45 Comments

• Louise Shaw 13th Sep '12 - 12:46pm

  Admirable but

  “Anti-Europe sentiment has risen markedly in the UK during the past 12 months, with nearly half the population now holding an unfavourable view of the EU, according to a poll by the German Marshall Fund”

  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/acd071c6-fcec-11e1-ba37-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fworld_uk_politics%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz26LheeKTu

  .

• Colin Green 13th Sep '12 - 12:57pm

  Ever closer integration is of course not the ONLY way forward for Europe. It is, I suspect, the one that Barroso prefers. Less so the British public.

• jedibeeftrix 13th Sep '12 - 1:03pm

  “Courageous” in the words of Sir Humphrey.

  You would have the party go into the euro elections trying to convince a public that: “A federation does not mean a superstate, and pooling sovereignty is about regaining control, not losing it.”

  This is the same public that that even the Guardian found to support Cameron’s veto 4:1 last November………..

  Let me remind you of a few facts:
  1. UKIP, a party with no national electoral base, but a huge european presence, is now polling higher than the Lib-Dem’s nationally
  2. The Lib-Dem’s, party with a strong national presence, but a withered european presence, is now polling lower than UKIP nationally

  New Lib-Dem motto – “how you must love me, to punish me so!”

• Alex Macfie 13th Sep '12 - 1:16pm

  Giles Goodall writes, “The next European elections will then be a real choice: a Europe-wide vote on where the EU goes from here.” That would be nice. Trouble is, past Lib Dem campaigns for European elections have not done that, but instead have focused on domestic issues and almost ignored the issues that MEPs actually have influence over. I really hope our 2014 campaign will be different, but that may be wishful thinking… I suspect that people would have a more favrourable view of the EU if it was clear to them that voting in European elections did actually change things. And for that to happen, the Lib Dems need to make clear what our MEPs do that is different from those of the other parties.
  @Colin Green: Barroso’s political party is in the centre-right EPP group. So if ALDE does propose a candidate for Commission President, it will not be him, and our candidate would likely disagree with the EPP and S&D candidates on a lot of issues.

• Simon McGrath 13th Sep '12 - 1:22pm

  We should do everything we can to block a Federal Europe. There is a reasonable chnace we would win a referendum to stay in the EU in its current form. There is none at all that we would win one on a Federal Europe. Those of us who wish to stay in the EU should be the strongest against any move to a Federal Europe

• Simon Titley 13th Sep '12 - 1:39pm

  @jedibeeftrix – According to your logic, the Liberal Democrat strategy should be to abandon its principles and simply reorient its policies around the views of whichever party is polling better at any particular time.

  May I suggest an alternative approach? If you agree with UKIP, join it. If you share the longstanding Liberal commitment to cosmopolitan and internationalist values, stick with the Liberal Democrats.

• RC 13th Sep '12 - 1:49pm

  This article, though well intentioned, attempts to disguise the real truth behind the developments going on in Europe.
  “The only way forward is more unity and more European integration, said Barroso.” That bit, at least is a correct summation of the intentions of European leaders at the moment. Unfortunately trying to dress this up as some kind of opportunity for the Lib Dems is disastrously optimistic. Come the next Euro elections, the Lib Dems will be desperate to avoid outright humiliation, with the real likelihood we could be relegated to fifth place behind the Greens.

  Anyone reading the European press will understand that what is being discussed is full scale fiscal union and political control, with banking and finance regulated by Europe and new measures like an elected president and more power to the European Parliament. In what way, shape or form is this supposed to be acceptable to a party that preaches decentralisation of power and control to local level?

  I have to second Simon McGrath’s point: a federal Europe is not in Britain’s interests and won’t ever be accepted by the voters. If we can’t block its formation, we need to be having some serious thoughts about what our future relationship with Europe is going to be.

  The EU as we know it, in one way or another, is about to change radically, and we need to be prepared for this. It really is time to do some serious thinking.

• jedibeeftrix 13th Sep '12 - 2:01pm

  @ Simon – “There is a reasonable chnace we would win a referendum to stay in the EU in its current form.”

  Precisely.

