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: 29 March 2004 by matthewr
Michael,
"I may not be able to present definitive facts for or against the Constitution"
Then your argument is more than somewhat flawed.
"Likewise, those in favour of the Constitution"
Not true. Whilst the final version has not been agreed yet the draft has been around since last May and I assume most people involved in the debate will have at least some familiarity with the content.
Anyway, you'll find a brief summary here
"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.
"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.
Matthew
"I may not be able to present definitive facts for or against the Constitution"
Then your argument is more than somewhat flawed.
"Likewise, those in favour of the Constitution"
Not true. Whilst the final version has not been agreed yet the draft has been around since last May and I assume most people involved in the debate will have at least some familiarity with the content.
Anyway, you'll find a brief summary here
"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.
"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.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by Former member
Dear All,
I have been having a bit of a disaster with my connection.
Fundamentally, I wish we could believe one promise, even one utterance from Mr Blair as being totally straight. What seems to emerge far too often is a sub-text, a hidden adgenda. The man is not straight forward. I don't trust him. Therefore in the issue of constitutional affairs, I have no particular faith that he will do what the people of the UK want in respect of European Constitional reform (or even that of the UK). It is not for him to determine what is best for the peoples of the UK.
If the governement would stick to its manifesto and not simply abandon what is inconvenient or un-poplular, without a by or leave, then the point about electing a governement to get on with it, and do what it sees fit within a stated framework (the manifesto), this would be something those of us who disagree with the direction the government is taking us, would accept. But they don't.
So I would like to test public opinion in a referendum on an issue of great importance to the fututre governance of our nation. This would require all parties to rehearse their arguements well and present them. Thus the public at large would not only have its say (without having to vote conservative administration into office, which might be seen as not especially parallel with the many people's political stance), but also they would have the chance to become far better aquainted with the facts.
This is not exactly without precident, and I am not going to trot out all the examples here, though they do tend to be on constitutional issues. This seems reasonable, as we vote for politicians to run the country, and not hand slices of sovreignty to others. It is hard enough to make politicians at Westminster responsive. How on earth are we going to make a European set of legislation fit with our own national needs, when we form only a tiny minority of the population of the Europe. I don't want to run any other country and don't want to be run by it. If anyone can convince me as to why that is wrong I'll read and consider it.
Dear Matthew,
If you cannot do better than refer to my views as "bizaare right wing nonesense" (without having the first idea of what my politics are!), then I cannot be too fussed to work out why your post, where it conserns me, requires an answer. I guess that you may well be being rhetorical? What might be interesting would be to see if my opinions represent a minority or majority of the electorate.
Sincerely Fredrik Fiske
I have been having a bit of a disaster with my connection.
Fundamentally, I wish we could believe one promise, even one utterance from Mr Blair as being totally straight. What seems to emerge far too often is a sub-text, a hidden adgenda. The man is not straight forward. I don't trust him. Therefore in the issue of constitutional affairs, I have no particular faith that he will do what the people of the UK want in respect of European Constitional reform (or even that of the UK). It is not for him to determine what is best for the peoples of the UK.
If the governement would stick to its manifesto and not simply abandon what is inconvenient or un-poplular, without a by or leave, then the point about electing a governement to get on with it, and do what it sees fit within a stated framework (the manifesto), this would be something those of us who disagree with the direction the government is taking us, would accept. But they don't.
So I would like to test public opinion in a referendum on an issue of great importance to the fututre governance of our nation. This would require all parties to rehearse their arguements well and present them. Thus the public at large would not only have its say (without having to vote conservative administration into office, which might be seen as not especially parallel with the many people's political stance), but also they would have the chance to become far better aquainted with the facts.
This is not exactly without precident, and I am not going to trot out all the examples here, though they do tend to be on constitutional issues. This seems reasonable, as we vote for politicians to run the country, and not hand slices of sovreignty to others. It is hard enough to make politicians at Westminster responsive. How on earth are we going to make a European set of legislation fit with our own national needs, when we form only a tiny minority of the population of the Europe. I don't want to run any other country and don't want to be run by it. If anyone can convince me as to why that is wrong I'll read and consider it.
