European Constitution
Posted by: MichaelC on 27 March 2004
So it appears that Blair is going to sign us up again, no referendum - what happened to democracy?
Has this man no shame?
I would like your views.
Incidentally, this is not meant to be a thread about whether or not there should be closer integration with Europe but the manner in which Blair is approaching this.
Mike
Has this man no shame?
I would like your views.
Incidentally, this is not meant to be a thread about whether or not there should be closer integration with Europe but the manner in which Blair is approaching this.
Mike
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
"or for that matter the benefits of, say, a single currency do not present definitive facts"
I'd love to see such a debate in economic terms. Unfortunately instead we get the likes of the Daily Mail running stories about the ECB backing up a truck at the Bank of England to take away our gold to Germany and finish what Hitler tried to do in 1940.
Matthew
I agree. A proper debate without resorting to the sensationalist approaches by both those in favour (you only have to look to our government) or those against. If memory serves me correctly, in an earlier thread on the Euro you did indeed present well reasoned argument - although I disagreed!
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
"My argument is primarily with the manner in which the EC is run"
Which, since this is what the EU Constitution is actually for, I'd have thought you would have been all in favour of it.
I will have to disagree with you there. Maybe the Constitution will help but quite frankly I do not trust the motives behind those promoting the Constitution.
Mike
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by matthewr
Michael -- The nub of the matter appears to be that you don't trust the French and the Germans. If this is the case then you would probably not want to form a strategic political alliance with them and the logical course is to disengage from the EU entirely.
Personally I believe the other European countries to be our allies and that we share many common econmoic and political goals. As such I am in favour of the EU and think the government should engage fully with it and seek to further our interests via this valuable and powerful alliance.
Fredrik -- You seemed to have withdrawn (or at least failed to restate in answering my point) your ludicrous conspiracy theory about France and Germany allowing us in to the EU in order to curtail our anglo-saxon economy so we shall move on.
In general you also seem to be, like Michael, so distrustful of our European allies that one would think you should be in favour of an isolationist approach and getting out altogether. Which is your prerogative but would be a big mistake in my view.
"it is hard to see how either of those two great nations, between them who will always outweigh the UK, can be relied on to take our national best interest as the basis of policy formation, if this would be deleterious to their own"
You can absolutely rely upon them putting their own interest first and agreeing to promote common interests only when it suits them. Just like the UK in fact. Ultimately though your argument would be essentially not to have allies.
"If we run a competive economy the inward investment will happen from all over the world, whethewr we are tied constitutionally with the EU or not
I think you are getting hung up on the word "constitution". We are already tied to Europe (although we could always leave) and this treaty is about how best to organise and run the thing we are already part of -- which, if we do it well, is if anything likely to increase our economic effectiveness and tend to atract more inward investment. After all a major point of the EU is to make our collective economy more competitive.
"why should others tell us how to run the workplace, tax system, public spending, justice system, human rights...?"
They don't. We enter into agreements with our alies that best serve our interest.
"If the public want the EU constitution I can accept that. I just want to see the public have its say here in the very seat of democracy"
Again I think you are overstating the case. The effect of this thing is not that significant and is certainly far less significant than, say, Maastricht, for which we didn't have a referendum.
The adoption of the EU constituion will of course have to be adopted into UK law by Parliament -- it's not like Blair just signs us up to whatever he feels like.
"We don't elect government to hand over sovreignty to third parties"
Although its a nebulous concept at best, I would strongly argue that there is anything that constitutes sovreignty in the proposed treaty. Unless one chooses the Tory position of saying (essentially) everything is sovriengty and that the principle of making our own decisions outweighs any gains we can have from strategic alliances and deals.
FWIW here are the main points and my views on them and goverment policy:
EU Presidency -- Seem fair enough to me. The 6 month revolving Presidency is getting a bit silly with 25 members so just pick a qualified guy and give him the job. Note that the role of the President stays the same as it is now we just don't change him every 6 months.
EU Foreign Minister -- This is basically merging two diplomaitc roles (currently Javier Solana and Chris Patten) into one person responsible for the EU's relationships with other countries. it does not effect the role of national Foreign ministers. Seems reasonable to me.
Reduction of the EU Comission -- Good idea. It's already too big and making it smaller can only be a good thing.
Euro Defence Force -- I am against this personally. I think such things are better done via the UN.
Qualified Majority Voting -- If we have 25 members and require a unanimous vote nothing would get done. Therefore, if one is in favour of expansion, one has to except that something must change. The government is pledged to retain our veto in the key areas of econmoic policy, defence and foreign affairs.
Tax Harmonisation -- Off the agenda now.
