Lisbon Treaty ... will they or won't they?

[Jason]

Are there no loud voices of dissent in the UK? IF not, why not? Are dissenters shouted down?

There is much dissent, but because the process is not democratic our democratic institutions find it hard to reflect the dissent.

The 2009 EU election in the UK (our most recent election) gave the following percentage results:
* Conservative 27.7%
* UKIP 16.5%
* Labour 15.7%
* Lib Dem 13.7%
* others ...

This is an amazing result for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) putting them in second place ahead of the governing party (Labour) and the Lib Dems. They are more or less a single issue party, do not inspire any confidence whatsoever, and to get something like one vote in six is a real achievement.

Opposition to Lisbon is known only from polls as we haven't had a referendum, but is something like 2/3rds, some suggest more. Depending on which poll you look at there may or may not be a majority in favour of the UK leaving the EU.

The problem is that the mainstream political parties are not campaigning on Europe. Labour and Lib Dems are pro-Europe, but tend to keep quiet about it as they know there are few votes in it. The Conservative party membership is overwehelmingly Euro-sceptic. Indeed most Conservatives see their party as the natural home for UKIP supporters. However the Conservatives are worried about the level of anti-Conservative campaigning that would come from the very well organised EU-wide pro-EU lobby. They would do their best to find division within the Conservatives, suggest that anti-European views are racist, xenophobic and fascist, and give maximum exposure to those businesses and eonomists who say that any distancing from Lisbon and the EU would be financial incompetance. Politically the Conservatives want to say as little as possible because they can be damaged through outside meddling in a UK election.

The British tradition is not one of revolution (last was 1688) but rather of parliamentary democracy. But there is a real problem when our democracy has been undermined by the government party (which has broken a clear promise to the electorate that it would not on its own authority agree to Lisbon) and when non-democratic external forces are getting involved.

 

[SilverTrain]

There is much dissent, but because the process is not democratic our democratic institutions find it hard to reflect the dissent.

The 2009 EU election in the UK (our most recent election) gave the following percentage results:
* Conservative 27.7%
* UKIP 16.5%
* Labour 15.7%
* Lib Dem 13.7%
* others ...

This is an amazing result for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) putting them in second place ahead of the governing party (Labour) and the Lib Dems. They are more or less a single issue party, do not inspire any confidence whatsoever, and to get something like one vote in six is a real achievement.

Opposition to Lisbon is known only from polls as we haven't had a referendum, but is something like 2/3rds, some suggest more. Depending on which poll you look at there may or may not be a majority in favour of the UK leaving the EU.

The problem is that the mainstream political parties are not campaigning on Europe. Labour and Lib Dems are pro-Europe, but tend to keep quiet about it as they know there are few votes in it. The Conservative party membership is overwehelmingly Euro-sceptic. Indeed most Conservatives see their party as the natural home for UKIP supporters. However the Conservatives are worried about the level of anti-Conservative campaigning that would come from the very well organised EU-wide pro-EU lobby. They would do their best to find division within the Conservatives, suggest that anti-European views are racist, xenophobic and fascist, and give maximum exposure to those businesses and eonomists who say that any distancing from Lisbon and the EU would be financial incompetance. Politically the Conservatives want to say as little as possible because they can be damaged through outside meddling in a UK election.

The British tradition is not one of revolution (last was 1688) but rather of parliamentary democracy. But there is a real problem when our democracy has been undermined by the government party (which has broken a clear promise to the electorate that it would not on its own authority agree to Lisbon) and when non-democratic external forces are getting involved.

Cheers for your reply, and for your ongoing insights.

 

[798686]

The dissenting voices are usual heard via columnists in various newspapers. Daily Mail tends to be overwhelmingly eurosceptic - but maybe a bit extreme sometimes, which can undermine its case, unfortunately.

Various other people mention things periodically (William Ress Mogg, etc., in The Times, and Christopher Booker in the Telegraph, or wherever he is now, lol).

A really good book outlining the history and methods of the EU is 'The Great Deception' by Christopher Booker and Richard North. They occasionally get carried away, but it's mostly sound and excellently documented. It's an update of their 'Secret History of the EU' book.

A lot of unbiased reporting about the EU can be found on euobserver.com (but you have to draw your own conclusions).