  If you want to stay in the EU, and I do, then you need to do two things:
  1. articulate a vision for europe that allows a federal euro-core with political and fiscal union which does not prejudice non-euro members interests in the internal market
  2. persuade the british public that you will fight to put britain in this semi-detached state in a union of variable geometries, and you will wield the big red button to do so

  This is a tale that has largely already been told:

  a) there is a a referendum lock against further transfers of power
  b) government policy is that there should be no further transfers
  c) favourable public opinion to the EU, let alone further integration, has largely died a death
  d) playing it ‘softly’ via talking about LD input into “annex d” of the beekeeping directive won’t work in an adversarial political system
  e) the karlsruhr capping german contribution to E190b and forbidding banking license means crisis will still be rumbling in 2014

  there is a trend herein:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_1999_%28United_Kingdom%29
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2004_%28United_Kingdom%29
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009_%28United_Kingdom%29

  which side of history do the Lib-Dem’s want to be on?

• jedibeeftrix 13th Sep '12 - 2:19pm

  @ Simon – “May I suggest an alternative approach? If you agree with UKIP, join it. If you share the longstanding Liberal commitment to cosmopolitan and internationalist values, stick with the Liberal Democrats.”

  While I may be an odd-ball, there are plenty of other, more conventional, libdemvoice commenter’s around here who recognise the damage done by ever-closer-union, and have managed to articulate a liberal european vision that recognises the value of cooperation and collaboration between nation-states rather federal dream.

  Be enthusiastic in promoting a europe of variable geometries where nations can coalesce where common interests collide and remain distinct where tailored solutions remain preferable, around an internal market policed by the commission.

• Richard Dean 13th Sep '12 - 2:33pm

  Crises cause political groupings to either die or grow strong. I suggest it is in the UK’s best interest to be part of a surviving a strengthened Europe.

  A simple example. If the current proposals for Euorpe-wide control of banks morph into something that Europe agrees on, the City of London dies. Better to be in there, in the brouhaha, and surviving, surely?

  Popular sentiment is malleable.

• Giles Goodall 13th Sep '12 - 2:51pm

  @Louise, Alex: There are good reasons for my optimism. British people are fundamentally pragmatic, and opinion polls tell us this time and again. The most striking thing is not how sceptical people are (which is in itself not a bad thing anyway), but how little they feel they know about the EU. A Europe-wide survey published just two weeks ago by the EP found that 33% of Brits think EU membership is a good thing, 30% a bad thing, and 34% don’t know, despite us having been there almost 40 years.

  More telling still, Brits admit to knowing the least about the EU and how it works among all 27 EU countries on three different measurements. Asked to rate their knowledge on a scale of 1 to 10, 39% said they knew nothing at all about the various EU institutions, 44% were clueless about the personalities and 46% admitted to no knowledge whatsoever of how the institutions work.

  This clearly highlights the opportunitie for arguing a reasonable and reasoned, pragmatic pro-European case.

  @jedibeeftrix: I would recommend reading Barroso’s speech, linked above. He makes a very strong point that what we need is a ‘federation of nation states’ – the member states would remain the building blocks of the EU of the future, as they always have been – but that this is also about a democratic EU, not a bureaucratic or technocratic one. Making the European elections elections about Europe is the first step to improving the whole structure.

  @RC: The Lib Dems have always been in favour of true federalism, which means taking different decisions at the most efficient level – both at transnational and subnational levels. This is the diametric opposite of the ‘superstate’ of anti-European fiction.

• RC 13th Sep '12 - 3:20pm

  @ Giles Goodall

  You accuse me of indulging in “anti-European fiction.” Is the desire to control fiscal policy “fiction”? Is the desire to control banking centrally “fiction”? This may be at Eurozone level at the moment, but in future, the Eurozone will be welding itself into a power bloc which will mean Britain’s protests will become increasingly marginalised in the EU context.

  Really, I am quite concerned and alarmed that you are even now maintaining that there is not a serious push on the part of European politicians to mount a major centralising power grab. This is simply not “fiction” as you term it. It is reality, and we have to deal with it, not burying our heads in the sand and pretending that nothing is happening.

  “The Lib Dems have always been in favour of true federalism, which means taking different decisions at the most efficient level – both at transnational and subnational levels.”

