Lisbon Treaty

QMV does indeed come into force, requiring a 55% majority of member states representing 65% of the EU's population. This is a fantastic opportunity to streamline the operation of the EU. The loss of national vetos is not entirely a bad thing, especially since it is notable that local councils in this country do not have vetos regarding Westminster legislation. Lisbon is almost certain to be ratified, yes, and in many countries this process is already complete and I assume therefore that the relevant documents are being deposited with the Italian Government (who are responsible for this function). In order to use the term "self-amending" you must first define exactly what you mean. There is provision in an amendment to Article 48 for a streamlined approval procedure for future amendments. However, this still includes ratification by member states in accordance with their Constitutions, which I imagine is not what you intended to convey. Under the amended article 308, a unanimous decision of the Council (i.e. with the consent of every single government) can extend the EU's powers, subject to various limitations, including a reaffirmation of the principle of subsidiarity expressed in Article 3b(3) of the Treaty on European Union. This is probably more the sort of thing you meant. However, exclusions are made for things like harmonisation of laws (which would therefore presumably require the old mechanism). The common foreign and security policy is specifically excluded from this article.

Sorry this has Farage in - I am certainly not touting for UKIP - but the video does cover a lot of the ground. http://www.ivc6.com/greenfieldtv/remote.php

Before going into some of your other points, can you tell me why 'This is a fantastic opportunity to streamline the operation of the EU.'? You obviously agree that our membership of the EU has caused a loss of sovereignty already and through the LT this will be further aggravated as a result of the 'loss of national vetos', although we may not agree on the extent. I am sure you will also agree that our membership costs us a number of billions of pounds each year. So what is the profound advantage that our membership of the EU and this fantastic opportunity to streamline its operations provides that makes it worthwhile sacrificing our national right to self determination and paying a significant sum for the privilege. National sovereignty is a myth. The only sovereignty which has any importance is that of the individual. Any government must be weighed against that. The argument you ought to be making if you want to have any chance of convincing me is that the EU is not sufficiently more effective than Westminster to justify the extra distance from the individual (i.e. that is doesn't breach subsidiarity). The Treaty of Lisbon reiterates clearly the committment to subsidiarity. Some aspects of the EU's operations clearly (to me) need to be scrapped. For example, the common agricultural policy, aside from being protectionist, does not seem to me to gain a huge amount from being held in common. Other things, such as cooperation on the environment (to some extent), economic policies (for example, regarding trade embargoes) and foreign policy in general (where there is consensus), do demonstrate advantages since the EU can pull in a single direction a lot more effectively than its individual members. The EU is an economic superpower. Britain is not. The Treaty of Lisbon, as I have noted, reasserts the committment to subsidiarity. Member states' Parliaments will be encouraged to review the EU's actions to ensure it meets this obligation. Competences are categorised, setting out which areas are exclusively EU competencies, which areas are exclusively member state competencies (the vast majority) and which areas are somewhere in between. This increases clarity and aids effective scrutiny, as well as making it easier to propose changes (in either direction). According to the figures available through Wikipedia for the 2006 Budget, the UK put in about £1.5bn more than was received in direct return expenditure. Dropping policies such as the CAP and massively reforming the structural funding system (as I would like to do) would cut about 60% of the entire EU budget out. I'm not aware of precisely how much spending from each of those comes into Britain, but I suspect that dropping them would take Britain into the black (and in any case would make the numbers are lot smaller). However, the actual numbers are largely irrelevant. The EU makes an enormous contribution. The free-trade area has a positive impact on the economy, as does the free movement of people within the EU. Britain gets a louder voice on the world stage as a result of being a key EU member. You need only read the speech given by President Sarkozy to Parliament during his visit for evidence of that. I believe there's a survey which indicates that British people, of all those in the EU, most underestimate the power their country has in EU decision-making. I'm aware that I haven't responded directly to your question, but I think I've covered the key points - as fully as is possible since I reject the premise of the question!