Dear Matthew,
If you cannot do better than refer to my views as "bizaare right wing nonesense" (without having the first idea of what my politics are!), then I cannot be too fussed to work out why your post, where it conserns me, requires an answer. I guess that you may well be being rhetorical? What might be interesting would be to see if my opinions represent a minority or majority of the electorate.
Sincerely Fredrik Fiske
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by matthewr
Fredrik,
The bit I quoted from your post seemed to suggest that the "great European powers" -- a phrase which makes you sound like you just woke up from an afernoon nap you took in 1914 but by which I take you to mean France and Germany -- had allowed Britain to join the EU as a means of undermining our economy.
This is a ludicrous claim that not only falls at the first hint of critical analysis but is firmly in the realm of whacko conspiracy theories and seems, to my mind at least, "the sort of bizarre nonsense one reads from obscure right wing academics in magazines even The Spectator views as a bit odd".
"If you cannot do better than refer to my views as "bizaare right wing nonesense" (without having the first idea of what my politics are!)"
If you read my comment accurately you will note that I said it was "bizarre nonsense" (which seems like fair comment to me) and that I said nothing about your politics but that your statement was akin to those I have seen from "right wing academics". Obvisouly I was using a colourful example to make my point in what I hoped was an entertaing manner about the unusual and unlikely view you expressed. I do not literally beleive you are a right wing acadmic who writes for those obscure periodicals one sees advertised in the small ads of The Spectator.
FWIW I did also answer your point albeit briefly as it didn't seem to warrant an overly detailed analysis.
Matthew
The bit I quoted from your post seemed to suggest that the "great European powers" -- a phrase which makes you sound like you just woke up from an afernoon nap you took in 1914 but by which I take you to mean France and Germany -- had allowed Britain to join the EU as a means of undermining our economy.
This is a ludicrous claim that not only falls at the first hint of critical analysis but is firmly in the realm of whacko conspiracy theories and seems, to my mind at least, "the sort of bizarre nonsense one reads from obscure right wing academics in magazines even The Spectator views as a bit odd".
"If you cannot do better than refer to my views as "bizaare right wing nonesense" (without having the first idea of what my politics are!)"
If you read my comment accurately you will note that I said it was "bizarre nonsense" (which seems like fair comment to me) and that I said nothing about your politics but that your statement was akin to those I have seen from "right wing academics". Obvisouly I was using a colourful example to make my point in what I hoped was an entertaing manner about the unusual and unlikely view you expressed. I do not literally beleive you are a right wing acadmic who writes for those obscure periodicals one sees advertised in the small ads of The Spectator.
FWIW I did also answer your point albeit briefly as it didn't seem to warrant an overly detailed analysis.
Matthew
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by Former member
Dear Matthew,
I am going to try to answer your post by inserting my arguement within the body of your post, so as to preserve context, which I feel rather important in the circumstances, to avoid potential miss-readings!
------
FF:
I don't think my possition requires analysis in any particular depth: the point is simply this. We don't elect government to hand over sovreignty to third parties, so if there is some compelling reason why our leaders think they should erode their responsibility to run the country, that we have given them in the course of the electoral process, then it is reasonable to have a public veto on it. If the reasons are compelling the public will not veto the work of the politicians, but in every case where devolution of power has been managed within the UK, a referendum has been held. It seems reasonable to expect that when power and the ability of the people of this country to determine its own future within the EU are concerned, the same should apply.
Haroon,
You said that there were "fears", but that these are "ungrounded". Does you know something I don't? Experience should teach us that EU politics is just as Machiavelian, or possibly far more so, than our own. We must progress with huge caution on this one I am sure. Fear of the unknown is both natural and reasonable.
Yours sincerely, Fredrik Fiske
I am going to try to answer your post by inserting my arguement within the body of your post, so as to preserve context, which I feel rather important in the circumstances, to avoid potential miss-readings!
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Fredrik,
The bit I quoted from your post seemed to suggest that the "great European powers" -- a phrase which makes you sound like you just woke up from an afernoon nap you took in 1914 but by which I take you to mean France and Germany -- had allowed Britain to join the EU as a means of undermining our economy.
