Europe: that treaty thing? Here's what they're talking about

If you live anywhere in Europe, especially the UK, you've probably noted that there's a lot of fuss at the moment over The European Constitution, better referred to as the Lisbon Treaty. Certain elements of the press and some campaigners are a little bit hot and bothered about the whole thing. The reality? It's an amending treaty that builds upon the treaties of Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam and while it does have a few measures I'm not sold on, overall it makes the EU more democratic, more open and is, on balance almost certainly a Good Thing. The thing is, unlike the treaties it amends, I haven't had time to read it yet. Maastricht happened while I was studying for my A levels and I did a project on it, and I studied the latter two as part of my degree. Fortunately, the wonders of modern technology mean that I can get to know someone whose opinion on such things I trust, and he can read it for me.

nhw: The Lisbon Treaty: My Take:

I promised a post on the Treaty of Lisbon a couple of days ago, so here it is.

( What is the Lisbon Treaty? )
( Is it a big deal if it doesn't get passed? )
( How do we vote against it? )
( So most of us don't get to vote on it. Isn't that a swiz? )
( What's that wrinkle you mentioned? )
( What about foreign affairs? )
( Doesn't this mean the EU can over-ride our country's foreign policy? )
( What about the European army?  )
( What's this business about qualified majorities? )
( Is it more or less democratic? )
( What about electing the President of the European Commission? )
( Does the Lisbon Treaty make the EU more powerful? )
( What about this new Presidential position that Tony Blair is interested in? )
( The noted historian Andrew Roberts forecasts Slovakian troops in Buckingham Palace, Gibraltar and the Falklands handed over, good men imprisoned for using Imperial measurements... )
Yawn. One of the most depressing things I've come to realise is how poisonous the EU debate has become in the UK, and how far removed from reality. In the run-up to the negotiations, Tony Blair made much of his determination to prevent the crossing of Britain's "red lines", none of which were ever in fact in danger of being crossed, not that you would have known that from the British press. The absurd level of vitriol directed at this Treaty, which as I hope I've made clear is a fairly modest bit of institional adaptation, makes me despair for British political culture.

An excellent post by Nicholas there, from a diplomat who works in Brussels and really actually does know what he's talking about. Of course, we're both biased here, and you have to make up your own mind, but it's better to do so from a position of information, right?

The media would have you believe it's an evil nasty thing that will destroy Britain. They said the same about Maastricht, Nice and Amsterdam. Um, hi guys, still here. I really do wish we could just move on, I want a referendum on membership just to clear the damned air and let the next debate be about how Europe should work and what it should do, rather than the perpetual whinging that it shouldn't exist or that it's "bad for us", the former of which is a position I can at least respect and disagree with, the latter? Nah...

Microsoft attempts to buy Yahoo! and Google reacts

Official Google Blog: Yahoo! and the future of the Internet:

Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC?

Interesting times it seems. Can that be read as anything other than "gloves off, come on then"?