The Treaty for a European Constitution is going through with all the powers and settlements intact, as ratified and deposited with the Italian government by the vast majority of European Union member states; what has been agreed to be toned down is the the achievement's presentation - no bells and whistles. Even that has been resented by those who eagerly and determinedly are building a united Europe.
What to do about the United Kingdom? Usual problems there, usual response - give them an optout; and the New Order will pass it off in the UK as a responsible and effective defence of Britain's sovereignty. Unfortunately this opting out is all to do with the assertion and guarantees of individual liberties, including rights of movement and settlement, practices and modes of criminal prosecution, and constraints on the use of arbitrary state authority.
Perhaps most of us prefer our own way of acting in these matters, which is a good thing because that's all we're going to be allowed.
And the pretence that Blair is doing this alone, without the New Order imprimatur, is simply silly.
Showing posts with label ratification of treaties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ratification of treaties. Show all posts
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Monday, 4 June 2007
Building blocs and the Spirit of Shanghai
Coming up to the Berlin Treaty meeting it's worth glancing at another Union, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation.
'The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has a population of nearly 1.5 billion and covers 3/5 of the Eurasian continent...
Four years ago in the city of Shanghai leaders of Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan announced the birth of this new organisation of regional cooperation. The SCO makes efforts to strengthen good-neighborly relations, mutual trust and friendship between its member states; contributes to effective cooperation between its member states on economy, trade, transport, energy, tourism, environmental protection and humanitarian affairs; combats forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism; protects peace, security and stability in the region; promotes the creation of democratic, just and rational international political and economic order'.
'..the SCO has basically completed its work on mechanism [organisation] building... and establishing external ties. A recent summit in Astana outlined strategic plans, aimed at further development of the SCO, and, following the admission of Mongolia to the SCO as observer state, accepted Pakistan, Iran and India as new observers.' The United States sought observer status but was refused, as was Ukraine the last on the grounds that it is a European state.
Every year the Union strengthens: customs union, inter-Union transport, particularly highway links, energy supply and use agreements, investment, environmental protection, foreign relations, (that is Union relations with other blocs), banking, development funds, health and social welfare, human rights; by now the organisational structure from Secretary General through various councils of ministers from head of state level to interministerial co-operation, representation in discussion forums, budgets, bureaucracy, is complete.
'The Council of Heads of Government /Prime Ministers/ of SCO Member States agreed to hold its next meeting in Tashkent in 2007'.
A look at the map to remind oneself where these countries lie, and the thought that although they are more or less at the stage the European Union was in the late fifties, the speed with which the SCO has formed, developed, and established itself in only 5 years is increasing, puts Berlin into another light.
'The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has a population of nearly 1.5 billion and covers 3/5 of the Eurasian continent...
Four years ago in the city of Shanghai leaders of Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan announced the birth of this new organisation of regional cooperation. The SCO makes efforts to strengthen good-neighborly relations, mutual trust and friendship between its member states; contributes to effective cooperation between its member states on economy, trade, transport, energy, tourism, environmental protection and humanitarian affairs; combats forces of terrorism, separatism and extremism; protects peace, security and stability in the region; promotes the creation of democratic, just and rational international political and economic order'.
'..the SCO has basically completed its work on mechanism [organisation] building... and establishing external ties. A recent summit in Astana outlined strategic plans, aimed at further development of the SCO, and, following the admission of Mongolia to the SCO as observer state, accepted Pakistan, Iran and India as new observers.' The United States sought observer status but was refused, as was Ukraine the last on the grounds that it is a European state.
Every year the Union strengthens: customs union, inter-Union transport, particularly highway links, energy supply and use agreements, investment, environmental protection, foreign relations, (that is Union relations with other blocs), banking, development funds, health and social welfare, human rights; by now the organisational structure from Secretary General through various councils of ministers from head of state level to interministerial co-operation, representation in discussion forums, budgets, bureaucracy, is complete.
'The Council of Heads of Government /Prime Ministers/ of SCO Member States agreed to hold its next meeting in Tashkent in 2007'.
A look at the map to remind oneself where these countries lie, and the thought that although they are more or less at the stage the European Union was in the late fifties, the speed with which the SCO has formed, developed, and established itself in only 5 years is increasing, puts Berlin into another light.
Sunday, 22 April 2007
Promises and rules
The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed by plenipotentiaries of all European Union member states on 29 October 2004 in Rome , and was intended to come into force at the end of 2006, after ratification by constitutional procedures in each state. Essentially it is a codification of the Treaties of Rome (1957), Maastricht (1992), Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001). Amsterdam and Nice crucially modified Rome and Maastricht ; it is these two treaties that have shifted the balance from popularity, through acceptance to rejection of the nature of the European Union in France and the Netherlands. In the United Kingdom it has never been either popular or acceptable to the majority of the people.
Ratification has occurred, or procedures are completed, in 18 of the EU states, some solely by constutional procedure, others by referendum as well, both required and advisory. An advisory referendum rejecting the Treaty is almost as effective as an obligatory referendum. This is why there will be no more advisory referendums on ratifying the recast Treaty . In France Sarkozy has said as much; other candidates have not, yet. What the Dutch will do is not clear, but France and the Netherlands are the only crucial players from the old- established continental Europe membership who have not ratified; others are on hold since this refusal, and until the recast Treaty is settled.
