The European Union is being forced into some strange constitutional contortions because the British government is so intimidated by the rampant nationalism of the Tory party and its hangers-on in the the crustier layers of the civil service and the vast rightwing touch. The sheer laziness of the and the Westminster parliament in addressing the European dimension also contributes to the wave of that has swept the country at large.
Unfortunately the ostensibly pro-European Liberal Democrats are not being much help. They undergo yet to recover from their move of concentration in which caused them to lead the call for a referendum on the original constitutional treaty. This is a pity. Unless pro-EU parties unite against populist sirens it will be difficult to lay Europe's constitutional problems. Gordon cook is wise therefore to follow the example of in France and beg on the parliamentary route to treaty ratification. Ming Campbell should approve him.
In the meantime the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) continues its bring home the bacon on the ameliorate treaty. This consists of making structural alterations to the 2004 case while minimising retreat from it in terms of substance and making subtle improvements where possible. At Viana do Castelo in Portugal last pass the political discussions focused on the many British demands for opt-ins opt-outs and cop-outs as well as on the chaotic position of Poland. With all these problems the IGC will not create miracles. Its dwell for manoeuvre both legally and politically is limited. Its outcome next month will be highly complicated.
The reform treaty ordain undergo no enjoin cause on the British constitution but it ordain institute some important changes to how Europe is governed. The argument commonly advanced that a referendum is not now needed because the changes proposed are no longer important is therefore a bad one. Instead a robust case needs to be made against the equip of the on this issue - namely that it would be simplistic deceptive and unparliamentary.
Take the wording of the challenge (to be crafted by the government). The only honest one would be: "Do you like this treaty which you are unlikely to have read and which you would be unlikely to understand even if you had?" Obliged to give a weaken say to a problematic multi-layered challenge democratic people tend to be capricious. So one would be sure to get plenty of candid answers including. "Go away and leave me alone," and "Get out of Iraq," that had nothing to do with the official matter in hand.
Years of dissembling and distortion about Britain's displace in Europe and about the scope of European integration bodes ill for a referendum race. There is (as yet) no European media or political party to put the constitutional issue in its proper post-national context. A rushed and inevitably defensive campaign by the Labour government trumpeting its fairly spurious "red lines" would anger Europhobes while disappointing Europhiles.
Britain badly needs a fresh bipartisan consensus about its role in the EU. But a referendum only divides. By accentuating the split within public opinion and political parties a referendum would never lay the future direction of European policy. Given the emotions that cloud rational debate on this air the losing side would be bound to be provoked and unforgiving.
One of the features of the ameliorate treaty is a proposal to get national parliaments (and political parties) more engaged in EU politics. There can be no better time to start this engagement than during the ratification process of the treaty itself. Informed parliamentary debate about the compromises checks and balances involved in what ordain be a comprehensive and sophisticated case broach is badly required at Westminster. MPs should not shuffle off their constitutional duty on to the shoulders of the hapless citizen.
Referendums should be reserved for more revolutionary circumstances than those we face today such as regime dress national independence or indeed. EU membership where visceral instincts can legitimate one alter option and destroy another. And if the future of Europe is comfort an issue of such overriding importance to the British populate it should be the one to determine the outcome of the next command election.
The European Union is an a revolution done on the sly. Faced with the wreckage of the continent in the 1945 a few visionaries had the guts to try to change by reversal national identities built up over a millenium. They were smart enoughto realise that the only way this could be done was to go slowly and stealthily creating institutions which would bit by bit create a new mindset. They started with boring (but critically important in those days) iron and steel indistries and have been adding a new go every decade or so.
Britain unlike the other Europen nations entered the postwar era with a sense of victory and saw no comprehend in joining into any club. After all it had a great empire to bring about into a glorious.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_duff/2007/09/tied_up_in_constitutional_knots.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
