – but who reads these boring documents?
Finally, in the early 90’s, the EU was created by the Maastricht Treaty. The British people were not given a say on whether they should be citizens of a foreign political union. For this reason I do not recognise British membership of the EU.
Over the years the EU has been remorselessly destroying Britain’s independence. Now well over half our laws come from the EU, a pretty astounding state of affairs. When did the British people give their permission for this democratic outrage?
The cost of these laws, many of which are nonsensical and economically damaging, is astronomical. There have been a number of academic studies relating to economic benefits of EU membership, including one, if I remember correctly, by the US Congress. Not one showed any economic benefit at all. All but one showed that membership was in fact a large economic burden.
The other big claim for the EU is that it guarantees peace in Europe. This is complete nonsense. If the EU had been created in 1930, would it have stopped Hitler? Of course not. There have been no more wars between the original member countries because (1) there was no reason for a war and (2) all the countries are strong democracies. It’s in democracy that I place my trust. The EU isn’t un-democratic: it’s anti-democratic. In my opinion the EU may increase the chance of war, for example by creating a perceived threat for the Russians.
Before the last election Tony Blair promised a referendum on the European Constitution, which essentially changes the EU into a country with all the trappings such as a diplomatic corps, a president and an army etc etc It further enshrines the fact that European law is superior to British law. However, the Constitution was voted down in two national referendums.
As predicted, the Constitution quickly morphed into a treaty which was roughly 95% identical to the Constitution (the Lisbon Treaty). Naturally, this time around there would be no referendums, even in France, which had originally voted down the Constitution. Actually, there was one referendum in Ireland, which had to hold a referendum by law. Ireland voted no. As always happens in the EU, no is the wrong answer and they were forced to hold another referendum. This time they voted yes after being subjected to threats and given some concessions.
Blair and then Brown broke their word on a British referendum, saying that the treaty was ‘completely different’. Of course, it is virtually identical. The Conservatives, who are almost certain to be the next government by June next year, have promised a referendum on the treaty if it has not been fully ratified. This is why ratification of the treaty is so important. If Klaus could hold out without signing until the British election then there would be a British referendum. If so, all bets would be off. Almost certainly the British people would vote no, an unthinkable catastrophe for the Euro-elite in Brussels.
A no vote would be a very good thing. As David Cameron and his government would be far more Euro-sceptic, the chances of another referendum would be close to zero. At long, long last, it may force the EU to actually take account of what the peoples of Britain and Europe actually want.
Unfortunately it’s unlikely that Klaus will hold out until next summer. Cameron will have to decide what to do if he comes to power with the treaty ratified and in force. They say they will ‘not let matters rest’, but that’s completely vague.
My position is clear, after weeks of thought on the matter. My MP is Nick Herbert, who is the Conservative climate change spokesman. This week I emailed him. I told him that I am a life-long Conservative voter, but if they have not made a firm promise to hold a referendum on the treaty, I will not vote Conservative. And that if they form the next government and do not hold a referendum then I will never again vote Conservative.
I believe a referendum is essential, even if the treaty is in force. If the British people vote no, as is most likely, then it will show that the Lisbon Treaty has no democratic foundation. In the long run it may help to bring democratic accountability to the workings of the EU. At the moment the EU looks like a train out of control and filled with passengers who want an entirely different destination.
Good news for Blair-haters, of whom there are many. It seems opposition in many EU countries to a Blair presidency is rising, and there’s little chance there will be a President Blair.
Chris
anna v (01:23:33) : I see here many hostile comments about the trend of the EU becoming a country.
As a member of the EU I do not think that as a bad outcome, as I am sure US citizens do not consider it a bad thing they are 50 or so states in one country.
Anna what is bad about the EU is the loss of democracy in in that sense of freedom. The American President is elected as are the members of parliament in a democracy but not the members of the EU parliament. I wouldnt want such an arrangement.
No taxation without representation
Anna v,
Adam has said what I would have said on the matter of comparing the EU with the US, the latter being a true democracy with checks and balances, while the EU only maintains the pretence of democracy.
We consider the UK to be a democracy, but the British parliamentary system is seriously flawed compared to the US system, and these flaws were exploited to the full under New Labour. In the US, there is a clear separation between the executive and legislative branches of government – the senate may yet reject cap & trade. In the UK parliament, we have seen how the executive also controls the legislature by wielding the aptly named whip. We have seen no end of unpopular and pointless laws whipped through parliament because the combined voting of the opposition parties was not enough to prevent a simple majority.
But as flawed as the UK system is, the EU is vastly worse. There is not even a legislature worthy of that name – the European parliament is little more than a debating society. The council of ministers currently have individual veto, but that will be removed when the Lisbon treaty becomes ratified. Laws are effectively made by bureaucrats in Brussels and passed out as EU directives with orders to be ratified in national parliaments. Democracy is eroding at an ever increasing rate. This process will not be stopped save by revolution.