-----
FF:
Spot on about the two major economic powers, though I had been doing my best to avoid naming them directly. This was because there is a lot history to it all and I would not like to be seen as anti either of these countries in the light of this history. However 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....
------------------
MR:
This is a ludicrous claim that not only falls at the first hint of critical analysis but is firmly in the realm of whacko conspiracy theories and seems, to my mind at least, "the sort of bizarre nonsense one reads from obscure right wing academics in magazines even The Spectator views as a bit odd".
------
FF:
Whether this is a ludicrous claim depends on your view-point. I happen to hold it. 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. For years we have been huge net contributors to the EU and that is fine enough, but why should others tell us how to run the workplace, tax system, public spending, justice system, human rights...?
You may have gathered that I am half Norwegian. You might ask why Norway did not want to join the EU? That nation has the highest GNP per head of any European nation. They managed that without foreign advice. What other countries do is up to the peoles of those countries, and generally we expect democratic leaders to respect that. I hope that they do here. 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.
-------------------
MR:
_"If you cannot do better than refer to my views as "bizaare right wing nonesense" (without having the first idea of what my politics are!)"_
If you read my comment accurately you will note that I said it was "bizarre nonsense" (which seems like fair comment to me) and that I said nothing about your politics but that your statement was akin to those I have seen from "right wing academics". Obvisouly I was using a colourful example to make my point in what I hoped was an entertaing manner about the unusual and unlikely view you expressed. I do not literally beleive you are a right wing acadmic who writes for those obscure periodicals one sees advertised in the small ads of The Spectator.
------
FF:
Well that is a relief, not that I for once actually thought you might believe me to be a right wing hack. But if I were right wing I would hope that alone would not be enough to make my words beyong the pale. And if you were being humourous, then I have to say that humour in print is a very elusive thing. Best kept for face to face situations, in my experience. On the other hand bizarre is a bit strong even it you think my words nonesense! [JOKE!].
------------------
MR:
FWIW I did also answer your point albeit briefly as it didn't seem to warrant an overly detailed analysis.
Matthew
------
FF:
I don't think my possition requires analysis in any particular depth: the point is simply this. We don't elect government to hand over sovreignty to third parties, so if there is some compelling reason why our leaders think they should erode their responsibility to run the country, that we have given them in the course of the electoral process, then it is reasonable to have a public veto on it. If the reasons are compelling the public will not veto the work of the politicians, but in every case where devolution of power has been managed within the UK, a referendum has been held. It seems reasonable to expect that when power and the ability of the people of this country to determine its own future within the EU are concerned, the same should apply.
Haroon,
You said that there were "fears", but that these are "ungrounded". Does you know something I don't? Experience should teach us that EU politics is just as Machiavelian, or possibly far more so, than our own. We must progress with huge caution on this one I am sure. Fear of the unknown is both natural and reasonable.
Yours sincerely, Fredrik Fiske
Posted on: 29 March 2004 by Haroon
Right then can we have a referendum on whether we should have a referendum? 
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Michael,
"I may not be able to present definitive facts for or against the Constitution"
Then your argument is more than somewhat flawed.
Looking back I did not express myself clearly.
Yes, the draft constitution is readily available and extracts and commentaries are readily available from many sources.
The point I was trying (and failed) to put across was how can a defintive statement of facts be made as to what the true purpose of the Constitution is. That in turn makes it difficult to present arguments. We have to interpret the intention. Clearly, well at least to my mind, different people have different agendas behind putting the Constitution in place.
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 Former member
Dear Matthew,
I never held a "ludicrous conspiracy theory" as concerns the French and Germans over them eventually letting us into the EEC (as it was at the time). That is something you seem to have assumed was my view, in that I stated the point that that our Anglo-Saxon version of capitalism is completely different to the finacial cultures pertaining in those nations, as in so many areas of our respective cultures. I would say that in terms of financial culture we have (as in so many areas) much more in common with the US. It is certain that the working time directive and so on will serve to bring us closer to the Franco-German position than that which has been arrived at in the UK. It might reasonably be observed that the French and Germans seem to be unable to make radical moves to make their economies more competitive in the world perspective, whereas the UK has done very well in the last 25 years. No; I doubt if the cultural differences between the UK and our continental partners are likely to be resolved without us being moved far more towards our partners than they towards us. It is here that I feel that, politically, the governing classes of these countries may feel rather satisfied to bring us into line and keep European marketing conditions along lines that suit them rather than us. I do not beleive this to be a conspiracy theory so much a reasonable observation of the recent historical facts, as they concern the way the the EU has already attempted to enforce continental ideas on the UK.
