I am surprised how un-angry I am about the final ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. I don’t see any point in bursting a blood vessel over something which has now happened and can’t be undone. I am certainly not taking any disappointment out on the Tory leader because Gordon Brown failed to hold the promised referendum. I can’t get angry with Cameron for lacking the ideological purity to promise an in/out vote.
From an “ideological” standpoint I would prefer any European co-operation to be along the lines of individual agreements between sovereign nations: a free trade treaty that sat separately from an environmental protection treaty, etc.. But I wonder whether, when it came down to it, we wouldn’t end up with a pretty similar outcome to that which we have now. All international treaties need institutions to monitor them, to make sure their members are toeing the line. Wouldn’t a setup where every country had a veto result in just as much “horse trading” as we have now? It certainly wouldn’t be the case that every country could get the things it wanted without ceding in areas it was not comfortable with. Not even a country as powerful as the USA gets everything it wants in life. Not even a country with as strong a democracy as it is possible to have can completely avoid dirty deals.
So, as much as I dislike the way the EU works, we are in the EU until we decide to come out. While we are in we should use what little leverage we have to try and make it into a club within which we feel comfortable. Having a requirement for a referendum on each treaty amendment is a powerful lever. I don’t understand why we have not introduced it already. What better position can there be to be able to say at the negotiating table “hmm, not sure the British electorate will buy that”?
If – as Prime Minister – David Cameron can’t get the other countries to agree to the devolution of certain powers back to national governments then we can give our verdict as to whether we mind at the ballot box next time around.
I know this will irritate the angry mob, but I actually think that the new Conservative position is pretty good. What a shame we had to go through the Constitution/Lisbon disaster to get there. He is right when he says that we should be concerned more with how things are than how we think they should be.
broadly agree – art of the possible etc etc
Guido said something odd: DC has “put party interest before national interest” – not sure about that: there’s a scenario where UKIP gains quite a number of votes …
Roughly agree also. I too can’t blame the police for the deaths of the suicide bomber. The bomber alone is to blame.
The good news is Brown will be gone soon. The bad is he will continue to haunt us a special envoy for debt or something at Blair Court.
Meanwhile, unlike many of the angry Tories, I am much more concerned about the state of the UK right now.another £25 billion on the fire today, Shannon Matthews aunt done for £35,000 of benefit fraud, Strikes,lack of credit for business, the rise of the really really super-bank like Tesco.
We can always ruffle the EU feathers another day.
The problem is that the EU is not a “club”. It is a supranational government whose laws have primacy over those of the UK. This principle was established before we even joined in 1973 and the principle has been reiterated a number of times in our own courts, notable the Factortame case.
It was never designed to be a free association of sovereign states.
When he addressed the first meeting of the European Coal and Steel Community, one of the precursors of the EU, in around 1950-ish, Jean Monnet began by announcing, “Gentlemen, we are here prestent at the First Government of Europe”.
Loosening our ties with the EU cannot be done from within the EU legal structure – it would be like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. A major bustup with the credible threat of leaving would be the only possibility now.
“Dave” and Hague are being totally disingenuous.
I love this sudden rediscovery of the fact that EU law is supreme. As if Factortame was some kind of surprise. EU law *has* to be supreme, otherwise it wouldn’t work. WTO rules are supreme as well. ITU rules are supreme. NAFTA rules are supreme to the US, Canada and Mexico. The point I am making here is that if we left and tried to set up a free trade treaty, we would probably end up with something which looked rather like the EEC. I don’t like the direction the EU is moving into lots of areas and it might well be that the only way to get rid of that is to leave. But we should at least try.
A lot of the angry mob are defeatist.
Plus as BQ says there are much bigger immediate issues to resolve. Constitutional perfection can wait.
Exactly. Surely we can do as well as all the other member states to protect our own interests once we have a government concerned to do so, rather than pursue some creepy end to democracy project?
No these others e.g. NAFTA, UN rules are not supreme. These organisations do not constitute a higher legal order (though the UN would like to think it is). Membership of them does of course bring with it obligations, as my accepting a job or entering into a house purchase contract brings obligations, but it does not override our national sovereignty any more than my signing a legal contract to buy a house overrides my status as a free legal agent.
If we set up a free trade agreement it need only look like that which Mexico has now with the EU. Also we wouldn’t have to put up with EU tarrif barriers which are erected against 3rd world countries.
The EU exerts an all embracing legal supremacy over this country. It has spread itself by a series of power grabs beneath the radar which are later written up into constitutional form.
My big quarrel with “Dave” is that he persists in the untruth that we can negotiate significant powers back. We can’t since agreement would require all 27 member states to get together and agree, with all the attendant horse trading.
We can’t do what he wants within EU parameters. If he wants to get any sovereignty back then he will actually have to defy the EU and reassert our sovereignty but I don’t believe he or his colleagues have the political will to do so.
I do agree though that this shouldn’t detract from the fact that the Broon and his lackeys are the ones upon whom our anger and contempt should be directed.
