Let's monitor the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty

Looks like its through. Klaus's endgame wasn't a winner.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340664.stm

we had a good run through of the irish process in another thread, probably best searched for using 'irish politics'

I remember that one, I just thought that since it was a bit Eirocentric, I'd post here, mostly 'cause, after a visit to the Czech republic a couple of years back, I fully realized what a cranky dick I think Klaus is.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46662000/jpg/_46662128_-12.jpg

"You dare mock me?!"

just in case the uninitiated thought IreLX wasn't doing our duty in terms of earnest political discussion

Is this the Constitution to the old Articles of Confederation for the EU? Will having qualified majority voting, a permanent post of President of the Council and a High Rep for Foreign Affairs make Europe more influential? Will it make it more cohesive?

Man, the Wiki entries on this show how Byzantine these negotiations have been; opt-outs, passerelles, highly detailed voting rules and competencies...

The fact it fucks up the Tories is what's most important to me right now

But Cameron is 'disappointed' -- and can you not weep for him?

This has been a pretty dramatic demonstration of how far politics has been removed from the public and how easy it is for governments to deny them not just a vote but even the argument. If I was one of the people who'd put this through I'd be waiting to be stabbed in the heart.

But Cameron is 'disappointed' -- and can you not weep for him?

"I'm disappointed I'm about to renege on every promise I ever made it on this Treaty and will be forced to lie through my teeth to justify this betrayal."

So mean. He's going to go off and listen to Coldplay now to console himself.

Strangely, I've found many of the UK arguemnts pro and con over the years, disingenuous. It's as if the Brits have no shame about the hypocrisy of "We're superior to the Continent and not totally part of it but if you all gang up into an economic union, we'd like a partial in, please."

His loon fringe are still banging the drum for a referendum. Maybe they could undo the Millennium Dome while they're at it?

So mean. He's going to go off and listen to Coldplay now to console himself.

He's a big Smiths fan, of course: "Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want, "I Know It's Over", "Heaven Knows I'm Miserable Now", "I Started Something I Couldn't Finish", "Miserable Lie", "William Hague It Was Really Nothing" etc etc etc

Also, as much as I treat the concern over the 'democratic deficit' seriously, I think that the European Parliament has done more to respond to this than most of the national parliaments I can think of.

How so? It doesn't have any real powers, it's no wonder people don't care about it.

According to Wiki, here are some reforms from the Treaty of Lisbon:

The codecision would be established as the standard legislative procedure, hence increasing the Parliament's ability to shape and propose legislation.

It would require the Council (meetings between national governments) to meet in public at all formal meetings.

It would ensure that national parliaments receive draft legislation earlier from the Commission.

It would give national parliaments a new power to send any proposal back to the Commission for reconsideration.

It would confirm the principle of subsidiarity as fundamental to the Union.

It would create a new citizens' right of initiative, obliging the Commission to consider any proposal for legislation that has the support of 1 million EU citizens.

It would create a new citizens' right of initiative, obliging the Commission to consider any proposal for legislation that has the support of 1 million EU citizens.

Don't like the sound of this

Also, wrt to its having 'real powers', it stands to reason that as Europe slowly coalesces after several thousand tears of markedly un-democratic attempts to unify it, they should take a go-it-slow approach, if nothing else than to make it gradually palatable to wary national voters.

The argument that it's less about a deomcratic deficit than a social one also rings at least a little true. The vicious circle of perceived impotence and irrelevance coupled with lack of interest in voting, especially in countries like the UK, doesn't really help much but I think, especially as an American who has studied the structural weaknesses in foundations as weak as the Articles of Confederation or the CSA, I have been a bigger and more forthright fan of European integration from way back.

Don't like the sound of this

As a Californian, where we have a similar referendum process, I agree. The threshold should be higher and broader.

It smacks of pitchforks and burning torches to me

The EU's power is significant if quiet and will increase. And perhaps, it could represent the best hope for Britain, as our constitution is an elastic blur it seems that its easy enough for power to be moved to the European parliament and what will hopefully be a clear, sensible constitution. Maybe we'll even be able to vote for head of state. Such a dream is a long way off though and this is a pretty fucking inauspicious start.

Populism goes both ways, of course, but it also smacks of manipulation and special interests. They should require a far larger number of citizens and ensure that they're not all from one country.

