Comments on Obsolete: Long-winded post on all things EU and referendums.

I think you're reading something into that last qu...

2008-03-10T03:08:00.000+00:00

I think you're reading something into that last quote which isn't there. It's not suggesting that the EU wants a seat, but rather than that the member states on the council will be obliged to invite the high representative to outline the EU's position also. This would likely fall under the current status of non-members of the security council, who can already sit in/be invited on issues that affect them:

"A state that is a member of the UN, but not of the Security Council, may participate in Security Council discussions in matters by which the Council agrees that the country's interests are particularly affected. In recent years, the Council has interpreted this loosely, enabling many countries to take part in its discussions or not depending on how they interpret the validity of the country's interest. Non-members are routinely invited to take part when they are parties to disputes being considered by the Council."

Only time will correct you on that. But you should...

2008-03-10T02:55:00.000+00:00

Only time will correct you on that. But you should realise that your position has been adopted by EU supporters since we joined and every time they have been proved wrong, it is the “it will never happen” argument, at least you can claim consistency.

It is it is not just an empty observation or wish from the EU commissioner, the mechanism for producing the outcome she suggested is in the Lisbon Treaty.

I am trying to clarify what the Treaty allows and makes preparation to achieve, this points directly to the direction the EU is taking i.e. to combine foreign policy. Obviously this will not happen overnight, we should really make our decisions based on what is in the treaty and not on conjecture or hope. I for instance do not suppose that the treaty sets in train the mechanism to combine Foreign Policy that is clearly set out in the treaty for all to read, the words used do not leave any room for doubt or dispute on the matter.

The Lisbon treaty states;

The Union shall define and pursue common policies and actions, and shall work for a
high degree of cooperation in all fields of international relations,

(Basically exactly what the Commissioner said! )

"Before undertaking any action on the international scene or entering into any commitment which could affect the Union's interests, each Member State shall consult the others within the European Council or the Council. Member States shall ensure, through the convergence of their actions, that the Union is able to assert its interests and values on the international scene. Member States shall show mutual solidarity.";

(Here we have the clause which prohibits independent action by a member state. And Note the requirement is that the Union is able to assert its interests and values)

"When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United
Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security
Council shall request that the High Representative be invited to present the
Union's position."

(Here clearly stated is the intention that the EU will seek a seat on the UN Council and will present the Unions position, note! the Unions position and not the positions of its members.)

There's a big difference between what an EU bureau...

2008-03-09T17:25:00.000+00:00

There's a big difference between what an EU bureaucrat says would like to happen and what will actually happen. The role of the EU foreign minister has been fairly emasculated from what it was in the constitution afaik, but you can correct me if I'm wrong.

It looks a little to me as if you avoiding the poi...

2008-03-09T12:32:00.000+00:00

It looks a little to me as if you avoiding the point you said unlike the Constitution the Lisbon Treaty was not legally binding, I suggest that you are wrong, but would be interested to read your arguments that lead you to your conclusions.

In fact the Lisbon Treaty is as legally binding as would have been the Constitution.

There has been a constant argument about the meaning of this treaty Constitution ever since the Constitution was published in fact before, at his first speech at the convention set up by Laeken GISCARD D`ESTAING said “In order to avoid any disagreement over semantics, let us agree now to call it: a "constitutional treaty for Europe".

Initially the British Government refused a referendum on “The Constitution” because they argued it was not a constitution. Now they argue there is no need for a referendum because the Lisbon Treaty is not the Constitution.

The difference between a treaty and a constitution is that A treaty is an exercise of
power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power.

So in fact all EU treaties are the Constitution for the EU, because they set it up, they set out the powers of the EU, the areas of responsibility for the EU etc.
So to argue that the Lisbon Treaty is not the Constitution of the EU is ridiculous and confusing.

Where both the Constitution and now the Lisbon Treaty differ radically from previous treaties is they both set the EU up as an independent entity on the world stage with its own authority flowing from its own constitution. Whereas with the other treaties the EU was not a separate entity but a child - if you wish - of its member states. Further because the EU is a de facto state in its own right it will be, after ratification, eligible to join international organisations such as the Council of Europe and the United Nations, something which is barred to it under its present constitution.

I am afraid that you being “pretty sure” is not quite good enough, you say you do not see France giving up its seat on the UN Council, perhaps you do not, but let us look at it another way. Benita Ferrero-Waldner the EU Commissioner for External Affairs said the EU must take a more communal approach in international institutions such as the UN and the EU should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. She said Britian and France would not in her view necessarily have to give up their seats.

Can you envision the other members of the security council allowing Britain perhaps Germany and France and also the EU to hold separate seats on the security council would you? Especially when you consider the EU represents France Britain and Germany and will be forwarding a joint position which of course the Lisbon treaty requires the member states to support.

