Hungary is the only member-state of the European Union to have ratified the Lisbon Treaty, although it has not yet deposited the ratification documentation with the government of Italy. Next in line is Slovenia, which does not seem to be resisting and should have completed the process by the end of the month. Then France in February, followed by the United Kingdom in March. Every other member-state has yet to determine the date for ratification proceedings.
Most member-states appear to be saving their breath to cool their porridge until after March. So there has been: a couple of absolute certs to get the ball rolling; followed by a recalcitrant but governable France denied anything but a well disciplined parliamentary ratification, probably with any fireworks as carefully controlled as Lewes on Bonfire Night, pour encourager les autres; then the non-communitaire United Kingdom, its Parliament used to deliver its people under the Labour majority knout, in return for the European Union ignoring flagrant Labour state intervention to hold together the collapsing Brown economy.
There will be a flurry of ratification procedures before the summer, with Ireland probably earlier than most as the Irish may have to try more than once in their referendum until they get the right answer.
There is almost certainly a majority in the UK for remaining in the European Union, as there is in the other EU member-states for their continued membership; but there is much less certainty on a majority for the form of Union embodied in the new constitution in many member-states. Resistance in our Parliament to ratification lends strength to all those others opposed to the ending of the sovereignty of Europe's nation states, as the carefully orchestrated crescendo of ratification shows.
Is it beyond the skills of the opposition parties to form ad hoc alliances, and political exchanges with parts of the Labour coalition, to slow or halt the ratification process, without withdrawing consent to membership on other terms to the EU? And by that process, too, damage one of the most corrupt, unrepresentative, failing, and incompetent Westminster regimes since Callaghan, or even Eden.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Yes the point you makes about there being a majority for staying in the Union is a good one . This is chiefly derived from a weak sort of small c conservatism though hence the EU`s tactics of always appearing to be something you have to "undo".
If you ask" Should we have cooperative and cordial relations with our neighbours" people would say yes .
If you ask should your vote be a charade and your Parliament a low farce then they would say no .
If you look back to the original Common Market entry this effort to brand loss of sovereignty as childish and "extreme" was the main thrust. The radical move was actually to dismantle our democracy and ditch our trading partners for a new protectionist experiment .
The supposed threat of losing "Our place" is also one of the main struts behind the "ooer" constituency , as if BMW will stop selling us cars if we join the third world and benighted likes of Norway and Switzerland .
The Liberal Party are currently employing a rich brew of all these tried and tested methods but th worst is that ever closer Union is by accretion ever wider Union is denied the comfort of incremental stages.
All of these points should be born mind as the forces that wish to draw a line in the sand develop their tactics .I discussed this with a chap who was doing some PR work for UKIP . What is required is , on the one hand the engineering of Salmonesque squabbles and on the other a calm clear "narrative” of the future and its modernity in a free world of loosely joined Nation states .
I do feel there is a growing sense that Europe is yesterdays idea and this is encouraging .David Cameron is actually extremely Euro sceptical but also conservative he can be relied onto move us in the right direction subject to Party pressure . This is the only way reclaim our right to govern ourselves .
The Lewes fireworks BTW are not all that well regulated and the regularity with which they turn up inside wrecked Parking meters shows the spirit of the Free English is alive and well in the Downs.
N, I had answered you, always a fascinating thing to do, but found it was a post not a comment. So it's above.
(If popes do politics rather than ritual, religious belief and morals, the people of Lewes have the right idea).
Given as you say that there is a probably a majority for staying in the EU in the UK and elsewhere - what do you call those who oppose any moves to give the enlarged EU a set of rules/constitution (or whatever - but as far as I can see have failed to put forward any tangible alternative of their own. The answer is wreckers - they do not want to be in the EU in any form and so are not prepared to be constructive. Perhaps the best way to deal with these people in the UK is to give them a referndum on EU membership - and suppose it might shut them up for 5 minutes.
The present Treaty has been argued about for years and the reality is that in the absence of any substantive proposals probably represents the only workable alternative. The basic rule about having to make compromises if you are working with anyone will always apply.
BBE (are you related to BBC?)
I call those who find a federal Europe unacceptable for the United Kingdom, its already federal status, and its history, culture and settled, though low-key, majority political attitudes, patriotic, sensible, concerned and betrayed.
It may be best not to mention the War, but we did win it and the European Union soul is bent to dealing with their loss. Since immediately after the peace there has been a continental determination never to tear their world apart for such evil political goals again. And what they need to do to atone for what they did may well be to sink the sovereignty of their nation states into a bureaucratised, regionalised, administrative pabulum. Certainly they need to maintain permanently more friendly relations with their neighbours.
It is the good fortune, as well as the courage, of the United Kingdom (and that through the centuries to the 1600s) that saves us from this requirement. We can be on the best of terms with our neighbours without having to lose our identity - what was the point of all that effort, of winning, if not this, the maintenance of our identity, propriety, morality - that which was fought for?
And there is a structured and envisioned alternative, indeed a number of alternatives: from the Swiss status, through the Norwegian stance, to the wholly outside-and- facing-the-rest-of-the-world under our own governance solution.
The people of the United Kingdom, would prefer a say in all these decisions, not a Parliament with a borrowed Blair majority, whipped like curs, forcing a Labour party survival policy on us all.
Post a Comment