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Here are two alarmingly revealing remarks by two architects of the EU Constitution. They are certainly breath taking in their audacity.

The EU's founder Jean Monnet described the EU's method: "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation." The single currency was the most important of these steps: as Monnet said, "Via money Europe could become political in five years."

Giuliano Amato, Vice-President of the Convention that drew up the EU Constitution, said, "In Europe one needs to act 'as if' - as if what was wanted was little, in order to obtain much, as if States were to remain sovereign to convince them to concede sovereignty ... The Commission in Brussels, for example, should act as if it were a technical instrument, in order to be able to be treated as a government. And so on by disguise and subterfuge."

Although I have scant knowledge of all the inner workings of the system, other than bits and pieces read from the Dutch papers, and the Guardian, supra-nationalism, and the opacity of exactly how power is wielded immediately alert my radar. Is something rotten in Denmark or more appropriately Brussels?

 

[798686]

I agree Duc - I found those comments alarming too.

There's a document called Building a Political Europe, commissioned by the Prodi commission in 2004, outlining their aims and plans. The constitution was to be a first step, after which it would need another one to give it a proper federal government etc. Also, Prodi remarked (in 2002 I think) that the single currency was absolutely political - and "an antipasto, after which there would be other steps". Eek. :0

The EU's founder Jean Monnet described the EU's method: "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

Tbh, that quote just about sums it all up. Anyone remotely interested in the EU, or in signing the Lisbon Treay, should read it. The Monnet method (familiar to all EU insiders) is extremely insidious and deceitful, imo. Europe's been built extremely stealthily, behind closed doors. Can anything lasting and good be brought about by dodgy and unscupulous methods? Not usually.

 

[cdarro]

The Queen was elected Queen of Australia by their 1999 referendum (with 54%). In the UK there hasn't been a vote, but polls show overwhelming support, in the region of two-thirds for. High levels of support in Canada and New Zealand also. The Queen is a symbol, much like a flag or an anthem. All the time people like the idea, she stays.

The Queen was not elected in Australia. The referendum you refer to was on whether to keep the monarch as head of state or to replace her with an appointed president. (A referendum is not binding; a plebiscite is).

There is not what I would call a high level of support for the monarchy in Canada. A recent poll by Maclean's magazine showed that only 54% of respondents favored retaining the monarch as head of state. That result was heavily skewed towards older people, meaning those favoring the monarchy will soon be in the minority.

The only reason the monarch has not been and likely will not be replaced as de jure head of state in Canada is that no one wants to reopen the constitution can of worms.

 

[Jason]

The Queen was not elected in Australia. The referendum you refer to was on whether to keep the monarch as head of state or to replace her with an appointed president. (A referendum is not binding; a plebiscite is).

There is not what I would call a high level of support for the monarchy in Canada. A recent poll by Maclean's magazine showed that only 54% of respondents favored retaining the monarch as head of state. That result was heavily skewed towards older people, meaning those favoring the monarchy will soon be in the minority.

The only reason the monarch has not been and likely will not be replaced as de jure head of state in Canada is that no one wants to reopen the constitution can of worms.

No one sitting down with a blank piece of paper would come up with the idea of a Queen as head of state. But this is the system in several countries and in general those countries seem sufficiently content with the status quo. If countries want it changed it could be changed. In the UK it would be by a parliamentary process. Australia got as far as a vote on the issue. Canada would I think need agreement from each individual state. There are processes for change and if the will of the people is strong then those changes will happen. And while accepting that the Queen does indeed have substantial powers these powers are in practice very rarely used. De facto the Queen is often best regarded as a symbol representing the heritage of those nations for which she is head of state.

By contrast the Lisbon treaty is being pushed through in opposition to the views of Ireland, France and the Netherlands as expressed in their first referendums (and the device of re-running a referendum whose result you don't like is dodgy democracy). It is being pushed through in the face of what we are reasonably sure (in the absence of a vote) would be substantial opposition from the half billion citizens of the 27 EU countries. In the UK we have a government that has reneged on a promise to the people and seems now to be holding on to power solely to see the Lisbon treaty enacted against the wishes of the people of Europe. We've created the idea of a European political class that consider they know best and should not have to bother themselves with the views of the people they represent, presumably regarding the people as too stupid to know what is best for them.

