Reflections on Lisbon

Lisbon enters into force tomorrow. Will it render the UK to the history books?

We already know quite plainly that the method of this treaty's passing was disgraceful; no referendum, even if it was exactly the same as the constitution they promised a referendum on. And if it's a constitution, since states have constitutions does this not now make the EU a sovereign state?

Brussels Journal has the statehood line

With the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty on Tuesday 1 December, members of the European Parliament, who up to now have been “representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community” (Art.189 TEC), become “representatives of the Union’s citizens” (Art.14 TEU).

I am a British citizen. I do not recognise myself as a citizen of the "Union". "European citizenship" is an alien concept to me, as I'm sure it is to many other "Europeans". Surely if I and others consider ourselves UK citizens, the country is the UK? The purpose of referendums is often to define nationality. Take Montenegro. They voted to become Montenegrons, rather than Yugoslavians or whatever it was that week. So if I do not consider myself one of the "Union's citizens", am I no longer represented by the European Parliament? Who are "the Union's citizens"? Who do the MEPs represent? Quite clearly they are becoming more and more detached, since they represent people that don't exist! I'm a subject of the British crown, not a citizen of the European Union!

I suppose I have to avoid being too cynical and Daily Mail-esque sometimes. Will this create an EU superstate? I'd say that a state cannot exist without the consent of its citizens, but then again, what about South Ossetia, or the Serbs in Kosovo? I have a distinct identity, a British identity, not some European identity.

But then again, do the political class listen? Versailles, 1919 - for all the talk of self-determination, the politicians set most of the borders (though yes there were plebiscites). Is this really the first time we've been invaded, since 1066, but without any armed force at all?

The Brussels Journal piece I linked to earlier notes the clause "The Union shall be founded on the present Treaty". Does this clause not create a new European Union, a new state?

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, not even a political scientist, but to me this is the foundation of a new state. A state needs citizens, and Lisbon provides for them, even when the citizens don't want to be citizens. Honestly, the transfer of powers is disgusting. But only time will tell.

Lisbon Treaty Referendum Bill

Guido's found the draft referendum bill.



Obviously I don't have legal expertise, but to me I agree with Guido that there would be nothing wrong with that Bill. That is, as long as Britain is seen as a separate nation state, making its own laws. If the European Union gains statehood (and it better not) there could be a problem from how I see it.

If Lisbon is ratified, de-ratifying it......is it a treaty, or is it a constitutional document?

On Lisbon, referendums and UKIP

I think we should have a referendum on the EU - in fact an in/out one. I'd rather see us in a trading agreement, since that's a more suitable way of doing things for Britain; the British political and economic model is not the same as the EU/continental one. Can we hold a referendum on Lisbon? Not really - it's been ratified by all member states. I suppose we could hold one before it comes into practice on the 1st December, but that's not going to happen.

I think the current situation is disappointing, and I'm not completely thrilled with Cameron's speech, but it'll do. Having reflected on it a bit, I think it sets the right tone - power from the EU to Britain. But will that happen? It'll take strength on Cameron's part. The best he can do is argue that Britain will be a 'better' member of the EU if it has an arrangement with it that suits Britain, i.e. the free trade agreement as I said earlier - that's just the way Britain is, a freedom-loving country. The possible second term referendum if negotiation doesn't go the right way will hopefully scare Brussels, but I still think Cameron needs to be stronger on that one. Some bits are meaningless, like the legal guarantee to future referendums (Lisbon is self-amending). But I think it's generally the right direction to be going.

On the referendum - Cameron has not reneged on anything. He made the commitment (cast-iron guarantee) in 2007, on the eve of a potential snap election. That didn't happen, and the Conservatives supported a Lisbon referendum when it came to Parliament. Promise kept. Labour and the Lib Dems reneged on a manifesto pledge (as opposed to something in the Sun) when it was possible to hold the referendum. Now it isn't possible, this is a new position - Lisbon is in place, and a referendum would be meaningless. I understand the view that it would be a strong mandate on renegotiation, but a Lisbon referendum? No - a referendum on renegotiation specifically - I like what David Davis said about a double-referendum to give the mandate, and approve the plan. As well as this, how hypocritical for Labour to claim that the Conservatives are reneging on their promises? They reneged on the referendum when it was actually possible.

People might tell me to go off and vote UKIP; after all I disagree with party policy on Europe. In fact I disagree with party policy on many things, but I will not join a single-issue party that will not gain power and in fact may stop a party that holds similar principles to it gaining power. They say they want to stop 50 or 60 Conservative MPs winning seats - so they want a Europhilic Labour government instead of a not-quite-as-Eurosceptic-as-them Conservative government? The Conservative Party shares my conservative principles, and since it's the best way to get the principles into government, I'll support the Party. Voting UKIP will do nothing except let a Labour government in that will sell us out to the EU even more. Conservative MPs are generally Eurosceptic, Labour MPs aren't.

You go and support UKIP if you want, but they won't gain MPs, you'll just let Europhile Labour back in.

EU President

I don't think there should be an EU President, at any point. I don't think Lisbon has democratic legitimacy - British voters had legitimate expectations of a referendum (2005 manifesto - all parties) and didn't get one - and Ireland had to vote twice.