As you say you haven't answered my question - let me try another way. It seems likely that the Tories will win the next election. Given the fuss they have made over the lack of a referendum on the LT, the most obvious next step would be to hold a post ratification referendum once they were in power. Since they have not committed to this, the likelihood is that they won't since such a commitment would add credibility to the party, given that the majority believe one should take place prior to ratification. Of course given all of the survey evidence, the outcome of such a referendum would be a resounding NO. Should the Tories choose to hold such a referendum, presumably the Lib/Dems would devise a response aimed at encouraging the electorate to vote yes. The answer that you have given me would not suffice. The electorate, if they were to be swayed, would want to know what was to be gained by giving up the nation's right to self determination. What would be the Lib/Dems response? Unfortunately the Lib/Dems present devious solution would no longer protect them since the 'I Want A Referendum' solution of having a referendum that asks both this question and whether the Lisbon Treaty should be ratified had already scuttled that ploy. The ploy was devised from GlobalVision polling evidence which showed that 25% of voters would like to leave the EU, but a further 50% wanted to stay in, but cut political and economic ties . By solely offering a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU or not - the likelihood was that the outcome would have been to stay in. This solution gave the Lib/Dems the pretence of honouring their manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the, now dead, EU Constitution which all respected commentators admit the LT is a 95% duplicate. It is very easy to discover what kind of relationship the people want with the EU - why are the Lib/Dems so committed to not finding out. Why was 'Democrats' included in the party name - I am pretty certain that 'Liberal Autocrats' was and is still available.

As you say you haven't answered my question - let me try another way. I covered the key points, but I ripped the question itself apart in the process, making it impossible to answer. It seems likely that the Tories will win the next election. Given the fuss they have made over the lack of a referendum on the LT, the most obvious next step would be to hold a post ratification referendum once they were in power. Since they have not committed to this, the likelihood is that they won't since such a commitment would add credibility to the party, given that the majority believe one should take place prior to ratification. Of course given all of the survey evidence, the outcome of such a referendum would be a resounding NO. Not entirely true, actually, but I'll let it pass. Actually, the polls have shown a supermajority support for the Lib Dem position of a referendum on the EU as a whole, but nobody else seems to have picked up on that... Should the Tories choose to hold such a referendum, presumably the Lib/Dems would devise a response aimed at encouraging the electorate to vote yes. The answer that you have given me would not suffice. The electorate, if they were to be swayed, would want to know what was to be gained by giving up the nation's right to self determination. What would be the Lib/Dems response? As I said, the nation has no right to self-determination. I did explain that the EU gives Britain a much louder voice on the international stage. It is massively more powerful than we every will be on our own. However, we are powerful enough within it to be a major influence in its policy-making. Indeed, very little will happen without Britain's agreement since the EU can't afford a British withdrawal. The free-trade area has contributed to British economic growth. Also, where things go wrong we can't sort them out if we're outside. For example, the CAP is harming developing nations, but we aren't going to get it scrapped from outside. Unfortunately the Lib/Dems present devious solution would no longer protect them since the 'I Want A Referendum' solution of having a referendum that asks both this question and whether the Lisbon Treaty should be ratified had already scuttled that ploy. A referendum on the Lisbon treaty is only meaningful if the answer is "yes". What is the government supposed to do if there's a "No" vote? What clear signal does that send? It sends no signal. It might mean "we don't like article X - scrap that and we'd be happy". It might mean "we don't like this whole chapter". It might mean "scrap the whole thing". But there's no way to know. The only questions on which a referendum should be held are ones where either answer has a clear meaning. "Britain should remain a member of the European Union" is meaningful either way. "Britain should ratify the Treaty of Lisbon" is not. The ploy was devised from GlobalVision polling evidence which showed that 25% of voters would like to leave the EU, but a further 50% wanted to stay in, but cut political and economic ties . By solely offering a referendum on whether we should stay in the EU or not - the likelihood was that the outcome would have been to stay in. This solution gave the Lib/Dems the pretence of honouring their manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on the, now dead, EU Constitution which all respected commentators admit the LT is a 95% duplicate. The Treaty of Lisbon is a completely different document, as a simple glance would tell you. The committment to hold a referendum on the Constitution is questionable. However, the Constitution completely replaced all previous treaties. A referendum on it was more akin to a referendum on the EU as a whole than a referendum on Lisbon - or, at least, the europhobes thought so at the time. How convenient. Thank you for making the case that most people in this country want to stay in the EU. Need I say any more, really? It is very easy to discover what kind of relationship the people want with the EU - why are the Lib/Dems so committed to not finding out. Why was 'Democrats' included in the party name - I am pretty certain that 'Liberal Autocrats' was and is still available. Now you're just being ridiculous. It's especially ridiculous since I'm fairly sure that the poll I mentioned which showed majority support for our position was actually commissioned by the party for the purpose of finding out what people thought.