If they did somehow manage to allow all three or four of us to retain our seats, what if Britain were to disagree on a course of action, we would have a situation where the EU speaking for us would in fact be speaking against our perceived interest.

I found your post interesting in that you were addressing the inaccuracies advanced by different groups, yet it went off the rails when you started to airily dismiss some serious concerns as if they were the product of a fevered mind

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on t...

2008-03-09T01:12:00.000+00:00

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. The charter of fundamental rights for example is legally binding for everyone else, but we've again supposedly secured an opt-out on that, although whether that's challenged in courts is another matter. My reasoning is that the constitution was a constitution, with all that that entails, while this is a treaty which tidies up the other treaties and enables the EU to proceed far more easily in its enlarged form.

I'm pretty sure the UN seat is going to be non-negotiable; is France for example going to give up its security council seat as well, or is Germany going to give up its campaign on an eventual reformed security council for a permanent seat? I don't think so.

No I am or was having different debate with NM one...

2008-03-09T00:55:00.000+00:00

No I am or was having different debate with NM one about the political parties really Conservatives it could of course have appeared similar initially.

I did not for one moment think you had wilfully made the error about the withdrawal clause.

I am afraid on the other point it is not what you believe that is important but the reality of the situation. Can you please explain how the Reform Treaty once ratified will not be legally binding, I am at a loss to understand your reasoning.

I think you will also find that the primacy of EU law above national law, is still in the reform treaty.

I understand and accept your original disclaimer that you have not read the treaty and I also understand that this is really a byword to you main and interesting post. But the seemingly glaring inaccuracies were highlighted by the fact that you commented about inaccuracies from others -UN seat etc. By the by the House of Commons Select Committee agrees with you in the short term, but said in the long run it remains to be seen.

I'm more than prepared to defend myself. It just s...

2008-03-08T23:50:00.000+00:00

I'm more than prepared to defend myself. It just seemed you were having the exact same argument here with me as you had with Nosemonkey, so there seemed no reason to repeat the same points. The fact that the withdrawal clause was in both the constitution and the treaty was an honest mistake rather than a wilful one, which I'll correct. I don't agree with you that it reduces our sovereignty because it means we can't negotiate to withdraw on our own terms; that appears to be a perverse argument that's rejecting the first attempt to provide such a process just for the sake of it.

I continue to believe that the constitution would have been legally binding while the treaty is not, and indeed the constitution would have reiterated the primacy of EU law above national law, while the treaty does not.

I do not think NM has suggested that the Treaty is...

2008-03-08T21:49:00.000+00:00

I do not think NM has suggested that the Treaty is not legally binding or that the withdrawal clause is not in the Constitution, it is you who have said you are certain of these facts.

For one who says “By far the most nonsense written about the constitution and what it will supposedly do appeared in the right-wing tabloids” you really should be certain of your facts and as you are blogging you really should be prepared to defend yourself not hide behind someone else.

I presume you're the same Ken debating with Nosemo...

2008-03-08T15:47:00.000+00:00

I presume you're the same Ken debating with Nosemonkey on his post. I'll point you back towards there as I think he puts the arguments you disagree with me on far more succinctly than I could.

Sorry did I understand that you claim the treaty d...

2008-03-08T15:30:00.000+00:00

Sorry did I understand that you claim the treaty differs from the Constitution because

a) it is not legally binding
b) it has a withdrawal clause

Quite obviously you did not read the Constitution either?

In what way is it not legally binding?

The withdrawal clause which is in both the Constitution and the Reform Treaty compromises our own parliament’s sovereignty because it sets out the mechanism by which our parliament may express its sovereignty. To do so it must follow the precise and exact mechanism which is set out in the Treaty which is the constitution for the EU, it is also a clause which can be changed at a later date to alter the mechanism of withdrawal. The very fact that there is a withdrawal clause reflects the change of status between the EU and its members states this Treaty creates.

The backbencher debate was very interesting and I ...

2008-03-07T09:24:00.000+00:00

The backbencher debate was very interesting and I think would sway a lot of people that weren't fully entrenched in the idea of a referendum being the thing to do. I think you're spot on in saying that Labour shouldn't have promised a referendum in the first place.

A referendum is a powerful tool for the people and a great responsibility too, and using it as Labour have to suggest the public will have more say in the future in the way they have is lazy and clumsy and will only lead to the public getting cynical.

But, as I said in the post above, I can barely call what parliament did over the last few weeks much better than a referendum for the very reasons Ken Clarke gives against referendums...there wasn't enough time to debate and therefore be fully informed and three line whips meant that no-one would know why the treaty (or at least the referendum) was being voted for or against as specifically as intended.