  That is quite right. The problem is that what is happening now is a move to take decisions at levels that are not appropriate or efficient. If you read the Italian press, as I do, there are calls by quite senior politicians for all kinds of things, including an elected European president, a common welfare policy, constitutions adopted by pan-European referenda. Now Italy is one of the main cheerleaders for European integration (mainly because they’d rather be governed by Brussels than by Rome) and these ideas may not all be likely to even be discussed now at major European meetings, but the fact that the direction of travel is definitely towards “more Europe” cannot be denied. In a context where most British people’s views on European integration are “thus far but no further” and yet there is a headlong rush towards a more centralised Europe, how can the Liberal Democrats find a policy proposition for the UK that makes any sense.

• Malcolm Todd 13th Sep '12 - 3:25pm

  Alex McFie: “I suspect that people would have a more favourable view of the EU if it was clear to them that voting in European elections did actually change things. ”

  Have you any evidence that it actually does?

• jedibeeftrix 13th Sep '12 - 4:22pm

  @ Giles –

  Section 1 is fine as a description of the symptoms

  Section 2 the diagnosis – reads fine until the following: “we have seen time and again that interconnected global markets are quicker and therefore more powerful than fragmented national political systems” for it should finish: “locked into momentary union”
  In short, using the EU interchangeably with the Eurozone will not lead to a decent prescription
  i.e.
  “Yes, globalisation demands more European unity.
  More unity demands more integration.
  More integration demands more democracy, European democracy.”
  – Within the Eurozone, yes.

  Section 3 the prescription – in ignoring the existence of non-euro members, and there continued existence into the future, creates ludicrous statements like:
  “The more vulnerable countries must leave no doubts about their willingness to reform. About their sense of responsibility.”
  Leaving no space for those who might want to leave the eurozone if the newly ‘recognised’ consequences of momentary union are recognised as unpalatable.
  In short; the moral within the eurozone must knuckle-under and accept further integration, to fail to do so would be immoral……………….. despite the fact we are secretly ignoring a shadow group of other nations outside the eurozone who presumably are not immoral. It is needlessly creating victims.
  —————
  In conflating the EU27 and the Euro17 it reaches bizarre conclusions that do not support each other:

  “The Commission will shortly present a Single Market Act II. To enable the single market to prosper, the Commission will continue to be firm and intransigent in the defence of its competition and trade rules. Let me tell you frankly, If it was left to the Member States, I can tell you they will not resist pressure from big corporations or large external powers.”

  Great, but what has this to do with further integration………………… unless it is the price demanded by those nations less interested in competition and trade rules?

  “This means making the taxation environment simpler for businesses and more attractive for investors. Better tax coordination would benefit all Member States.”

  Sorry, why is this necessary again? Yes, I can see it is desirable to have harmonised tax rates as the quid pro quo for solidarity via a transfer-union, but again, what has this to do with the EU27?

  “A realistic but yet ambitious European Union budget dedicated to investment, growth and reform. It is a budget that will help complete the single market by bridging gaps in our energy, transport and telecoms infrastructure through the Connecting Europe Facility.”

  Hmmm, not sure I agree that a common services passport requires an engorged EU budget for infrastructure spending. Again, is this about bribes to the market-shy?

  “Fairness and equity also means creating better and fairer taxation systems.”

  Who decides? Inside the euro, sure, but if britain, sweden, or denmark wants to put its capital-gains at 10% less than the eurozone, tough luck.

  “Because this is about fairness. And fairness is an essential condition to make the necessary economic reforms socially and politically acceptable.”

  Yes! Within the eurozone, yes!

  “Today, the Commission is presenting legislative proposals for a single European supervisory mechanism. This is the stepping stone to a banking union. But there is a second element of a deeper economic union it is the move towards a fiscal union.”

  Again, conflating a measure that will supposedly affect the EU27, with one that is explicitly for the Euro17. Don’t do that.

  What is a federation, insomuch as its difference with a confederation?

  Taken from wiki:

  “By definition, the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not.”
  “A federation (Latin: foedus, foederis, ‘covenant’), also known as a federal state, is a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central (federal) government.”
  vs
  “A superstate is an agglomeration of nations and/or states, often linguistically and ethnically diverse, under a single political-administrative structure.”

  You can call it a “Federation of nation states” if you wish, sounds quite cuddly, but good luck explaining exactly what in practice the difference is to the British electorate!