Thus it may well be seen that the effect of bringing the UK into line with continental methods and traditions (in all areas) is likely to result the UK moving more than the greater economic and political mass of the rest of the EU. I personally want to limit this as much as possible. The purpose of the EEC was to create a situation where repititions of the the catastrophies of 1914 and 1939 would be reduced to nill. This has already been achieved, and the aims thus far are entirely honerable and in a pragmatic sense also good for the well being of all European peoples. I just don't see why we need to go that much further. Incidentally I hope that a looser structure (not ever closer) may take in even more nations than the current entrants. In many areas, such as safety of foodstuffes and general trade this would be totally beneficial.
In no way would I want to see the EU break down (or the UK withdraw), but I can see a real danger that if the democratic deficit were to grow and power be even more centralised than it is now, that the structure will actually buckle and real pressure emerge for countries, including the UK, to leave.
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. This is in the last paragraph of my last post. This is regretable in view of the general quality of the debate except perhaps where you have misconstrued what I was saying "Whacho plots" etc. Given that, if this were the basis of my arguement I would agree that you could ridicule me or the point made. Really it would be nice if you would credit me with more inteligence than that and actually ask for a clarification. It is perhaps dangerous to introduce an element of written humour in this respect. I am being absolutely serious, though possible not entirely clear to yourself all the time.
RETURN TO TOPIC...
Really the return to topic, for the sake of Micheal, I do think that some back benchers of the Labour Party now seem to have woken up on this issue with 30 odd of them actually having a meeting on the issue of a referendum. Many will, I am sure, applaud this, and hope that Mr Blair may be forced to account for it in his future actions.
Fredrik Fiske
I never held a "ludicrous conspiracy theory" as concerns the French and Germans over them eventually letting us into the EEC (as it was at the time). That is something you seem to have assumed was my view, in that I stated the point that that our Anglo-Saxon version of capitalism is completely different to the finacial cultures pertaining in those nations, as in so many areas of our respective cultures. I would say that in terms of financial culture we have (as in so many areas) much more in common with the US. It is certain that the working time directive and so on will serve to bring us closer to the Franco-German position than that which has been arrived at in the UK. It might reasonably be observed that the French and Germans seem to be unable to make radical moves to make their economies more competitive in the world perspective, whereas the UK has done very well in the last 25 years. No; I doubt if the cultural differences between the UK and our continental partners are likely to be resolved without us being moved far more towards our partners than they towards us. It is here that I feel that, politically, the governing classes of these countries may feel rather satisfied to bring us into line and keep European marketing conditions along lines that suit them rather than us. I do not beleive this to be a conspiracy theory so much a reasonable observation of the recent historical facts, as they concern the way the the EU has already attempted to enforce continental ideas on the UK.
Thus it may well be seen that the effect of bringing the UK into line with continental methods and traditions (in all areas) is likely to result the UK moving more than the greater economic and political mass of the rest of the EU. I personally want to limit this as much as possible. The purpose of the EEC was to create a situation where repititions of the the catastrophies of 1914 and 1939 would be reduced to nill. This has already been achieved, and the aims thus far are entirely honerable and in a pragmatic sense also good for the well being of all European peoples. I just don't see why we need to go that much further. Incidentally I hope that a looser structure (not ever closer) may take in even more nations than the current entrants. In many areas, such as safety of foodstuffes and general trade this would be totally beneficial.
In no way would I want to see the EU break down (or the UK withdraw), but I can see a real danger that if the democratic deficit were to grow and power be even more centralised than it is now, that the structure will actually buckle and real pressure emerge for countries, including the UK, to leave.