Of course, it only obliges the commission to consider a proposal, not act on it.

Oops, sorry ogmor, that was to Tom.

I agree with all that, Michael, but my view is that the centre in Europe is so weak that any meaningful power lies with the member states, so that's where the deficit lies. Especially when they can too easily blame Europe for things they don't like, as if it were a far-away place over which they had no control.

Out of interest, how long would you say it took in the US for such coalescence to take place?

Maybe we'll even be able to vote for head of state

http://thestoryandthetruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/charles_execution.jpg

and this is a pretty fucking inauspicious start.

Let's walk before we run. This just got ratified 10 months late after at least 4 opt outs and followed the failed European Constitution which the Dutch and French rejected. It may not be optimal, but it has been ratified and represents a successful, if small, step in reform.

It's not us doing anything, it's other people deciding something and leaving us English and Californian folks trying to work out whether it was a good thing or not from the outside.

Out of interest, how long would you say it took in the US for such coalescence to take place?

Such different histories, I don't know how to answer this. I'm always down with comparisons (as odious as they may have been to Dr. Johnson) though preferably in a humble, circumspect way, but comparing largely post-war European political and economic changes with 2 or 3 centuries of North American political and economic evolution is pretty hard. In some respects, Europe is both socially and economically older and more grounded but not entirely and while our political traditions are older (inasmuch as the Constitution is older that is) there are political traditions such as parliamentary supremacy in the UK and a certain statism in France that are older.

We had to abandon a weaker founding document soon after our independence so as not to founder into a bunch of largely separate states who would economically and militarily been easier to pick off and divide. Europe, otoh, went through, in a little more than 40 years, some of the socially, economically and politically devastating times since the 17th Century.

And consequently realized that teh ECSC ('50) and the Treaty of Rome ('57) were preferable to the usual squabbling.

I guess the coalescence I was talking about was how long it took for people to look to Washington as the natural source of power. Reading a Kennedy biography, I was struck by how big a thing it was for him (and subsequently Johnson) to enforce civil rights over "states' rights", and that was after nearly 200 years of an actual functioning central government.

I can see where the ppl who say Britain's distinct role in that hectic period is still the defining factor in our relationship to the rest of Europe ('like Russia we haven't got over it') are coming from. I am more concerned about having a proper constitution than I am about the ideals of the EU, but I think the chances of serious reform in the UK are really slim, so the European parliament seems like it could be a better bet. The content of this might be idealistic, but the lack of clarity, honesty and public argument doesn't distinguish it from typical UK constitutional fudging.

I was struck by how big a thing it was for him (and subsequently Johnson) to enforce civil rights over "states' rights", and that was after nearly 200 years of an actual functioning central government.

But the US was supposed to be the decentralized, Jeffersonian collection of 'sovereign' states except for what powers were expressly given to the Federal Government. Then we had a Civil War that almost tore us asunder, then a Reconstruction which half-abandoned many of the solutions to the original causes of the Civil War and then two world wars and a cold war which saw the growth of Federal power, that finally instituted a strong central government. The states rights people lost because they used an otherwise relatively defensible position to continually maintain racial hostility and inequality and retain their dominance undemocratically. If we had been able to hash this shit out in 1786 or '87, the untenable tension between using high-falutin' idealism to justify making profits from the treatment of others as chattels... We couldn't and didn't, though.

ogmor, the progress I've seen since I first went to Europe in the early 80's compared to the relative lack thereof from '57 on to the 80's makes me feel that they've done a tolerably good job, actually.

As to the coalescence thing:

Unlike the British colonies who basically had a few economic and quite slight ethninc and religious diferences to overcome and otherwise had a mostly common culture, the European states have been struggling to defend different religious sects, ways of life and languages for ages and some of them, like Ireland, Poland, Belgium, Italy and Germany are relatively new nation-states.

Cant tell what your line is here or what you're responding to. I'm saying it's poor for leaders to put through significant constitutional reforms without even making a case to the electorate, and I think the decent job done by those at the EU over the last 30 years doesn't have much bearing on that.

I meant the progress towards a Constitution isn't bad not the 'democratic deficit' part.