  “No one will be forced to come along. And no one will be forced to stay outThe speed will not be dictated by the slowest or the most reluctant”

  Excellent, so there can be a europe with a slow-lane, but will caucusing within the EU17 force changes to the internal market antithetical to British interests, such as has been the case with the social chapter? Can the Commision keep the internal market for the EU27, and not just the Euro17?

  A europe where you have to integrate to protect your interests is not a europe of variable geometries with the commission guarding the internal market for all members.

  Not one that Britain can remain in anyway.

• Joe Bourke 13th Sep '12 - 4:28pm

  Harold Macmillan noted in his diary of 1954 “Federation of Europe means Germanisation of Europe. Confederation should be British leadership of Europe.”

  This remains as true today as it was then. The Eurozone will become an economic and political fedaration of states within the European Union, dominated by Germany. Britain has a distinctive leadership role to play in the wider European Union as an independent nation state linking the European Union and Commonwealth in a free trade zone and together with France securing the defence of Europe as the USA reorientates to the Pacific.

  Food security was a primary rationale for entry to the Common market in the 1970’s. Food security remains as much an imperative today as it did then.

  “How can the Liberal Democrats find a policy proposition for the UK that makes sense/” The answer lies in framing the debate on issues central to the competencies of the EU – free trade and economic cooperation, food and energy security, a common foreign policy approach and european defence cooperation.

• Alex Macfie 13th Sep '12 - 5:42pm

  @RC: More power to the European Parliament means more democratic legitimacy and accountability for the EU. To be clear, increased power to the European Parliament is at the expense of the European Council (i.e. national governments) and the Commission. But in many countries, the positions taken by the national governments in the Council have little parliamentary scrutiny; this is certainly true in the UK. I cannot see how any liberal could oppose giving more power to a democratically elected legislature, taken from unelected bodies. The European Parliament is the main bulwark against the unelected bureaucrats in the Commission and Council; giving it more power can only be a good thing. I would very much like, for example, the EP to have power to initiate legislation, rather than it all coming from the Commission.
  Of course, Eurosceptics are not keen on the idea of increasing the power of the European Parliament because they like to bleat about the EU being undemocratic, so the last thing they want is anything that interferes with their preferred narrative. That is basically Jedibeeftrix’s viewpoint, although he/she dresses it up differently. Then there are people like Jack “Boot” Straw , who recently proposed abolishing the European Parliament, probably because he yearns for the old days when European policy was decided by leaders in smoke-filled rooms with no democratic accountability.

• Alex Macfie 13th Sep '12 - 5:45pm

  @Malcolm Todd: The media essentially ignores what happens in the European Parliament, even at European elections, and even party European election campaigns tend not to discuss it much (shamefully, that includes ours). Therefore, many people probably don’t realize that they actually *do* have influence over EU policy.

• John Dunn 13th Sep '12 - 6:08pm

  The British do not want to integrate and give their sovereignty to Europe. They were happy with what was on the table in 1975, but not this bloated megalomaniacs, gravy train. Sorry,.. what was that? You say I’m wrong?
  Try for once, to be true to your name and be democratic.
  Ask the people via a referendum. No I thought not.
  The most positive thing is that by 2014 it will be a non issue, because the EU will have imploded in on itself.

• John Dunn 13th Sep '12 - 6:13pm

  Alex Macfie says :
  ‘Euro sceptics ….. like to bleat about the EU being undemocratic.’
  That’s because it IS undemocratic !!

• David Evans 13th Sep '12 - 6:26pm

  To suggest Europe is moving ahead, implies the author wants to look on Europe as a vehicle rather than a structure. It creates a nice metaphor for progress. However looking at it as a structure; when the foundations are so shaky, is getting it moving really a good idea?

• jedibeeftrix 13th Sep '12 - 6:50pm

  Actually, i would describe legitimacy as resulting from both representation (of the peoples will) and accountability (to the will of the people).

  They pull in opposite directions when you have very fractured cultural components over which to govern.

  eg. you could mandate access to abortion across the EU and it would be representative of the majority, but it would have to be imposed on ireland therefore it would lack accountability in the eyes of the irish. or you could make policy accountable to every polity with a veto, but then you would not be able to mandate access to abortion because the irish wouldn’t wear it.