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. This is in the last paragraph of my last post. This is regretable in view of the general quality of the debate except perhaps where you have misconstrued what I was saying "Whacho plots" etc. Given that, if this were the basis of my arguement I would agree that you could ridicule me or the point made. Really it would be nice if you would credit me with more inteligence than that and actually ask for a clarification. It is perhaps dangerous to introduce an element of written humour in this respect. I am being absolutely serious, though possible not entirely clear to yourself all the time.
RETURN TO TOPIC...
Really the return to topic, for the sake of Micheal, I do think that some back benchers of the Labour Party now seem to have woken up on this issue with 30 odd of them actually having a meeting on the issue of a referendum. Many will, I am sure, applaud this, and hope that Mr Blair may be forced to account for it in his future actions.
Fredrik Fiske
Posted on: 30 March 2004 by Former member
quote:
Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
...
...
...
FWIW here are the main points and my views on them and goverment policy:....
_EU Presidency_ ... 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_ -- ... -it does not effect the role of national Foreign ministers. Seems reasonable to me.
_Reduction of the EU Comission_ -- Good idea...
_Euro Defence Force_ -- I am against this personally...
_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.
...
_Human Rights Charter_ -- 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...
Matthew
Dear Matthew,
I sort of missed this part of your post out. You know the old saying, "If it walks like a duck, quacks like..." Is this a Constiution or not? Well if none of these things makes any difference why bother? In a way your opinion of them is just that. Not mine, nor that of the population as a whole. Neither is mine, and actually neither counts for much in the bigger picture. The actual point is that given the constitutional precedents set over internal devolution of power from Westminster, can there be any reasonable arguement against testing public opinion? Is there any reason for constitutional change at the EU level? I doubt it. Reform of the system, rather than a radical change involving a New Constitution, would appear to be vital.
I can see that the EU cannot possibly function without an increase in majority voting, but this can only be in areas where the national interests of individual member states is not compromised. As the EU grows its competence in many areas must necessarily be lessened as the interest of a larger number of states have to be encompassed. As you say the UN has, and has had for a long time, a leading role to play in world military affairs, for example. If the constitutional arrangements allow for this sort of thing, then it will get wide support. If it is too centralising then it will not. The job of the governemnt to convince the people, that its should be supported, but I suspect the damages has been done already in respect of the foreword by V d'Estange.
It is not the job of the EU to reorganise the UK conststution, and there is room for reform here for sure, but using the over-arching EU constitution to do this is to use a very blunt and crude instrument to achieve what needs to be a subtle set of changes.
I hope you will forgive two such long and serious replies. Fredrik Fiske
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 Former member
Dear Matthew,
I'd agree with you that "competitive Anglo-Saxon economy" is quite possibly able to be open to faulty reading.
I can think of nothing more ruinous than that economically we should move towards the French model. It gives me no personal pleasure that France has to move towards our system, because their system reflects a very sound philosophy of life, and I'd say, "Vive la diference!." But if they do then that may be good for the EU as a whole, possibly, probably...?
I have to say that I do not know what the economic systems of the new entrants are most like, except it is certain that they are far less developed than ours, so it would be reasonable to expect some rapid economic growth after they enter.
Really I think that we shall certainly have to agree to respectfully not agree on whether we are convinced that the EU constitution is an issue of sovreignty. Your point that there are a host of derogations or suspension in many crucial areas does not, to my mind, mean that these cannot be picked off one by one. I would prefer that the need for a derogation was not necessary. On the other hand, you have a view, which of itself, today, has a point. I just think there is a big gap between what our understanding is now and what may very well be forced onto us in years to come. One by one each one of these issues will not be worthy of a referendum! I am sorry to have to state it, but given Mr Blair's record for sticking to promisses, I do not believe that he may not be forced by circumstances to agree to things he assures he will not, today, and then crumble and fail to show spine. Hence I do regard this as important for today quite as much as in the future. It also seems likely to me that the Labour Party will win the next election, so the issue is real in my view. and you don't have to be conservative to have doubts on this issue.