The largest, Poland, seems confused in that the government is promising a referendum on Poland’s joining the Euro when accession to the EU by new states requires conformity to EMS standards prior to qualifying for required Euro entry; if the Polish government thinks it can behave in any other way because of an internal referendum they are wrong. This confusion overflows into how ratification of the Treaty will be handled. Ratification in all the other states seems to be likely, if at times reluctant, and reluctant for a variety of reasons - there is no united opposition to any central purpose of the Treaty.
What of the United Kingdom? The Treaty has been signed in 2004. A consultative referendum on ratification was offered by Blair because in the Lords there was a majority made up of anti -Treaty Conservatives and pro-Treaty Liberal Democrats determined to have one, and ratification could have been held up enough to allow the intervention of the 2005 general election. This, propelled too by the desire to put Chirac in difficulties, leading to a referendum disaster in France that Blair did not expect, immediately followed by a knock on effect in the Netherlands, has wrecked Blair’s Europe policies.
Blair’s overwheening personal ambition and unthinking political incompetence, coupled with Brown’s ridiculous 5 tests to avoid the UK economy being subjected to the strictures of Euro qualification and his chancellorship scrutinised against real measures of its success, have caused profound alterations in the European Union’s view of the United Kingdom. There will be no turning back on the Treaty; it is sustained to all intents and purposes as it was precisely because it has been signed and ratified by the majority of members, and France will recover its senses after the May elections, followed by the Netherlands. Germany (and preceding EU presidencies) have been put to unnecessary, time-consuming repair work when there is much to be done on today’s globalised structures and relations both within and outside of the European Union. A beneficial effect is, perhaps, that the Treaty has been stream-lined and made more efficent and less concerned with external pomp.
A little-regarded measure introduced under the Treaty on withdrawal from the Union avoids any need to renogotiate the Treaty, obviates any violation of Treaty commitments and , after 2 years of discussion, if there is no agreement,provides for the erstwhile member-state to leave anyway. That can cut both ways.
Blair’s administration has promised to hold a referendum on this Treaty, but that promise has now been broken. There has been a promise to submit the Treaty to debate in Parliament and acceptance there before ratification. The ratification of treaties in the United Kingdom does not require such debate and acceptance. If it is not offered it really is up to the Opposition to force parliamentary debate; but the failure to demand that there should be no change in the government administration and the wholesale shift in policies embodied in Brown’s arrogation of the Blair Labour majority without a general election, is significant.
Ratification has occurred, or procedures are completed, in 18 of the EU states, some solely by constutional procedure, others by referendum as well, both required and advisory. An advisory referendum rejecting the Treaty is almost as effective as an obligatory referendum. This is why there will be no more advisory referendums on ratifying the recast Treaty . In France Sarkozy has said as much; other candidates have not, yet. What the Dutch will do is not clear, but France and the Netherlands are the only crucial players from the old- established continental Europe membership who have not ratified; others are on hold since this refusal, and until the recast Treaty is settled.
The largest, Poland, seems confused in that the government is promising a referendum on Poland’s joining the Euro when accession to the EU by new states requires conformity to EMS standards prior to qualifying for required Euro entry; if the Polish government thinks it can behave in any other way because of an internal referendum they are wrong. This confusion overflows into how ratification of the Treaty will be handled. Ratification in all the other states seems to be likely, if at times reluctant, and reluctant for a variety of reasons - there is no united opposition to any central purpose of the Treaty.
What of the United Kingdom? The Treaty has been signed in 2004. A consultative referendum on ratification was offered by Blair because in the Lords there was a majority made up of anti -Treaty Conservatives and pro-Treaty Liberal Democrats determined to have one, and ratification could have been held up enough to allow the intervention of the 2005 general election. This, propelled too by the desire to put Chirac in difficulties, leading to a referendum disaster in France that Blair did not expect, immediately followed by a knock on effect in the Netherlands, has wrecked Blair’s Europe policies.
Blair’s overwheening personal ambition and unthinking political incompetence, coupled with Brown’s ridiculous 5 tests to avoid the UK economy being subjected to the strictures of Euro qualification and his chancellorship scrutinised against real measures of its success, have caused profound alterations in the European Union’s view of the United Kingdom. There will be no turning back on the Treaty; it is sustained to all intents and purposes as it was precisely because it has been signed and ratified by the majority of members, and France will recover its senses after the May elections, followed by the Netherlands. Germany (and preceding EU presidencies) have been put to unnecessary, time-consuming repair work when there is much to be done on today’s globalised structures and relations both within and outside of the European Union. A beneficial effect is, perhaps, that the Treaty has been stream-lined and made more efficent and less concerned with external pomp.
A little-regarded measure introduced under the Treaty on withdrawal from the Union avoids any need to renogotiate the Treaty, obviates any violation of Treaty commitments and , after 2 years of discussion, if there is no agreement,provides for the erstwhile member-state to leave anyway. That can cut both ways.
Blair’s administration has promised to hold a referendum on this Treaty, but that promise has now been broken. There has been a promise to submit the Treaty to debate in Parliament and acceptance there before ratification. The ratification of treaties in the United Kingdom does not require such debate and acceptance. If it is not offered it really is up to the Opposition to force parliamentary debate; but the failure to demand that there should be no change in the government administration and the wholesale shift in policies embodied in Brown’s arrogation of the Blair Labour majority without a general election, is significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