  Yes, every demos has internal variation that has to be accommodated by compromise, but accommodation is accepted because there is a recognised familial sentiment that assents to the will of the majority. There are people in Ireland who might like access to abortion, but, hey this is ireland so its the way we roll.

  On balance, i feel the best compromise is that sovereign nation states should cooperate and collaborate where a common viewpoint can breed a more effective solution, but to stay away from enforcing lowest common denominator compromises that satisy nobody. The exception to this being the common market which i am happy to see enforced by a supranational european commission.

  There are plenty of european nations that bridle at what they consider to be the ‘neoliberal’ economic policy of the commission, they view it as unaccountable because it is imposed by the commission…………. but if it wasn’t imposed it wouldn’t exist because the alternative would be trying to represent all nations divergent views on how the internal market should function.

  So, I simply seek to keep to a minimum what the EU does as a matter of general principle.

• Stuart 13th Sep '12 - 7:28pm

  An excellent piece, Giles, thank you. It is good to read something about Europe that is actually factual and informed. It seems to me that Britain never really gets off the starting blocks when it comes to Europe, despite having been in now for almost 40 years (longer than I have been alive!). As you (Giles) point out in your comment, so many British people are clueless when it comes to Europe and the debate here in the UK has never really got beyond the issue of whether we should have joined in the first place. It’s so disheartening, as Britain – with its large population and large economy – could be right at the centre of European affairs if we wanted. Increasingly I think I’d welcome an in/out referendum that might actually lance this boil and get us all to move on.

• RC 13th Sep '12 - 8:11pm

  @ Alex Macfie
  “More power to the European Parliament means more democratic legitimacy and accountability for the EU. To be clear, increased power to the European Parliament is at the expense of the European Council (i.e. national governments) and the Commission. But in many countries, the positions taken by the national governments in the Council have little parliamentary scrutiny; this is certainly true in the UK. I cannot see how any liberal could oppose giving more power to a democratically elected legislature, taken from unelected bodies.”

  I would definitely oppose more power over the UK and its interests being given to a body elected by voters of other countries. The key problem with your idea that all increases of electoral power are good is that there is no European “demos”, as current events are showing ever more clearly.

  Having seen the political culture of one other country, Italy, at very close quarters, I don’t want their voters or politicians having anything whatever to do with the government of our country. While on a personal level they are wonderful people and their society has some strengths and lessons for the UK, their political culture is pure poison. Sadly the same is true of many fellow members of the EU.

  @ Stuart

  “It’s so disheartening, as Britain – with its large population and large economy – could be right at the centre of European affairs if we wanted. ”

  Under current circumstances i.e. an unholy financial and political mess created by overweening ambition of European politicians which has yet to reveal its full extent, how exactly would that make the UK a more secure, prosperous country, exactly?

• Tim13 13th Sep '12 - 8:40pm

  I have been looked at very strangely when I have given my opinion (in Lib Dem circles) that the Single European Act is the most dangerous European structure. One reason I say this is because it allows multinationals to enforce their will on all other players in the system, and awards hugely more power to capital than labour. We can see how hard the private sector pressure groups fight against “social Europe”. And all the time, the little person is being screwed, and the right wing press are spreading poison about the evils of Europe, so what should the little person think? That it’s all Europe’s fault, of course.

  Single European Act is also the source of most of the square cucumber / circular banana stories, which where they are not entirely mythical creations of the tabloid press, are actually there to create common standards within a single market!

  Sory, those here who say we could never work with the (evil) other Europeans, the main reason is we have failed to get a media which reports things straight. British people have worked with all sorts of traditions (in colonial days, where they were unable to impose by force or any other means their own system). The world’s constantly getting smaller, the planet will go down in flames if we are not careful. Get used to it – you’ve got to work with others, and if that means sometimes accepting what you might see as an “Italian” modus operandi, then just get on with it. The alternative I am afraid, is ever-increasing conflict, huge movement of peoples, shortage of food, completely unpredictable and extreme weather conditions. Watching the trend in Arctic ice melt this year, and in species extinctions, it looks like it’s coming a lot quicker than had previously been foreseen.