I'm of two minds on referenda and plebiscites. They are misused in my state and have been misused in Europe by everyone from Napoleon to Louis Napoleon to Hitler. They have also been used quite usefully too, such as in Schleswig-Holstein. For those countries that have strong parliamentary systems, however, I feel its okay to let Parliament do its job and have one or the other parties oppose or support even major Constitutional changes and run accordingly. That's how the U.S. Constitution was passed (severally by the States) and that's how the Glorious Rebellion was settled - by Parliament, not be referendum.

I'm not that fussed about referenda in general, but when even the opposition are breaking promises about a significant const. change and sneaking around public opinion rather than engaging with it, the lack of a public vote doesn't feel like just an acceptable consequence of a strong parliamentary system. The thing is, its the avoidance of debating constitutional issues with the public that makes me want to move the debate to the European stage (Human Rights Act a big achievement here), but if they're going to keep those debates away from us too then it will be equally pointless, except I'll be able to resent it conveniently from any EU member state I like, w/proper health coverage and that weird Swedish penis on my money.

The cowardice on both sides here (don't know about the the Lib Dems' position tbh) is disappointing to be sure.

The tories are doing nothing wrong here and it's a bit unfair that they're the ones copping the flak. The thing's been ratified now and it'll already be in force by the time they're in power. If they did have a referendum, then whatever the result it would be less meaningful than Saturday night's X-factor vote.

The Human Rights Act is absolutely not a big step forward for debating constitutional issues, by the way - what's happened is that now judges, who aren't accountable at all, are deciding what these constitutional matters should be and they're doing it pretty much on the hoof.

what's happened is that now judges, who aren't accountable at all,

Aren't they accountable to the House of Lords?

No. The top judges were part of the House of Lords, but in a different capacity so they didn't participate in political debates and although their judgments were delivered to the house, there was no control over them. They sat as a House Committee. I don't even think they're part of the House of Lords now that there's a Supreme Court, which opened a few weeks ago.

I sat in on an appeal at the House of Lords once. It was quite a nice occasion, everyone bowing to one another in the corridor before entering the committee room, and then the actual hearing taking place round tables and under huge paintings. It wasn't setup like a formal courtroom even, and they didn't even wear robes - it was already grand enough that there was no need for any pomp and circumstance.

Unaccountable ain't good, though.

It is for the judiciary, so long as they're applying the law and not making it - that's the problem with the Human Rights Act, that they're fleshing it out from the sketchiest of principles.

It is for the judiciary as long as they're not totally and completely unaccoutable; they shouldn't be subject to political pressure but they should be accountable for great malfeasance, insanity, etc... That's why our supreme court justices are impeachable.

I'll try and follow up on this. Britain's legal system is intriguing to me.

I'm sure our lads would be taken to one side and a quiet word had, but I'm not sure that there're any formal measures to get shot of them.

It occurs to me that of course the US Supreme Court does have similar issues to the Human Rights problems I was speaking about. It's no wonder that Roe v Wade causes such bitterness when the political debate about abortion is never had and a decision like that is made on the basis of a right to privacy instead.

The abortion debate has been had again and again but without resolution or a solid majority on one side or the other.

The Bill of Rights is pretty limited in scope as befitted the conception of the Republic at the time (and the political difficulty in getting it ratified) and the Amendments to the Constitution are hard-fought affairs, generally too, so there's not a lot of guidance, really, especially for those jurists who like to call themselves strict constructionists.

Ha, I guess I have a similar attitude to the Human Rights Act as Michael White has to the project of building an EU constitution; it's progress. The lack of checks or definite standards to hold parliament to is mind-blowingly shit. To reject making the govt accountable to judicial interpretations of the HRA because the judiciary themselves are not yet accountable seems odd to me. If it was a one off then it wouldn't be good enough but as part of a series of reforms I'll take it.

lol

http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9226/40692954.jpg

It's not often these days that British politics gives me the opportunity to grin. But this has been a good couple of days. Probably slashed the odds on a hung parliament a bit.

No Diana or House Prices? Other than that, the great thing about that front page is that the Express can/will just reuse it any time anything ever happens in Europe from now 1992 on.

The tories are doing nothing wrong here and it's a bit unfair that they're the ones copping the flak.

Nothing wrong? Giving out a "cast-iron guarantee" that you will hold a referendum, then not admitting that if the Treaty was ratified you wouldn't be having a referendum after all? Gold star for Dave there.