It is truly breathtaking that a very big decision affecting half a billion people now rests on a simple signature from one man. On the one hand we have an eight-year long political process which has got within a whisker of forcing through an unwanted and undemocratic treaty. And on the other hand we have a single man who is opposing this unwanted and undemocratic treaty. Presumably he will be bullied, threatened, intimidated or otherwise forced to sign. However the small print of the newspapers (and this story is not getting all that much space) is suggesting:
1) The legal issues should take their time, strictly about six months. However there is a suggestion that they may be raced through in perhaps a month.
2) Klaus is not even returning calls from the EU leaders and officials. Does anyone really think that he will meekly sign even when the Czech courts finish their process? He's on record as saying he thinks the EU is as dangerous a political structure as the third reich. Why should he sign?
3) If he doesn't sign he will presumably be impeached. This is a legal process and takes some time. Quite how much time no-one seems to know.
4) The closer it gets to the UK general election the hotter the topic gets. What if the EU ratified a day before the UK election? A week? A month? Two months? Technically if it is before it is a done deal, but politics is messy and I'm not sure that this would be so meekly accepted. Once the UK has actually called an election and is into the campaign we could have a scenario where the UK election effectively becomes an anti-European rally which would be incredibly damaging to Labour. They came 3rd in the EU elections earlier this year (and had a close squeak on 4th place). I think there actually comes a time when the Labour party would see the issue as suicide for the Labour party and would themselves withdraw UK ratification pending an election result. However much they want a socialist Europe under president Blair they want even more a Labour party that has a chance of winning in 2015, and they will do whatever they think it takes to avoid electoral meltdown.

We all seem to be assuming the UK election will be May. I'm thinking that unless the treaty is ratified well before this (say by February?) it is going to be impractical to get it through because I think even pre-election Britain would withdraw ratification for internal Labour party political considerations. So for defense of democracy and the will of the people of Europe we need Klaus to hold out another 4 months minimum. 8 would be great but i think we could manage with 4.

 

[798686]

Done a bit of a blog, with some info on a Romano Prodi commissioned document, outlining future plans for Europe.

http://www.lpsg.org/blogs/joll/building-a-political-europe-3917/

 

[Elmer Gantry]

Australia got as far as a vote on the issue. Canada would I think need agreement from each individual state.

We did not vote "for" the Queen, we voted down a flawed model of a republic.

Very big difference.

And the debate is still going on although our current prime miniature will probably do away with national sovereignty around here before it gets to another referendum

 

[Jason]

We did not vote "for" the Queen, we voted down a flawed model of a republic.

Australians are soo easy to wind up

It used to be a case of telling them that they were all the descendants of criminals deported down under. But now it is so much easier to point out to them that they came up with a deeply flawed model for an Australian republic and in voting this down de facto voted for Queen Elizabeth - and with 54% I think.

Think yourself lucky in Australia that you have QE2 as your head of state. Looks as if in Britain we're about to get President Blair as supreme and unelected big cheese. And the deeply flawed political entity that is the Lisbon Treaty is something that we in the UK haven't had the chance to vote on.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Prodi remarked (in 2002 I think) that the single currency was absolutely political - and "an antipasto, after which there would be other steps". Eek. :0

Eegad, if the Euro in the "antipasto", what's the main course?

Europe's been built extremely stealthily, behind closed doors. Can anything lasting and good be brought about by dodgy and unscupulous methods? Not usually.

Agreed. Opacity is never a recipe for better government; not with benign leadership, and certainly not with Monnet's Machiavellian methodologies.

 

[cdarro]

In the UK it would be by a parliamentary process. Australia got as far as a vote on the issue. Canada would I think need agreement from each individual state..

They're called provinces, not states. And yes, the Constitution Act requires resolutions from the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of all the provinces in any amendment to "the office of the Queen, Governor General of Canada, or the Lieutenant Governor of a province".

 

[798686]

Eegad, if the Euro in the "antipasto", what's the main course?

Not sure - but I bet it's not very appetising or palatable. :redface:

Think yourself lucky in Australia that you have QE2 as your head of state. Looks as if in Britain we're about to get President Blair as supreme and unelected big cheese. And the deeply flawed political entity that is the Lisbon Treaty is something that we in the UK haven't had the chance to vote on.