[Although as an aside for you free marketeers out there, I note that the EU generally results in a downward pressure on certain taxes as a result of the liberalisation of the market. Hence we see Finland cuutting its high alcohol taxes as from May 1st Finns will be able to bring unlimited amounts of cheap drink from Estonia]
Human Rights Charter -- A sort of unalienable rights deal like the US constituion. I am against this but only becuase I think we should have our own constitution anyway. This is unlikely to make it into law and will remain as a "Declaration"
Simplification -- A bunch of stuff that rationalises various existing EU laws which are famously convoluted and complex. Sounds good to me at least in principle.
EU Public Prosecutor -- The government is against this and so am I. Although I am in favour of trans-EU co-operation for police forces and security services we should retain our own legal system.
Matthew
Personally I believe the other European countries to be our allies and that we share many common econmoic and political goals. As such I am in favour of the EU and think the government should engage fully with it and seek to further our interests via this valuable and powerful alliance.
Fredrik -- You seemed to have withdrawn (or at least failed to restate in answering my point) your ludicrous conspiracy theory about France and Germany allowing us in to the EU in order to curtail our anglo-saxon economy so we shall move on.
In general you also seem to be, like Michael, so distrustful of our European allies that one would think you should be in favour of an isolationist approach and getting out altogether. Which is your prerogative but would be a big mistake in my view.
"it is hard to see how either of those two great nations, between them who will always outweigh the UK, can be relied on to take our national best interest as the basis of policy formation, if this would be deleterious to their own"
You can absolutely rely upon them putting their own interest first and agreeing to promote common interests only when it suits them. Just like the UK in fact. Ultimately though your argument would be essentially not to have allies.
"If we run a competive economy the inward investment will happen from all over the world, whethewr we are tied constitutionally with the EU or not
I think you are getting hung up on the word "constitution". We are already tied to Europe (although we could always leave) and this treaty is about how best to organise and run the thing we are already part of -- which, if we do it well, is if anything likely to increase our economic effectiveness and tend to atract more inward investment. After all a major point of the EU is to make our collective economy more competitive.
"why should others tell us how to run the workplace, tax system, public spending, justice system, human rights...?"
They don't. We enter into agreements with our alies that best serve our interest.
"If the public want the EU constitution I can accept that. I just want to see the public have its say here in the very seat of democracy"
Again I think you are overstating the case. The effect of this thing is not that significant and is certainly far less significant than, say, Maastricht, for which we didn't have a referendum.
The adoption of the EU constituion will of course have to be adopted into UK law by Parliament -- it's not like Blair just signs us up to whatever he feels like.
"We don't elect government to hand over sovreignty to third parties"
Although its a nebulous concept at best, I would strongly argue that there is anything that constitutes sovreignty in the proposed treaty. Unless one chooses the Tory position of saying (essentially) everything is sovriengty and that the principle of making our own decisions outweighs any gains we can have from strategic alliances and deals.
FWIW here are the main points and my views on them and goverment policy:
EU Presidency -- Seem fair enough to me. The 6 month revolving Presidency is getting a bit silly with 25 members so just pick a qualified guy and give him the job. Note that the role of the President stays the same as it is now we just don't change him every 6 months.
EU Foreign Minister -- This is basically merging two diplomaitc roles (currently Javier Solana and Chris Patten) into one person responsible for the EU's relationships with other countries. it does not effect the role of national Foreign ministers. Seems reasonable to me.
Reduction of the EU Comission -- Good idea. It's already too big and making it smaller can only be a good thing.
Euro Defence Force -- I am against this personally. I think such things are better done via the UN.
Qualified Majority Voting -- If we have 25 members and require a unanimous vote nothing would get done. Therefore, if one is in favour of expansion, one has to except that something must change. The government is pledged to retain our veto in the key areas of econmoic policy, defence and foreign affairs.
Tax Harmonisation -- Off the agenda now.
[Although as an aside for you free marketeers out there, I note that the EU generally results in a downward pressure on certain taxes as a result of the liberalisation of the market. Hence we see Finland cuutting its high alcohol taxes as from May 1st Finns will be able to bring unlimited amounts of cheap drink from Estonia]
Human Rights Charter -- A sort of unalienable rights deal like the US constituion. I am against this but only becuase I think we should have our own constitution anyway. This is unlikely to make it into law and will remain as a "Declaration"
Simplification -- A bunch of stuff that rationalises various existing EU laws which are famously convoluted and complex. Sounds good to me at least in principle.
EU Public Prosecutor -- The government is against this and so am I. Although I am in favour of trans-EU co-operation for police forces and security services we should retain our own legal system.
Matthew
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by matthewr
Fredrik,
"They have to have us in so that they can curtail our inherently competive Anlgo-Saxon economy" sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. But perhaps it was just an unfortunate turn of phrase.