AST: I have not debated thoroughly many of the points covered as I have been trying to reduce the argument to some key features, for, if the voting public were to have a say in whether we are to remain in the EU, either under a LT type arrangement or some other, the likely impact has to be described in relatively simple terms for the majority of voters do not have the time and often the capacity to understand the relevant features when they are described in EU speak. To labour this point, David Davies, on a recent edition of Question Time, admitted to not having read the LT in full, only those sections which relate to his responsibility - Home Affairs. The treaty has been made deliberately complicated so that the subject can be discussed intelligently only by those with the time to go through this complicated document and the capacity to understand it. As you know it is an amending treaty, one which cross refers to existing Treaties, so, in order to understand what it means a reader has to, also, continually refer back to these existing treaties. I could labour this point much further, but I won't - suffice to say, a composite document, which pulls all elements together, has not been produced which would have aided clarity - but as I have said, clarity was not the intention. For me the key issues are <1> that under LT the British voting public will not be able to vote for a party, based on their manifesto, to change things they do not want. Political parties will not be able to promise to change many things - because it will not be in their power, as a government, to do so - all that they will be able to do is to make representation to the EU for these changes to be made and to hope that they are able to persuade the the other members to vote in their favour through QMV - this is a significant change, for it provides a direct democracy one further step removed. I would have thought that any liberally minded person would want to move closer to direct democracy not further away. You say in an earlier post that 'National sovereignty is a myth' - this is not the case, it maybe that at any time there are pressures which disallow somethings from being changed, but under the system we are used to, the government can set a plan to tackle the roots of that which prevent the desired changes being made. Under the LT their only recourse would be to do their best to change the minds of the other EU members and if this failed, leave the EU . The second key issue is that EU law is based on Napoleonic Law which, unlike English Law that states what must not be done, states what can be done. This undermines the concept of a 'free man', for a system of law which needs to codify every permissible activity requires reams of legislation which creates an uncertainty in citizens minds for the ability to 'know the law' because of its sheer quantity, becomes increasingly difficult. This induces a dis-ease when dealing with law enforcers, for an underlying fear that they are aware of some misdeed that you are not permeates such transactions. This of course leads very easily to a police state - again, something that any liberally minded individual would earnestly wish to avoid. In an earlier post you stated that 'The only sovereignty which has any importance is that of the individual' - philosophically I concur. However, as Plato realised towards the end of his life, it is the laws of a state which, in the final analysis, determine this condition. The two issues I have highlighted make it much more likely for bad laws to be introduced and significantly reduces the possibility of such laws being reformed.