On the issues of precedent, then we both have a point, neither stronger than the other. But to deny that I am citing a precedent is certainly as wrong as saying that issues like say Maarstricht is not in its way a precedent as well. I am not sure much of the public really knew what was going on then. I certainly did not. Hence my interest now. But I do agree that, politically, to style the new agreement a "Treaty" was as big a blunder (for those who really do want "ever closer union") as allowing M d'Estang to write a preface. You see it could all have been smuggled through much like Mrs thatcher did with Maarstricht.
I suspect the problem for Mr Blair is that people have been alerted to a real risk that sovreignty MAY be being ceded. Once that happens I don't think Mr Blair will easily be forgiven for not following the internal devolution precedent of refereda over the ceding of politcal power from Westminster. You make points that are to an extent partisan, as mine are. In fact opinion tends to be partisan. I just want to know what the general public thinks of it. I suspect I am not far from the opinion of a majority of the general public (for whatever reason), and there is a serious risk that public cynicism towards the EU will only be increased if its opinion is not sort. This can only be a bad thing. The best thing would be for Mr Blair to consult the public and proceed from there. For him to win he needs to convince the public that he is correct in signing up on behalf of his country.
I am not sure we shall come any nearer to convincing each other, but it has been a good debate.
Fredrik Fiske
I'd agree with you that "competitive Anglo-Saxon economy" is quite possibly able to be open to faulty reading.
I can think of nothing more ruinous than that economically we should move towards the French model. It gives me no personal pleasure that France has to move towards our system, because their system reflects a very sound philosophy of life, and I'd say, "Vive la diference!." But if they do then that may be good for the EU as a whole, possibly, probably...?
I have to say that I do not know what the economic systems of the new entrants are most like, except it is certain that they are far less developed than ours, so it would be reasonable to expect some rapid economic growth after they enter.
Really I think that we shall certainly have to agree to respectfully not agree on whether we are convinced that the EU constitution is an issue of sovreignty. Your point that there are a host of derogations or suspension in many crucial areas does not, to my mind, mean that these cannot be picked off one by one. I would prefer that the need for a derogation was not necessary. On the other hand, you have a view, which of itself, today, has a point. I just think there is a big gap between what our understanding is now and what may very well be forced onto us in years to come. One by one each one of these issues will not be worthy of a referendum! I am sorry to have to state it, but given Mr Blair's record for sticking to promisses, I do not believe that he may not be forced by circumstances to agree to things he assures he will not, today, and then crumble and fail to show spine. Hence I do regard this as important for today quite as much as in the future. It also seems likely to me that the Labour Party will win the next election, so the issue is real in my view. and you don't have to be conservative to have doubts on this issue.
On the issues of precedent, then we both have a point, neither stronger than the other. But to deny that I am citing a precedent is certainly as wrong as saying that issues like say Maarstricht is not in its way a precedent as well. I am not sure much of the public really knew what was going on then. I certainly did not. Hence my interest now. But I do agree that, politically, to style the new agreement a "Treaty" was as big a blunder (for those who really do want "ever closer union") as allowing M d'Estang to write a preface. You see it could all have been smuggled through much like Mrs thatcher did with Maarstricht.
I suspect the problem for Mr Blair is that people have been alerted to a real risk that sovreignty MAY be being ceded. Once that happens I don't think Mr Blair will easily be forgiven for not following the internal devolution precedent of refereda over the ceding of politcal power from Westminster. You make points that are to an extent partisan, as mine are. In fact opinion tends to be partisan. I just want to know what the general public thinks of it. I suspect I am not far from the opinion of a majority of the general public (for whatever reason), and there is a serious risk that public cynicism towards the EU will only be increased if its opinion is not sort. This can only be a bad thing. The best thing would be for Mr Blair to consult the public and proceed from there. For him to win he needs to convince the public that he is correct in signing up on behalf of his country.
I am not sure we shall come any nearer to convincing each other, but it has been a good debate.
Fredrik Fiske
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
Posted on: 31 March 2004 by Former member
quote:
Originally posted by MichaelC:
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.
....
....
Mike
Dear Mike,
Looks like we agree about the case of incremental breaking down of the derogations. The point is can we trust Mr Blair? [I have to admit I did not know M d'Estang has suggested that a referendum would be a good idea!]
Sorry that to get to this point has taken so many words.
Fredrik Fiske