So the US can’t be taken to the WTO court, then? How do the members enforce a free trade treaty without a legal framework?
Cameron’s problem in satisfying your thirst is that if he said something which is “logical” such as “and if we can’t get the powers back we will leave the EU” he would simply be laughed out of town. And after an acrimonious split, do you really think that the remaining members of the EU would be happy to give us good trade terms?
I don’t really like it either, but there’s little else on the table. That is why I’m past getting angry about it.
HG – isn’t this new stance pretty much what you have been calling for? I think that being slightly more assertive will be rather more successful than being petulant and either threatening to leave or “empty chair”ing.
I have to admit I’m not well up in WTO procedures but I don’t think the USA could be taken to the WTO if they did not agree to be, since they do not recognise the WTO rules as constituting a legal jurisdiction superior to that of the USA. Of course if you join any origanisation and don’t obey the rules you risk censure or expulsion but that doesn’t amount to being subject to an all-embracing higher legal entity.
If he is determined to get powers back then there does have to be the ultimate threat of withdrawal. But more likely he doesn’t want powers back anyway but just wants to string along the EU-sceptic vote enough to stop them defecting to UKIP. It will all be forgottn once he’s in power.
This may be quite logical as an election strategy but but is not credible as a plan for regaining national sovereignty.
He is in the position of a man who walks into a car dealer and says “I’m interested in buying that BMW you have on the forecourt but I’m not satisfied with the price and I’m going to haggle you down vigorously and strongly negotiate a better price for myself. Oh – by the way – I really deperately want that car and I will definitely end up buying it from you.”
The other EU member states would not be well advised to start a trade war with us since we import more from them them than they from us.
John, we are only subject to EU law to the extend that the European Communities Act makes us. Ultimately Parliament could decide to stop accepting EU law. It would require no permission from Brussels or other member states. EU law is only supreme in areas directed by the treaty. It has to be that way otherwise it would not work. Nobody can stop us leaving if we want to. What is the difference between that position and the US/WTO position?
Yes I agree by repealing the 1972 Act we are out. From 1 Dec I guess it would be repealing the recent Act enabling the Lisbon Treaty – or maybe it’s atill the 1973 Act that we’d have to repeal – I don’t know. This is the formal situtation but formal siuations can persist on paper after they have vanished as a practical proposition.
The self-amending nature of Lisbon makes things especially dangerous. Leave it a while and alothough the above may be formally true, all the constitutional levers that could be pulled to get us out could be removed for example if the regional governments of England were beefed up and the Westminster parliamanet left to wither on the vine. Eventually as the tide goes in and out a few times all the familiar handles get washed away.
Remember that some states in America joined the Union in the belief that if they didn’t like it they could come out again. They found painfully in the 1860s that they could not. There was a clause in Stalin’s 1930s Constitution for the Soviet Union which said that member republics could leave if they wished.
It’s the all-embracing nature of the EU – with no ultimate restrictions on how far its tentacles might spread that distinguish it from our membership of the WTO or from my membership of a tiddlywinks club.
My main point though is that Cameron’s statement is just words signifying nothing real. Possible good political tactics (or maybe not) if one is being cynical.
Se today’s Today program on the Radio 4 website. About 55 minutes in – a woman Cambridge academic who explains very succinctly what Cameron’s prospects are for retrieving powers.
“So, as much as I dislike the way the EU works, we are in the EU until we decide to come out.”
The problem is, ‘we’ aren’t going to get a say on that. Ever.
I too, totally agree with what you say Blue.
DC has got it just right.
The media and dead tree press are trying to heap the blame of the signing the Lisbon Treaty on David Cameron’s shoulders, when in fact it was Brown who signed it, separately from the other EU leaders, I may add….
Big brave lump of lard that he is!
Write about ‘Courage’ Brown…don’t make me laugh!
Di.x
The Tories are promising ‘referendum’ guarantee’ on all future transfers of power to Brussels. If a future government tries to transfer further competences from Britain to the EU, a national referendum would be required by law before it could be ratified. Have they not read the Treaty of Lisbon ?
Article 47 gives the EU as a whole a legal personality, so the EU itself can ‘speak with one voice’ to ratify any future treaties on behalf af all 27 countries.. This includes the power to go to war.
In the UK, to date, for many things, including the decision to fight wars or to ratify treaties, our Government uses the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown.
The power of the Crown is held in trust by the executive and passed on to the next government. Article 47 of the Lisbon Treaty means our Government has handed over the Royal Prerogative to foreigners.
Yet the power fo the British Crown is the ultimate authority – or sovereignty – behind parliament, so it is not in the power of the Government to give away the Royal Prerogatibve to anyone – and certainly not foreigners.
By this action, not only our Government, but also the Crown, has been made subservient to the EU.
EU treaties are designed to be permanent, so given that the EU is planning for the next 50 years, the gift of the Royal Prerogative is one which cannot be taken back.
I believe this gift was not in the power of Ministers and that they could, at a future date, be held guilty of sedition against the state.
Is that clear enough for the Tories ?
(Certainly articulates how I feel about it, Blue.)