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

[matgb]

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...

Comments

[srk1.livejournal.com]

What Blair really wants is a position which will allow him to wag his finger self-righteously at as large a European audience as possible. I'm not sure that he is interested in executive power per se, except as a means to give his speeches political authority.

There's an analogy with the 'peace envoy' post he currently occupies - a position so unimportant that it was vacant for eighteen months before Blair took it up. Whenever there is serious work to be done by the quartet, it will be done by representatives of each member of the quartet.

I suspect Blair will spend the rest of his career flitting between prominent but essentially meaningless political posts which give him a platform, while raking in the income from speaking engagements and 'advisory' roles at multinational banks and insurance firms. In this sense the 'presidency' is ideal for him.

[matgb]

I suspect, unfortunately, that you're right. He's got way past the point of beliving his own publicity now.

But I'd really not see him in any role that has any authority over me any more, even if it's only marginal. And I'd really not want to see him in a role that could do with not being discredited completely immediately it's first filled. Ah well.

[eccles.livejournal.com]

A referendum is extremely unlikely because the politicians et al who all understand such treaties are quite rightly scared to death that the public who are unwilling to read lengthy explanations of such will vote how the tabloids tell them to vote if they bother to vote at all. It's not hard to guess which way that vote would go.

[matgb]

Politicians are scared, yes, which is one of the reasons I firgure an in/out referendum would be better than one on this treaty.

Having said that, evidence from France suggest people will put a lot more effort into finding out what it's all about than many give them credit for.

But the cynic in me knows most people won't know, wont' care and a minority of people that do, mostly headbanging antis, will vote and it'll look all wrong. So in/out is better, and we need summat to move the debate on, membership was supposed to be settled before I was born FFS.