Adam Gallon (02:30:42) :
and Clare (03:00:57) :
If robust is a dirty word here, so should referendum be, it is so easy to stampede the masses into whatever agenda is behind, as we have seen with AGW.
You are of course free to be skeptical of the use of the EU and if you convince the majority of your citizens you could get out. Maybe it would be better for the UK to be another state of the US than part of Europe?
In Greece the euroskeptic party is the communist party, which got 8% in the recent elections. They advance arguments like yours 🙂 with the addition of the anti-capitalist rhetoric.
Somehow, I tend to favor Aesop’s parable. I do not think any country in the union has over-lordship in its mind .
Its things like this that get me mad. Pay your “climate debt” indeed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8332484.stm
Anna v 01:23:33:
You mention the fifty states of the USA. Look at what happened in the 1860’s when some of them decided to leave the Union. Some of us in Britain feel we will eventually lose the right to leave also. And, by the way, we don’t mind if the rest of you want to get together, we just want to run our own affairs as we did for hundreds of years.
3×2 02:38:44:
Look at that Conservative web-page more closely: “…if the treaty has been ratified we will not let matters rest there”. What does that mean, exactly? I suggest it will mean precisely nothing.
DaveE and D King:
Not to mention the Napoleonic wars to prevent that maniac from taking over the whole continent. This has been going on a long, long time. Reckon it might be finished now, though.
The prospect of Klaus ratifying the Lisbon treaty is bad for Britain -Cameron will only grant the British people their promised referendum if the treaty has not been ratified by all nations by the time the conservatives gain power. Time is fast running out.
Even worse than being forced into a Soviet style union of states, is the prospect of seeing that grinning idiot Blair returning as president of all of Europe. Blair is one of the most loathed politicians in Britain, and the conservatives have let it be known that they would consider the appointment of Blair to be a hostile act.
We are moving into a super state where the president is selected by horse trading politicians instead of elected by the people. The British voters were treated to the odious spectacle of seing their Foreign minister abusing his position by making a direct appeal to select Blair as president in expectation of a debt later to be repaid, and at the same time launching an attack on anyone who believed in a sovereign Britain as ignorant and xenophobic. Need any more be said on the issue of European democracy?
“I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.”
Excellent! Add to my list of reasons I love the Brits. In my estimation, the dissolution or sublimation of nations’ sovereignty will enslave us all if we don’t stand firmly against it. This is insidious and people stand idly by or buy into this scaremongering. What rubbish!
I’m beginning to wonder if something so ephemeral as climate change (is that what term is in vogue now?) and the unintended consequences of inane pacts (EU or UN declarations) will spark a world war.
Will Europeans wake up? I believe they’ve drunk too much the elixir of entitlement – as seems to be the case in the US.
Rowland Pantling (UK) (03:10:25) : Britain certainly does have a Constitution as defined by (…)
Not so much. More a collection of common law and tradition. For example the British Representation of the People Act 1918 as opposed to the US 19th Amendment 1920.
As for magna Carta, I wouldn’t go looking there for any ‘rights’ that might apply to you.
Rowland Pantling, that is precisely my position. A Sovereign that may be over-ruled is no longer a Sovereign, and with her fall all those sworn to her like the judiciary, police &c.
@tallbloke
The EU(SSR) is just like the Vogon ship in Hitchiker’s Guide.
It hangs in the air exactly like a brick doesn’t.
I hope the Czechs, British, and Pols realize an opt-out clause is useless.
I seem to remember a bunch of US southern states trying to opt-out of the United States, didnt work out too well for them.
Anna v 01:23:33:
You mention the fifty states of the USA. Look at what happened in the 1860’s when some of them decided to leave the Union. Some of us in Britain feel we will eventually lose the right to leave also. And, by the way, we don’t mind if the rest of you want to get together, we just want to run our own affairs as we did for hundreds of years.
And can Scotland secede from the UK? How about Northern Ireland?
Instead a union by the sword, as the UK imposed until WWII, ( and a lot of other european countries did the same the world over) the EU is a union by consensus, which surely is an improvement. Of course consensus is an iffy word here too.
anna v (01:23:33) :
I see here many hostile comments about the trend of the EU becoming a country.
As a member of the EU I do not think that as a bad outcome, as I am sure US citizens do not consider it a bad thing they are 50 or so states in one country.
Actually Anna, there are a growing number of US folks who are becoming alienated with the two leftist coasts ( the blue states in general) who have humanist, socialist, or communist tendencies with sufficient voting strength to ram ill-conceived, self-defeating legislation down our throats. Believe me, the hard working middle class in the middle of the country are praying that the 2010 elections reverse the course of Congress or there might be more than just “tea-parties”. History has shown that large does not mean better in terms of government.
anna–
Your ‘union by consensus’ remark in the face of all the comments on here, suggests either that you simply don’t care or have decided to ignore the perfectly rational objections of others.