• Alex Macfie 13th Sep '12 - 10:21pm

  @RC: You do understand, don’t you, that MEPs align by ideology and not nationality? Indeed it would be undesirable if MEPs voted according to nationality. What would be the point in voting for MEPs of a particular party if come what may they were going to support the British line, or the Italian line, or whichever country they came from? Also MEPs legislate for the EU as a whole, and form their own political culture, not bound by their domestic political cultures. To take an obvious example, UK Conservative and Lib Dem MEPs are not bound by the Coalition Agreement, and frequently find themselves on opposing sides. Indeed it stands to reason that UK Lib Dems would find a lot more in common with (say) Italian liberals (not that liberalism is very strong in Italian politics, but it does exist) than with UK Conservatives.

• Liberal Eye 13th Sep '12 - 10:39pm

  The proximate driver here is the disaster that is the Euro. It was built to a flawed design (as was widely pointed out at the time) that was pretty well guaranteed to fail – the only uncertainty was the timescale. Now its slow motion collapse is leaving a trail of devastation and unemployment. With no good options available Brussels is only digging a deeper and deeper hole. Barroso’s plan is a desperate last throw that won’t work even if it were politically doable – which it isn’t.

  There should be no illusions here. Barroso is arguing for a step change towards greater central control by Brussels but sugaring his proposals in some fine-sounding words with talk of a greater role for the European Parliament, subsidiarity etc. I am old enough to remember that much the same was done with the Maastricht Treaty when that ran into heavy flak. It wasn’t true then and I don’t believe it now.

  This is, to put it mildly, a constitutional move far greater than any that have gone before in that it eliminates the budgetary sovereignty of member countries. With an established record for frustrating the democratic will of the nations of Europe by denying referenda (or sidelining them when they have given the ‘wrong’ result) and with its economic credibility shot to pieces Barroso has no chance of getting this through and we shouldn’t squander LD’s credibility on it.

  I want to see genuine reform in Europe – reform that actually will, as Giles puts it, “chimes very much with LD values” but this is not it and Barroso is not the man to do it. What we need is for liberals to put forward an alternative vision. With the existing EU establishment literally and metaphorically bankrupt a liberal ‘Plan B’ could soon become the only game in town.

• Roland 13th Sep '12 - 10:52pm

  > The only way forward is more unity and more European integration
  >The next European elections will then be a real choice: a Europe-wide vote on where the EU goes from here.

  So if the 2014 elections are to be for real choice, the various political fractions within the EU need to move fast to become more integrated and unified and create visions of where the EU goes from here. So that voters know which group and vision the various candidates put forward by the nation state branches belong/subscribe to and hence vote accordingly. Without this level of political integration nation states will still be fielding prospective MEP’s with a nation state agenda.

• Stuart 13th Sep '12 - 10:57pm

  @RC: Your challenge to me implicitly suggests that if we avoided involvement in European affairs then we would somehow be unaffected by them. I’m afraid that if you stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes really really tight, that’s not going to stop the European economy affecting our own economy. We can either face up to reality and work together with our partners in Europe, or just weather whatever storms they throw at us. This is the whole point: either we share sovereignty with other EU Member States and in return have some control over what happens or don’t share sovereignty and have no control. If even Lib Dems don’t get that then heaven help us.

• Paul in Twickenham 14th Sep '12 - 12:30am

  Perhaps Karlsruhe might have something to say about “President” Barosso’s proposal?

  Membership of the European Union is of mutual value to ourselves and the rest of Europe with benefits that are well understood and which do not need repeating here. But it is my opinion that Barosso’s plan has no prospect unless (as has happened before) it is implemented through subterfuge, under cover of a crisis or by simply ignoring the expressed will of the people.

  If this proposal is developed and put to a referendum here in the UK then I will actively campaign for its rejection.

  It is a serious mistake to assume that all Liberal Democrats are in favour of a federal Europe.

• Paul McKeown 14th Sep '12 - 1:32am

  I’m as pro-EU as they come, but I even I find the words “ever closer union” in the Preamble to the founding Treaties annoying. and unnecessary If closer union should occur (and I have no generic objection) it should be through organic changes, rather than the Commission pushing for it. If the Treaties were amended to remove those words, I suspect much of the wind would be removed from the sails of the good ships HMS Europhobe, EUSSR and Kipper.