Your economic arguments I do not agree with becuase you seem to imply that the UK will somehow be sucked in to a French style economy which I do not beleive will happen. There is an almost total consensus on our economy with the main political parties in the UK and I cannot imagine a cirumstance where any UK government would vote for something that (for want of a better phrase) made our economy more French and less US.
Moreover all the new entrants are fully signed up to a UK style economy rather than a French one and are experiencing rapid growth. This strengthens the UK position and weakens the French one.
Finally its my impression that change is coming to France and Germany whether they like it or not and, as I said, if anything they will get more like us economically than the other way around. This is somethign I see with first hand experience working as I do for a French company.
"I also note, somewhat with sadness, that you actually avoid answering my clearly stated and logical reason for there being a constitutional requirement for a refendum"
Your point is predicated on this proposed treaty being a case of handing over soverignty and a case of our leaders opting to "erode their responsibility to run the country". Since I don't think this is remotely the case -- we have an EU "President" already so what difference does it make if we choose one every 6 years not every month?, etc. -- the argument that we should therfore have a referendum is void. A negotiation by the elected executive and then a vote in Parliament seems perfectly fine to me.
And if you want to talk about precedents than Mastricht was far more significant change and a referndum was not even suggested.
Like I say you seem to be seeing the word "constitution" and empowering the treaty with sweeping, fundamental changes it clearly doesn't have. I think if you just call it a treaty a lot of your objections, at least to this process if not the wider question of the EU, go away.
Matthew
"They have to have us in so that they can curtail our inherently competive Anlgo-Saxon economy" sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. But perhaps it was just an unfortunate turn of phrase.
Your economic arguments I do not agree with becuase you seem to imply that the UK will somehow be sucked in to a French style economy which I do not beleive will happen. There is an almost total consensus on our economy with the main political parties in the UK and I cannot imagine a cirumstance where any UK government would vote for something that (for want of a better phrase) made our economy more French and less US.
Moreover all the new entrants are fully signed up to a UK style economy rather than a French one and are experiencing rapid growth. This strengthens the UK position and weakens the French one.
Finally its my impression that change is coming to France and Germany whether they like it or not and, as I said, if anything they will get more like us economically than the other way around. This is somethign I see with first hand experience working as I do for a French company.
"I also note, somewhat with sadness, that you actually avoid answering my clearly stated and logical reason for there being a constitutional requirement for a refendum"
Your point is predicated on this proposed treaty being a case of handing over soverignty and a case of our leaders opting to "erode their responsibility to run the country". Since I don't think this is remotely the case -- we have an EU "President" already so what difference does it make if we choose one every 6 years not every month?, etc. -- the argument that we should therfore have a referendum is void. A negotiation by the elected executive and then a vote in Parliament seems perfectly fine to me.
And if you want to talk about precedents than Mastricht was far more significant change and a referndum was not even suggested.
Like I say you seem to be seeing the word "constitution" and empowering the treaty with sweeping, fundamental changes it clearly doesn't have. I think if you just call it a treaty a lot of your objections, at least to this process if not the wider question of the EU, go away.
Matthew
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Like I say you seem to be seeing the word "constitution" and empowering the treaty with sweeping, fundamental changes it clearly doesn't have. I think if you just call it a treaty a lot of your objections, at least to this process if not the wider question of the EU, go away.
Fair comment but.
Some musings:
* Why do I believe a referendum should be held in respect of the Constitution?
A line needs to be drawn somewhere. Let us assume that the Constitution is signed: AND then in two years time the Charter of Rights is enshrined. The argument then would be that this is a minor matter - just a tidying up excercise and therefore a referendum is not needed. AND then in two years time VAT regulations are fully harmonised. The argument again would be that this is a minor matter - just a tidying up excercise and therefore a referendum is not needed. AND the following year the European Prosecutor is adopted... AND the following year taxation is harmonised... AND by then we may as well adopt the Euro. AND not long after that we may as well become one state.
Surely a referendum now can't be a bad thing. At least everybody will be able to listen/absorb/decide after reasoned debate. Can't say fairer than that.
I also recall d'Estaing suggesting that a referendum be held. Furthermore other countries are holding a referendum, so why are they holding referendums? Do they recognise something that Blair does not or is not willing to recognise? Finally I got back to the original question!
* Having said the above, I remain in principle in favour of the Euro and undecided ultimately on the subject of being a single state.
It is the manner in which the EU is run that gives me a problem. For example CAP, the continued failure to tackle fraud, the failure to address budget deficits etc etc. What irritates me is the failure to address these issues over many years. I just do not have faith in these problems being addressed in a proper and robust manner.
Could we influence it from within - yes but thus far it hasn't worked.
I guess I am reluctant to commit to something which doesn't work (at least in the way I view it) and for which I do not see the problems being properly addressed.
Mike