This is exactly the type of attitude that reinforces my reasons for wanting to be free of the whole ‘project’.
Sunfighter (07:18:13) :
I hope the Czechs, British, and Pols realize an opt-out clause is useless.
I seem to remember a bunch of US southern states trying to opt-out of the United States, didnt work out too well for them.
This is a different situation. The premise for that war was sold to the public as eliminating slavery, which galvanized many people. What would be the concept now? We must retain the union because we need all you hard working folks to pay for the freeloaders. Or, we need to fight you rednecks so we con legalize illegal immigration to cheapen manpower costs. Or, we’re in deep doo-doo with the debt and all, you folks need to stay the course to help us out? Not much ideological footing to persuade me.
anna,
Do not confuse my cyncicism of the EU with xenophobia. I am opposed solely on the grounds that all the peoples of Europe will be surrendering their franchise. If we were looking at a US style of state, I would be more open to it. However, nothing could be further from the minds of your new rulers, for make no mistake, democracy is not something that’s on their agenda. Your reference to WWII is apt – we fought a war to maintain freedom but many seem blind to to the dangers today.
You say that the EU is a union by consensus? But Consensus by whom? Certainly not the people – every nation who has gone to the people on the constitution voted no. The whole project, which is driven top down, by the way, has one aim, to sequester sovereignity from the people to a quasi-political elite. Indeed, this elite won’t even be politicians in the traditional sense, because they will exist by appointment not by election. This transition of power will eviscerate the peoples and their national parliaments.
History tells us that once power has been lost it is hard to win back.
BTW, Scotland is free to leave the UK any time, so I’m not sure want your point is.
Here’s a classic example of the EU’s waste!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8327500.stm
The French have spent 171m Euros on meetings, symposia & the like during their 6 month tenure in the Presidency chair.
”
The Union of the Mediterranean summit in Paris alone cost 16.6m euros.
“The scale of this summit, the irregular nature of its procedures and its massive impact on public finances together make this summit a kind of record,” the court report said.
It noted that France spent more than 1m euros on the summit dinner for 43 heads of state and 653,703 euros on air conditioning, among other expenses. Big temporary tents and restaurants were installed for the occasion, on 13 July 2008. ”
However, I’m unsurprised that Greece finds being part of the EU to be beneficial.
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_economy_1_23/09/2009_110922
“The report showed that Greece received 6.3 billion euros – or 2.7 percent of its annual economic output – more from the EU than it paid in membership dues, for farm aid and projects such as highway construction and cleaning up the environment.”
The EU a ‘concensus’? Well the Dutch, French and Irish all voted against the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty and yet the politicos and bureaucrats rammed it through. I think you’re in Greece, what happens when Germany stops underwriting the euros the Greeks are printing??
Clare (08:03:56) :
anna–
Your ‘union by consensus’ remark in the face of all the comments on here, suggests either that you simply don’t care or have decided to ignore the perfectly rational objections of others.
This is exactly the type of attitude that reinforces my reasons for wanting to be free of the whole ‘project’.
I do not ignore the objections of others, at the moment UK people, and agree that if they want to get out, they should be free to get out.
I am talking about the situation of most of the other countries who find more positives than negatives in a larger union. If I felt strongly that the laws that are passing are passed over the heads my parliament I would start working to change the situation, within the EU. I do not care enough, as even the laws that are passed by my parliament are not something I have a voice over except once every time I vote for a party. What we call democracies are a compromise, but I, and many in the EU, can live with this compromise because of the security it offers and the opportunity of greater economic development. Already it can be seen that the countries within the euro have had less upsets in this economic crisis then the ones outside and have more support than the ones outside. Is that not a gain?
Vincent (08:14:04) :
History tells us that once power has been lost it is hard to win back.
BTW, Scotland is free to leave the UK any time, so I’m not sure want your point is.
Aren’t you contradicting yourself in these two statements?
What has happened is that Scotland lost power so long ago that it has been homogenized and no longer has a big faction that wants to secede. ( The same as Crete and Greece I suppose). The moral would be that with enough time passing nor will the countries in the EU have large factions wanting to secede from it.
British constitution! Ha! As 3×2 said Britain has no single constitutional document. I’d swap all the Lords, Earls, Dukes, Princes and Kings for The constitution the USA has. Freedom and the chance to vote them out!
Anna v:
“And can Scotland secede from the UK?” – – – Yes
“How about Northern Ireland?” – – – – Yes – written into the Good Friday agreement.
“What has happened is that Scotland lost power so long ago that it has been homogenized and no longer has a big faction that wants to secede.” (1) Have you been to Scotland? (2) So forcing people into a union for so long that they give up is OK, is it?