• jedibeeftrix 14th Sep '12 - 7:52am

  @ Liberal Eye – “This is, to put it mildly, a constitutional move far greater than any that have gone before in that it eliminates the budgetary sovereignty of member countries.”

  Quite, time for a little Gladstone methinks:

  “The finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a powerful leverage by which English Liberty has been gradually acquired … It lies at the root of English Liberty, and if the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the control of the grants of public money, depend upon it, your very liberty will be worth very little in comparison …That power can never be wrenched out of your hands… That powerful leverage has been what is commonly known as the power of the purse – the control of the House of Commons over public expenditure – your main guarantee for purity – the root of English liberty. No violence, no tyranny, whether of experiments or of such methods as are likely to be made in this country, could ever for a moment have a chance of prevailing against the energies of that great assembly. No, if these powers of the House of Commons come to be encroached upon, it will be by tacit and insidious methods, and therefore I say that public attention should be called to this.”

  @ Stuart – “We can either face up to reality and work together with our partners in Europe, or just weather whatever storms they throw at us.”

  You need to face up to the fact that idle blandishments about “working with” and “leading from” within europe does not cut it. If you believe that Britain’s future is no longer best served as a sovereign nation-state cooperating and collaborating with neighbouring sovereigns then you need to say so to the electorate. Explicitly! (and i will chuckle as dreams collapse).

  @ PiT – “It is a serious mistake to assume that all Liberal Democrats are in favour of a federal Europe.”

  I am pleased to hear it, I could not even point to the UKIP/LD electoral reverse without Simon Titley assuming some partisan sentiment on my part which in consequence deserved tribal loyalty to the ‘other’.

• Ed Wilson 14th Sep '12 - 8:45am

  The Eurozone crisis has spawned a breathtaking abandonment of democracy. Prime ministers and presidents approve large money transfers and start unification processes which nobody has ever been asked about, let alone voting for. Very large numbers of citizens across the continent are now Eurosceptics. Barroso and – if we are not careful – Lib Dems are deluding ourselves to think that ever deeper union is on the table in the near future.

• Liberal Eye 14th Sep '12 - 10:31am

  jedibeeftrix – that’s a great Gladstone quote – thanks.

  Ed Wison – yes, but the ‘breathtaking abandonment of democracy’ happened well before the crisis. It can be dated to at least when the first national referendum was rerun to get the ‘correct’ result.

• Oranjepan 14th Sep '12 - 11:08am

  Only one simple problem with the logic of the argument – that democratic elections to the EU lack public relevance.

  The EU must reform itself, particularly the Commission, before the question of relevance can begin to be addressed. An institution which is criticised as undemocratic is not bound by democratic demands.

  I like Barroso, I agree with much he says, but who elected him, who does he represent, who is he accountable to? Not me!

• jedibeeftrix 14th Sep '12 - 11:30am

  @ Orangepan – “The EU must reform itself, particularly the Commission, before the question of relevance can begin to be addressed.”

  This is a bit of a conundrum for me, for the Commission does the one job that i believe is essential to the proper functioning of the EU; govern the internal market over the member states.

  It can do this job precisely because it is an unaccountable supranational function, and must remain so if the internal market is not to become a plaything for member states.

  If democracy is needed for all the other aspects of EU integration, which clearly it is, then somehow this must be clearly separated from the Commissions guardianship of the internal market.

  Pull that one off and I will be a very happy little ‘european’ camper!

• Alex Macfie 14th Sep '12 - 2:05pm

  @Oranjepan: “…democratic elections to the EU lack public relevance” Meanwhile, over on another article on this site, about Chris Davies MEP and fisheries, someone has noted that there was no coverage of Chris on the Today Programme when they were actually discussing fish stocks, and that even our party website makes no mention of what Chris has been doing on this issue. If EU elections lack public relevance, then the fault lies largely with the media and our own party for their conspiracy of silence about the European Parliament.