The treaty has been made deliberately complicated so that the subject can be discussed intelligently only by those with the time to go through this complicated document and the capacity to understand it. As you know it is an amending treaty, one which cross refers to existing Treaties, so, in order to understand what it means a reader has to, also, continually refer back to these existing treaties. I could labour this point much further, but I won't - suffice to say, a composite document, which pulls all elements together, has not been produced which would have aided clarity - but as I have said, clarity was not the intention. Earlier you were saying that it's practically equivalent to the Constitution. The Constitution did not cross-reference and amend, therefore if it is so similar surely it is a sufficiently good document? Of course, it isn't as similar as europhobes like to claim. I'm just pointing out that they are being hypocritical. It is in the nature of an amending treaty that it is fairly difficult to read (as I am well aware from my own efforts), particularly if one's knowlege of the status quo is not strong (as is generally the case). However, this is precisely why the Constitution was proposed. It became clear that another Constitution would never pass (one of the arguments used against it was its constitutionalisation of the EU) and so there was no option but to move to an amending treaty. It is the europhobes who are to blame for the lack of easy accessibility. For me the key issues are <1> that under LT the British voting public will not be able to vote for a party, based on their manifesto, to change things they do not want. Political parties will not be able to promise to change many things - because it will not be in their power, as a government, to do so - all that they will be able to do is to make representation to the EU for these changes to be made and to hope that they are able to persuade the the other members to vote in their favour through QMV - this is a significant change, for it provides a direct democracy one further step removed. I would have thought that any liberally minded person would want to move closer to direct democracy not further away. Westminster desperately needs to be weakened, as it happens. That doesn't actually require any particularly great transfer of power to the EU; rather it requires a transfer of power towards local government and federal devolution. Either way, Westminster should not be able to legislate on a huge range of issues. It is perfectly logical to apply the same reasoning when a power is held at EU level: if electors want a change, they can vote for MEPs that support that change. Your argument is tantamount to saying that Westminster is wrong because local councils can't override it. Each level of government needs ring-fenced powers. In the case of Lisbon, there are actually shared competencies as well. You say in an earlier post that 'National sovereignty is a myth' - this is not the case, it maybe that at any time there are pressures which disallow somethings from being changed, but under the system we are used to, the government can set a plan to tackle the roots of that which prevent the desired changes being made. Under the LT their only recourse would be to do their best to change the minds of the other EU members and if this failed, leave the EU . Firstly, you give the misleading impression that the EU deals with a large range of issues. Indeed, you vaguely imply that it deals with everything. This is certainly not the case. It's competencies are very limited and strictly defined. I stand by my comments about national sovereignty. Only individuals are sovereign. If we're taking decision-making powers into government, then naturally they should be held at the lowest level that is appropriate. However, for some issues (have a look at the competencies for a rough guide, though it's not a perfect list) that is actually the EU level. For example, the common market (which has massive benefits which even many europhobes say they wish to retain) requires a degree of market-wide regulation for optimal operation. Leaving the EU is made official possible by the Treaty of Lisbon. Once it is ratified, there will actually be a protocol for leaving in order to smooth the transition. I would have thought that this would be attractive to you! The second key issue is that EU law is based on Napoleonic Law which, unlike English Law that states what must not be done, states what can be done. This undermines the concept of a 'free man', for a system of law which needs to codify every permissible activity requires reams of legislation which creates an uncertainty in citizens minds for the ability to 'know the law' because of its sheer quantity, becomes increasingly difficult. This induces a dis-ease when dealing with law enforcers, for an underlying fear that they are aware of some misdeed that you are not permeates such transactions. This of course leads very easily to a police state - again, something that any liberally minded individual would earnestly wish to avoid. This is not a fair assessment. If one attempts to define what can and can not fairly be retailed under a certain name, a "you can't call it this, this, this, this..." approach is useless. Any such regulation must define how things should be done or it is worthless. In a broader sense, EU legislation is based on the civil law tradition as opposed to the common law tradition of Britain. This broadly means that there are abstract laws which are applied in specific cases, rather than past specific judgements from which further judgements and abstract guidelines are extrapolated. This is indeed in the Napoleonic tradition. However, there is no presumption against rights such as habeas corpus. Unless you wish to claim that the vast majority of Western democracies are police states? Incidentally, EU law makes up something like 9% of the total (according to the House of Commons library). It's not technically called EU law, of course. In an earlier post you stated that 'The only sovereignty which has any importance is that of the individual' - philosophically I concur. However, as Plato realised towards the end of his life, it is the laws of a state which, in the final analysis, determine this condition. The two issues I have highlighted make it much more likely for bad laws to be introduced and significantly reduces the possibility of such laws being reformed. This is not actually true at all. The problem with centralisation is that "good" laws are unable to respond to local needs and situations. That is why it is vital that the principle of subsidiarity is remembered and guarded zealously. The Treaty of Lisbon makes this easier.