Plus they've tried to deflect the criticism by coming up with a whole load of Hard Man crap, including an opt out from social and employment legislation, keen to know the detail of how they would go about that and which parts Dave doesn't like.

Cast-iron guarantees on those opt outs, Dave?

Ah well of course they're only promised "to seek" an opt-out, I presume he won't make any cast-iron promises ever again.

Also this "lock on any future treaties" he's trumpeting, surely he means "lock on stable doors"?

Giving out a "cast-iron guarantee" that you will hold a referendum, then not admitting that if the Treaty was ratified you wouldn't be having a referendum after all?

Come on, that can't have been what they said - you can't unratify something that's entered into force, so that policy would be nothing more than a really expensive opinion poll.

I take back what I said about them doing nothing wrong, though - this is being handled terribly.

Come on, that can't have been what they said.

What bit can't have been what they said?

What he, and nobody else in the Shadow Cabinet, at any point ever said was (until yesterday) was that once the Treaty was ratified there would be no point in holding a referendum. They were asked about it ad nauseum and came out with "we can only make one policy" blah blah blah

"... one policy at a time", that is

I am a serious politician look at me with my serious face and writing with Churchill in the background.
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00922/SNN0509D_380_922350a.jpg

http://blogitlikeyoumeanit.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/airplane_steve_mccrosky.jpg

xpost wrong war-time pm, surely? "i have in my hand a piece of paper..."

Dashing Dave's got a bit of a Jeremy Kyle look going on there.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries

Well, I had taken it for granted at least that they wouldn't hold a referendum on something about which they could do nothing xp. What if 'no' won, what was supposed to happen then?

I'm pretty amazed at the in-fighting over this, it hardly suggests government-in-waiting.

Well, I had taken it for granted at least that they wouldn't hold a referendum on something about which they could do nothing

As I'm sure they did, but spent 2 or 3 years not admitting to, despite being asked about it repeatedly

What if 'no' won, what was supposed to happen then?

Maybe ask the 50% of Tory Party members who still support a referendum, come what may

If they had admitted to it, it would've opened up all this in-fighting at a time when it was still moot. It seemed a reasonable assumption that the point would die once it was lost, rather than ratchet up. I wonder how long the Tories will last in government before they rip themselves apart? Given that labour are likely do the same as soon as they're in opposition, we could be in for a succession of really weak governments.

He said Tory leader David Cameron's pledge to hold referendums on future treaties, also announced on Wednesday, was like "installing a largely ineffective burglar alarm when the family silver has already been stolen."

He said Tory leader David Cameron's pledge to hold referendums on future treaties, also announced on Wednesday, was like "installing a largely ineffective burglar alarm when the family silver has already been stolen."

and they say the tories inhabit some kind of out-of-touch mindest of olde-worlde privelige

It seemed a reasonable assumption that the point would die once it was lost, rather than ratchet up

To you, yes. I very much doubt that's the assumption they wanted to encourage - for instance, among those Sun readers that Dave was giving his famous cast-iron guarantee to.

He said Tory leader David Cameron's pledge to hold referendums on future treaties, also announced on Wednesday, was like "installing a largely ineffective burglar alarm when the family silver has already been stolen."

Didn't Harold Macmillan - that's the former Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan - accuse Thatcher of selling the family silver?

it was even more patrician than that: "First of all the Georgian silver goes. And then all that nice furniture that used to be in the salon. Then the Canalettos go."

but pre-thatcher/keith joseph tories were all in favour of nationalised monopolies providing public services and they created plenty of them, so they probably did regard them as the country's inheritance.

Wait didn't Brown also go back on a promise to hold a referendum? Just saying, like.

Meanwhile - France to Cameron - STFU aspie. They're seemingly not even pretending that he won't be the next Prime Minister any more.

Intervention of a Frenchmen = Cameron's poll ratings increase exponentially (in England anyway)

Wait didn't Brown also go back on a promise to hold a referendum? Just saying, like

And David Cameron's been "just saying" that, from the back of an inordinately high horse, ever since. Anyway, Brown's got an excuse for that, whether you buy it or not - what's Cameron's excuse for 2 years of dodging the question on holding a referendum after the Treaty's been ratified, other than the fact that he didn't want to admit he had no intention of ever holding a referendum?

