You are in:
- Archives » 2008 » January 2008
That Treaty Again
EU Referendum Blog links to the pdf version of the EU's Constitution, sorry, Lisbon Treaty. All 330 pages of it, as it consolidates a number of previous treaties.
What's the EU for, you might ask yourself. Page 11 of the treaty provides some helpful pointers:
"The Union shall set itself the following objectives:
"to promote economic and social progress and a high level of employment and to achieve
balanced and sustainable development, in particular through the creation of an area without internal frontiers, through the strengthening of economic and social cohesion and through the establishment of economic and monetary union, ultimately including a single currency in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty".
Social progress... sustainable development... economic and social cohesion... Sounds more like the annual report of some crappy Hackney NGO than the governing treaty of a 27 nation union.
"There's more", as a certain Irish comedian would threaten.
We've added the italics that raised our eyebrows, but no doubt you can add others:
"to assert its identity on the international scene, in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might lead to a common defence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17,
"to strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its Member States through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union,
"to maintain and develop the Union as an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is assured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime,
"to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and the institutions of the Community."
So that's just the introduction, and already Blair / Brown's opposition to common defence policy has been blown out of the water - never mind the superstate-styling of "citizenship of the Union" (civis romanus sum). And despite Brown's claim that there would be no more treaties after this one, the wretched document makes it clear that the EU's status would undergo constant revision to ensure its dominance!
Did he read the thing before he signed it?
Of course, London will point to the various protocols inserted into the treaty (beginning at page 299), but few expect British exceptions will survive the first challenge in the European court.
So where does this leave dissent? There is no question that the Treaty will be passed through parliament at the end of the 20 days Gordon Brown has set aside for discussion of the document. It is ominous, though, that the Speaker of the House of Commons blocked calls by left-wing rebel MPs for a vote criticising the government for refusing a referendum on the treaty, despite an influential Commons committee concluding that the new text was substantially similar to the one the Labour government promised a vote on in 2004.
While there were only 18 MPs behind the call, they would have enjoyed the backing of many Conservatives: It was hardly a fringe group trying to block debate.
The Speaker did not give a reason for blocking the vote. "It is unusual to vote on a backbench amendment at second reading", was the only explanation we found.
But, oh, about that promised vote: Foreign Secretary David Miliband appeared to make it clear yesterday that he strongly disapproved of Tony Blair's 2004 decision to promise a referendum. Why didn't he, or anyone else, say so at the time?