Lisbon Treaty
This thread is entitled the Lisbon Treaty. I think you must agree that this treaty is, more or less, the same as the rejected Constitution given the comments of the judge in the Stuart Wheeler case and those highlighted by IWAR namely 'although the Government claims that the new treaty is nothing like the old EU Constitution other EU leaders have admitted it is almost exactly the same. German Chancellor Angela Merkel says, “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.” The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero admits, “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”' If we take this to be the case, the next question is why was it produced in such a way - answer: because the leaders of the EU nations most wishing for an EU superstate, lead by Germany and France, knew that only through a grand deception could the old constitution be resurrected. The Dutch and French had already rejected this and it was pretty certain that Britain would too. It does seem from their actions that Labour through Blair and Brown also subscribed to the European superstate concept and were fully involved in the deception - this has been achieved through denying that the LT was almost the same as the reject Constitution and therefore did not require a referendum. The Lib/Dems have followed this lead, whether this is as callous attempt to deceive as Labour's is difficult to decide. It might be, or it also could be that so committed are some of their leaders to an EU ideal, they have allowed their hearts to rule their heads and have been prepared to forego basic democratic principles to see their dream materialise. For without a doubt, if the Lisbon Treaty is all but the same as the old Constitution, which must be accepted, the manifesto commitment of the three main parties should be honoured if democracy has any meaning left in modern Britain. Through their actions, the Lib/Dems have forsaken integrity by aiding and abetting Blair and Brown their attempted deception by not supporting the Tory demand for a referendum in the HofC. The Tories are playing their cards close to their chest. If their demand for a referendum is genuine and not a cynical political ploy, they should hold a post ratification referendum, however, bearing in mind it has been Tory governments which have taken us deeper and deeper into a European Superstate - we must not be too hopeful that the will follow up on, what appears to be a principled decision to push for a referendum if and when they take office after the next GE. If by one route or another a referendum is held and as expected the result is a resounding NO, the future of the EU will return to the drawing board. This will then give an opportunity for it to be redesigned as a Commonwealth of Europe and not a Superstate into which the 27 merge - a solution which clearly the majority of British voters would prefer, based on the GlobalVision survey. If the EU leaders do manage to achieve their goal, as looks very likely - this great deception will, I am sure, be seen by historians, as the greatest scam in political history.