What was Brown's excuse? I can't remember. I'm unconvinced this whole EU treaty thing has been that damaging to Brown let alone Cameron, whatever the Sun might think. Unless the Tories actually turn on each other, I think this whole thing is way down the list of priorities for most voters.

Oh yeah, I agree with that, nobody ever votes on "Europe" in a general election. Brown's excuse, and the Lib Dem's, was that the Treaty had been altered sufficiently that a referendum was no longer necessary - which is convenient, but might be true, who knows?

Nah I think that excuse is bollocks, it's more likely he realised it was almost certain he would lose. And I think it very likely that, like Cameron, he had no intention of giving a referendum but it was politically expedient to promise one for a bit.

No doubt, but Cameron's "You cannot get a straight answer from this Prime Minister... how can we trust a man who blah blah blah", which he pulls in EVERY Prime Minster's Question Time without fail, rings a wee bit more hollow

the cover of the Sun i just saw down the barber's sez that Cam will sort the EU out, which seems to be horseshit but is doubtless the kind of horseshit murdoch knows will gets his candidate elected.

Brown's u-turn should be more damaging on the basis that it actually matters. Cameron's actually is more damaging, even though it doesn't matter a jot and is in my view actually correct and not even a u-turn at all, because it shows that on this issue at least his party is mental. I think that's big news, because elections are mostly won by the party which looks like a government, and here at least the tories aren't coming across as a serious outfit . I'm starting to think that this next one isn't actually in the bag at all.

i talked with Diane Abbott the other day (seriously!) and she thinks - or says she thinks - that this election could be closer than many people think because at the last moment when people start looking closely at Cameron they will be like "wait a minute who am i voting for? THIS jerk??"

personally i think that first-past-the-post politics always has a pendulum action to it and three terms is pretty much anybody's limit - people may just rise up in a massive way and be like "get all these fuckers out, i am tired of seeing their faces on my tv"

personally i think that first-past-the-post politics always has a pendulum action to it and three terms is pretty much anybody's limit - people may just rise up in a massive way and be like "get all these fuckers out, i am tired of seeing their faces on my tv"

It looked like Neil Kinnock's Labour were on course to win the 1992 election and the country choked at the last moment. I wouldn't rule out that happening again (in reverse colours obv), but I'd say a hung parliament looks more likely, with the LibDems holding the balance of power. Brown has suddenly become very keen on electoral reform so he's obviously keenly aware of this possibility.

Still, for the Tories to win the next election outright would require a swing on a scale we haven't seen since the Great Depression but on the other hand we ARE living in exceptional times. I can't see Cameron ending up with a Blair-style landslide though, that's too implausible, especially when half the country won't vote for him.

Also Brown has agreed to a US-style TV debate before the next election, hasn't he? That could be a big deal.

Tebbit was on the today program this morning doing an iron fist in a velvet glove routine, saying cameron should hold a referendum to set his negotiating brief with the EU because the first past the post system will allow other european leaders to mock the size of cameron's mandate. Although he called for voting for the tories to get labour out I wonder if the UKIP vote will be significant enough in significant areas to let labour keep their seats or divert tory money away from must win seat to safer ones.

Nobody votes UKIP in a General Election, do they?

Abbott says she's sort of excited for a hung Parliament because when every tiddly vote counts backbenchers have a lot more say - though looking at the current state of health reform in the US gives an idea of some of the downsides to this

Nobody votes UKIP in a General Election, do they?

― I Poxy the Fule (Tom D.), Thursday, 5 November 2009 10:27 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I wouldn't have thought so but, europe plus mp's expenses, plus not wanting to vote for brown and cameron being a tit may count for something. Of course labour may also have to defend its flank from the BeeEnPee as well.

What is the front page of the mail saying this morning, I tried to find it on their website but gave up fruitlessly wading through cone bras, underground waterslides and lots of rape.

fruitlessly wading through cone bras, underground waterslides and lots of rape

Shame this is too long for a display name.

Front page is a big one panel splash on the five dead soldiers in Afghanistan. The big banner along the top reads 'WHY YESTERDAY WAS A SORRY DAY FOR BRITAIN, DEMOCRACY AND THE TORIES - DAILY MAIL COMMENT'.