But if we are resigned, the last person it should go to is Blair. He jumped before the electorate got rid of him here (the Commission is the place for failed politicians, so it's a surprise he isn't there yet), and practically sold us out to the EU - rebate gone, opt-outs gone, British interests not defended. Would he defend British interests as EU President? Or more to the point, would he be allowed to defend British interests as EU President? Would his oath forbid it? Would, by having a British EU President (who none of us want in the first place) we be forced into "full" membership - the Euro, Schengen, etc?

And to get rid of a discredited Labour government, only for the new supreme president to be the former leader of this discredited government, would just irritate the voters.

Let him speak to the few who want to hear him - and leave him well away from a post no one wants him in (and no one wants the post!)

Klaus' new delaying tactic

This gives me more confidence of a referendum.

Adding a footnote. Would that not change the treaty, therefore require re-ratification across all states? After renegotiation?

Cameron and the EU, part 2

At some point, he'll have to say what he's going to do.

Avoiding the question on the basis of "the Poles and the Czechs haven't ratified yet" is missing the point, since they are going to ratify it soon, let's be totally honest. Eventually the public will get tired of hearing it, and want some principle.

However, if he doesn't want Lisbon, something to do now, as I suggested several days back, is to say he will hold an in/out referendum on EU membership if Lisbon is ratified.

Not only will that get the Eurocrats worrying (and possibly trying to stop ratification, who knows?), but it would probably be the only referendum he could hold post-Lisbon - Lisbon is self-amending so no more referendums on transfer of powers, it's not like the EU will allow a referendum on new opt-outs/transfers of power back to Westminister (or would self-amend them away anyway), and would probably give him an awful lot more support.

Free trade with Europe is the British way, political union is not. We've been independent since 1066 for a good reason - we like to be ruled by ourselves.

Blackmail

The Czech Republic will lose its commissioner if it does not ratify the treaty, Barroso has said. The Commission must be smaller than the number of member states, so apparently the Parliament will reject the Czech commissioner - no basis on merit at all.

This act is sickening. It is trying to force a nation into signing an undemocratic treaty by threatening it with loss of power - so ensuring they will be punished for not losing power through Lisbon.

The Commission wants this Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, call it what you want, so much that they will stop at nothing. This deliberate act of aggression should be challenged. The Czechs know better I hope than to give in to this - it worked in 1938 and is potentially the reason to hold up the treaty.

The European Union democratic? Let's be realistic here.

Eurofederalists support a Lisbon referendum?

Really? I doubt it.

Cameron, as far as I can see, is no EU sell-out. Obviously when and if he gains power, it'll be something to watch, but I don't think the party will let him - it's generally too Eurosceptic.

"Hand the decision to the BBC"? Sounds far too conspiracy theory-type for me. British people are generally fiercely independent, we know about BBC bias.

And it is a necessary referendum, as I explained in my last post - it involves transfer of political power. Not only that, but 70% of the population want it. As well as this, the general call for a referendum was because that was what the three main parties promised (and only one kept to) - there was no "wrecking amendment" in the manifesto.

I think the important thing will be to withdraw ratification, then hold the referendum, then re-ratify or withdraw altogether depending on the vote. Otherwise some funny things could be done in other countries to make the referendum practically invalid.

Cameron and the EU

Ireland could still vote either way (despite the propaganda the EU has flooded them with) but there could be another way that Lisbon is taken down: with the help of Vaclav Klaus. David Cameron has written a letter to him in support of Klaus' position of not signing the treaty, promising to hold a referendum if it has not been ratified.

If Klaus and Cameron pull this off, could it be a modern day Thatcher-Reagan pact? In fact I'm quite interested in Ashley Fox MEP's comment on ConservativeHome that the Czech MEPs in the ECR are saying that Klaus is simply going to refuse to sign it. For the UK to withdraw ratification of the treaty would surely be its death knells, due to the UK's sheer economic weight. It should have been put to the people in a referendum across Europe anyway; it is about the transfer of political power (and we had referendums for elected mayors).

But what if it is ratified when Cameron comes to power? I will ignore UKIP and co's arguments that Cameron doesn't want a referendum as scaremongering, but would it actually be possible for revision after ratification? This being the EU, probably not, but it would take a strong man to stand up and withdraw ratification unilaterally (and potentially be acting illegally). A more sensible promise would be to promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty if it has not been ratified, and a referendum on EU membership (since they have ignored the will of the people) if it has been ratified. Not only would that get the Eurocrats worried, but it might stop Lisbon too.

Ireland to vote no again?

According to England Expects, this is a definite possibility with this new opinion poll. The methodology is being brought into question, so the poll may be flawed, but it could be good news for all those who believe in stopping the rise of the EU's power.

From reports I've heard Ireland has been flooded with Europhile propaganda, all paid with by our money, and the No side has had very little coverage. This Europhile nonsense includes "the economy will suffer if you vote no" - the economy will suffer if you vote yes because Ireland will have to increase its corporation tax rate in the name of harmonisation. Seems they've thrown the equal coverage rule out of the window then.

With this, and Poland and the Czech Republic (where it has been referred to the Constitutional Court again - 6 month delay), it looks like it may be the British public, courtesy of David Cameron, who destroy the consti-treaty once and for all. Let's just hope he keeps his promise.

If, however, the Irish happen to vote yes, that conference will be quite tense.