Re: Lisbon Treaty
This thread is entitled the Lisbon Treaty. I think you must agree that this treaty is, more or less, the same as the rejected Constitution given the comments of the judge in the Stuart Wheeler case and those highlighted by IWAR namely 'although the Government claims that the new treaty is nothing like the old EU Constitution other EU leaders have admitted it is almost exactly the same. German Chancellor Angela Merkel says, “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.” The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero admits, “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”' There are a few key points here. Firstly, if you're so ready to believe that the EU is evil, why are you so desperate to believe everything that our continental allies say is absolute and pure truth? Their politicians have political objectives as well and in many countries selling the Treaty as a reworked form of the Constitution is politically expedient. The Treaty in its application to Britain is different in various respects. The government, in its wisdom, has negotiated a series of opt-outs. While I oppose these on principle, their existence makes the Treaty different for Britain than for other member states. If we take this to be the case, the next question is why was it produced in such a way - answer: because the leaders of the EU nations most wishing for an EU superstate, lead by Germany and France, knew that only through a grand deception could the old constitution be resurrected. The Dutch and French had already rejected this and it was pretty certain that Britain would too. This is merely propaganda. It was produced in such a way because certain reforms are required and the principle of a constitution had been rejected, as you note. That only left a reforming treaty. We have never had a referendum on a reforming treaty in this country. Off the top of my head, we have only ever had one referendum on anything. It is not in our constitution. I was prepared to accept it for a constitutionalising document such as the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for the European Union. For Lisbon it would be a waste of taxpayer's money (referenda aren't free!). It does seem from their actions that Labour through Blair and Brown also subscribed to the European superstate concept and were fully involved in the deception - this has been achieved through denying that the LT was almost the same as the reject Constitution and therefore did not require a referendum. As I have explained, it didn't require a referendum anyway. However, they are right, as I have also made clear, to make the distinction between this and the Constitution: it is a document which is different in a fundamental respect (which was the object of perhaps the vast majority of europhobe criticisms at the time). The Lib/Dems have followed this lead, whether this is as callous attempt to deceive as Labour's is difficult to decide. It might be, or it also could be that so committed are some of their leaders to an EU ideal, they have allowed their hearts to rule their heads and have been prepared to forego basic democratic principles to see their dream materialise. For without a doubt, if the Lisbon Treaty is all but the same as the old Constitution, which must be accepted, the manifesto commitment of the three main parties should be honoured if democracy has any meaning left in modern Britain. Through their actions, the Lib/Dems have forsaken integrity by aiding and abetting Blair and Brown their attempted deception by not supporting the Tory demand for a referendum in the HofC. It must not be accepted, and your whole argument falls with it. And, you will note, the manifesto committed the Lib Dems to a referendum on the Constitution. Since that's not available, we've decided to substitute the next closest thing - the EU as a whole (recognising that the Constitution effective rebuilt the whole EU). I also suggest you re-read your paragraph. You start off suggesting that the leadership perhaps lost its way and conclude by saying that they have forsaken integrity. I suggest you make your mind up! :D The Tories are playing their cards close to their chest. If their demand for a referendum is genuine and not a cynical political ploy, they should hold a post ratification referendum, however, bearing in mind it has been Tory governments which have taken us deeper and deeper into a European Superstate - we must not be too hopeful that the will follow up on, what appears to be a principled decision to push for a referendum if and when they take office after the next GE. You're not still going on about a superstate which does not and will not exist are you? The Tories are not planning to hold a retrospective referendum. They only supported it in the first place because they thought it would be popular. That's the only reason they support anything at the moment. If by one route or another a referendum is held and as expected the result is a resounding NO, the future of the EU will return to the drawing board. This will then give an opportunity for it to be redesigned as a Commonwealth of Europe and not a Superstate into which the 27 merge - a solution which clearly the majority of British voters would prefer, based on the GlobalVision survey. It's far from certain that the result would be no. A referendum would have forced Labour to come out of the closet about the EU and actually defend the thing. There's a decent chance that the Tories would have been split down the middle too (especially if there was an in/out referendum). As a result, the public would have been better informed than they are at present and would therefore be more likely to vote yes. If the EU leaders do manage to achieve their goal, as looks very likely - this great deception will, I am sure, be seen by historians, as the greatest scam in political history. This great deception? I am always suspicious of those who claim that history will judge them favourably: I have yet to find any example where it has done!

ATS are you capable of debating in a productive manner so that new ideas flow from the combined ideas of the participants? This is the value and joy of debate. I think I have expressed a composite view of the whole Lisbon Treaty farce which stands up well given the known facts. Whether historians will judge the affair, if successful, as I describe I cannot know, but I can be more precise. If my assessment of what has happened regarding the LT is more or less correct, it will be the greatest political scam ever - whether the historians judge it so or not. The most obvious reason you post on this forum is to add confusion to the debates to prevent them from developing in the healthy fashion I have described. You clearly are not here to help this process, so the assumption is that you have been delegated by your party to perform this role, because there is a genuine and realistic fear that a sizeable proportion of your members will decide to join the Liberals if an EU policy which is absolutely hostile to the undemocratic EU superstate that the LT aims to secure, is developed You clearly have an able intellect so you must be capable of seeing that it would be far better to use your talents honing Lib/Dem policies rather than engaging in these spoiling tactics. By doing so both the Liberals and the Lib/Dems will be able to present the best possible policies for the electorate to choose from at the next GE. Such activity also produces a sense of well-being for you know that you have spent your energies creatively rather than destructively which always leaves an unpleasant taste. I do understand that you may have no choice but to act as you do because it is your paid employment.

View Full Version: Lisbon Treaty