I agree - would deffo rather live in Oz or Canada right now.

And just for the record, incase there's any misunderstanding - the Brits are very fond of the Aussies and Canadians (probably more so than they are of us??). And we're chuffed you still have the Queen - but hopefully should you chose to cecede, then we'd still retain a strong bond.

BTW - you can often see the Queen by the local cash machine getting loads of notes out, under the impression that it's a photo booth. :wink:

 

[Jason]

Eegad, if the Euro in the "antipasto", what's the main course?

The creation of a European state.

However the cultural and linguistic diversity is such that most people will vote in elections on regional lines, effectivelty for parties representing the old nation states, rather than for Europe-wide parties. We end up with lots of parties, almost all of them small. These micro-parties then seek power by forming a broad coalition - much as happens with the EU parliament now. In doing so they often fail to represent the views of their constituents, instead adopting the views of the EU bureaucracy. With the diversity of Europe there is an inbuilt democratic defecit which isn't going to go away. A united Europe would at best have a substantial democratic defecit; at worst it would not be democratic.

So the main course is the creation of a European state, but not just this. It is the creation of a European state which represents not the will of the people but the will of a new ruling class, the Eurocrat.

We are already seeing this:
* Lisbon is opposed by most people in Europe, but is about to be forced through.
* The poll in the Spectator shows that 84% of the people of the UK are opposed to Blair as President of Europe, but the UK government is backing him.
* Hardly anyone in the UK or elsewhere in the EU knows the names of any of the MEPs representing them. Nor do people know how to contact their MEP.

 

[798686]

It is the creation of a European state which represents not the will of the people but the will of a new ruling class, the Eurocrat.

Yup. Also, for the past few years they've been trying to find ways to create a Pan-European political arena, with Pan-European political parties. Not sure how far they've got with this.

Unfortunately though - their ways of making things more democratic (ie: Europe wide political parties, and voting for Commission Chief, etc) would actually make a European Superstate even more of a reality. :redface:

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

Unfortunately though - their ways of making things more democratic (ie: Europe wide political parties, and voting for Commission Chief, etc) would actually make a European Superstate even more of a reality. :redface:

I get the political goal of these brutally honest (at least behind closed doors) bureaucrats, and I understand the economic allure for the Euro "have nots," who, since the advent of the Euro, have, at least temporarily, become part of the "haves," but I fail to see how they retain their economic might, as are not the economic equals of France, Germany, or the Netherlands, and will be faced with the seemingly omnipotent bureaucratic elite in Brussels.

Spain has 20% unemployment, Italy debt equal to 101% of GDP, Greece is not far behind, and the East European block have taken on massive debt loads, which they will have difficulty servicing. Why would France and Germany want the economic liability of the these other countries, even though, at present, their debt is priced separately from their own?

At what point would the EU force out a member nation that fails to comply with the 3% budget deficit of GDP debt rule, which at least 4 countries are already in violation of?

The Irish, as you pointed out, handed over their independence, in less than 6 months, when faced with unsustainable debt, and cresting unemployment, which was bailed out by EUCB liquidity. How will the EUCB ask the "favor" to be returned? At some point all the debt will have to be repaid, and as we know, or at least are beginning to learn in the US, that is can be a humbling task, and ruinous to your currency.

Were I a UK citizen, I'd vote to remain independent, despite your own present economic hardships.

 

[798686]

I think the lure of a strong EU Empire outweighs the risks for some reason, for countries like Germany and France. France is actually expert at promoting her own interests within the EU, and Germany, I think, kinda seeks a return to global prominence via the EU (because she wouldn't have been allowed to do it independently following the war).

Countries tend to get away with rapped knuckles when breaching the 3% budget deficit ceiling. France and Germany both breached it during the 2000s, but got away with little or no sanctions. I guess they might jettison a country who's inflation was spiralling out of control or something (we were bounced out of the ERM in 92), but I suspect they'd just put it outside the single currency rather than pushing it out of the EU.

I agree that Britain would be better off independent - or at least on the fringes. We've been a net contributor to the EU for years, and it's cost us dearly in many other ways too (like the carving up and overfishing of previously British fishing waters - mainly by the EU subsidised Spanish fleet). When the current budget period was being hammered out - Poland criticised Britain for receiving a rebate - which meant that they received slightly less of their 60bn EU windfall - whereas our rebate meant that the Brits got back a small amount of the 60bn we'd be paying into the EU over the same period. Grrr.

 

[Jason]

At what point would the EU force out a member nation that fails to comply with the 3% budget deficit of GDP debt rule, which at least 4 countries are already in violation of?

This is an issue for those countries that have the Euro as their currency, not all countries in the EU.

At the moment there is sympathy for Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain (PIGS) and Ireland. They all have serious economic problems and because they cannot devalue these are being manifested in sky-high borrowing and sky-high unemployment. The rate in Spain (ball park 20%) leaves out both hidden unemployment and a situation where youth unemployment is far higher. The position is ghastly with so much unemployment misery for so many. Portugal, Italy and Greece are little better off - Ireland hopes for great presents from the EU as a reward for being good and voting yes to Lisbon. I think however Santa will cancel his visit now they've voted yes.

Politically the sympathy cannot last long - there is to some extent pain in every economy. Sooner or later the EU will require PIGS+Ireland to keep within 3% and therefore require they set a budget to do this. In Spain this will push unemployment much higher. It is these national forces that are likely to lead to a country crashing out of the Euro. At New Year last I predicted on this board that a country would do just this in 2009. We have a couple of months to go, but I rather think the political issues over the ratification of Lisbon have bought a little time - maybe into the New Year. My personal view is that it is desperately hard to see how this can be avoided. I think it is a disaster - but more or less ineviitable, and if it doesn't happen there are even bigger disasters waiting in the wings.

Adopting the Euro is supposed to be a decision which is made for ever. Countries have given to the EU Central Bank the assets that once underpinned their currencies, so there is no easy way back. In effect any country crashing out of the Euro would be floating its own currency from scratch, much as the countries of Eastern Europe did. Euro bank notes are printed with serial numbers which identify the country they are from, so in the short term it would be possible to have a situation where say 1.2 Spanish Euros = 1 EU Euro - but every shop in every countrty would have to check serial numbers for every transaction. Messy! There are also issue around lack of confidence in the Euro if any country leaves it. There was a story a couple of years ago that if Italy left the Euro (thus weakening it) Germany had contingency plans drawn up to leave also. But however you look at it the scenario is horrible with a lot of economic pain and therefore pain for people.

Indeed so great are the problems that the EU might try the idea of all Euro countries over-spending together - so France and Germany for example would be encouraged to set a budget deficit comparable to Spain, including a catch up defecit. This would in effect devalue the Euro and create a short-term boom in France and Germany - but with major subsequent problems. I don't think even our Eurocrats are quite this economically illiterate.

The country that looks sensible is Denmark, who has pegged the Danish Crown to the Euro but uses its own notes. If Denmark needs to change the value of its currency against the Euro it can do so quite easily. The UK position (outside the Euro) is that sterling can devalue taking a lot of the heat out of our present economic woes. The US dollar is doing much the same - but the Euro is stuck way too high.

 

[eurotop40]

So what is a Wyoming USD worth?

 

[798686]

Another great post, Jase! :smile:

Ireland hopes for great presents from the EU as a reward for being good and voting yes to Lisbon. I think however Santa will cancel his visit now they've voted yes.

That's my feeling too. They received their fairshare of handouts, when (in addition to low tax rates, I think?) the EU bankrolled their renaissance in the 90s (well, UK/Netherlands/France/Sweden and Italy did, specifically). I think they're now left tightly under the EU's leash with little prospect of any more generous subsidies. My understanding was that after the Eastern European countries joined in 2004, that a lot of the handouts Ireland/Spain had been receiving would be diverted to Eastern Europe, which were now poorer.

Adopting the Euro is supposed to be a decision which is made for ever. Countries have given to the EU Central Bank the assets that once underpinned their currencies, so there is no easy way back.

Which was foolish imo - fancy everyone giving their gold reserves over to the ECB, to be held in Frankfurt. :redface: Thankfully the UK didn't do that, even tho Gordon Brown cashed in a load of our gold for euros, at a particularly unprofitable time. Hmmph.