• Giles Goodall 14th Sep '12 - 2:31pm

  @Alex Macfie: Agree completely about lack of informed coverage, see my post above with numbers that show even by their own assessment Brits know very little about the EU or what it does. Ignorance inevitably leads to scepticism. It reminds me of research about what people think the Lib Dems stand for. When you tell people about our policies, our vote tends to rise significantly.
  @Ed Wilson: We do live in a representative democracy. If people disagree with decisions made by governments on their behalf, they have only to kick them out at the next election.
  @Liberal Eye: Agree that liberals need to articulate their own vision for Europe. Barroso was making precisely this point – that the European elections should be about Europe (for once) and that parties should engage voters with clear choices, including candidates for Commission president. The Lib Dems and ELDR need to do this too.
  @Paul McKeown: ‘Ever closer union’ is indeed a vague concept, yet this has been in the Treaties since 1957 and the same Treaties backed by 2 to 1 British voters when we joined almost 40 years ago. It’s also been in every Treaty change approved by Parliament since. This is not really news.

  By the way, anyone interested in finding out more about Barroso’s thoughts (and let’s remember he’s only putting forward ideas that would have to be agreed by all 27 EU countries), can ask him directly. He’s doing a live interview answering questions by video or text on YouTube next week. You can send questions until 18 September and vote for your favourite ones. He’ll then answer the most popular ones the following evening, 19 September.

  Find out more here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC1qApatvZI&feature=youtu.be

• Paul McKeown 14th Sep '12 - 3:03pm

  @Giles Goodall

  My point was not whether it was news or not, but the suggestion that excising the words might well remove a red rag from the nose of the Europhobic bull.

• Stuart 14th Sep '12 - 3:20pm

  @Paul McKeown They’ll just find something else

• jedibeeftrix 14th Sep '12 - 5:13pm

  no chaps, it really isn’t just a matter of presentation.

  that is taking the public for chumps and is it any wonder lib-dem eu support is tanking over the various elections?

  remove the phrase by all means, but remove the imperative to force all members to continually integrate and we will have got somewhere.

• Paul McKeown 14th Sep '12 - 7:16pm

  @jdb

  “remove the imperative to force all members to continually integrate”

  I think that a multi-speed Europe is certainly the way forward. And certain elements should remain optional for new members, too. The Euro and Schengen being obvious examples, but I would suggest for new entrants, such as Iceland, or potentially Norway, the Fisheries policy too, at least in part.

• Chris_sh 14th Sep '12 - 8:48pm

  @Paul McKeown
  “I think that a multi-speed Europe is certainly the way forward. And certain elements should remain optional for new members, too. ”

  And you’re not the only one, those well known “Europhobic bulls” Helmut Schmidt and Valéry Giscard d’Estaing gave an interview with Speigel, it seems to lay out a quite reasonable approach on the way forward – plus (in diplomatic terms) it seems to be quite scathing of somethings that have happened/are happening.

  http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/spiegel-interview-with-helmut-schmidt-and-valery-giscard-d-estaing-a-855127-2.html

• Jedibeeftrix 15th Sep '12 - 9:32am

  @ Paul – “I think that a multi-speed Europe is certainly the way forward. And certain elements should remain optional for new members, too. The Euro and Schengen being obvious examples”

  I am delighted to agree.

  The challenge for Britain in creating this eu of variable geometries will be to keep the internal market governed by the commission for the eu27, and hive off all other fiscal and political integration to the parliament. Explicitly separate, not like using the social chapter to backdoor employment regulation.

  Get that right and Britain has a long and happy future and not the eu. Get it wrong and Britain gets the worst of both worlds; no leading in Europe, and no longer sovereign, and that is a ticket for the exit.

• Jedibeeftrix 16th Sep '12 - 10:39am

  Sundays Telegraph. – “Borg said he was concerned that the eurozone countries could overrule Sweden and other non-euro countries, such as Britain, on broader issues such as imposing new capital requirements on every bank in the EU.”

  Great example of the dilemma describe Britain as facing:

  We will not be integrating into euro-core therefore we must remain sovereign.

  If you want Britain to remain in the party at all you had better start bending those mighty intellects to this question.

• Chris wood 18th Sep '12 - 10:51pm

  Same old lib dem out of touch with public opion you can’t sell Europe to the mass it I democratic and it’s proven with Norway you can survive outside the eu propoganda out in force. The next election will be fought over Europe so you will get wiped out and if labour stays pro so wil they so looks like the Tories and ukip forming the next goverment look at opinion polls ukip is taking over you what that tell you about your Europe polices all the lib demand would do is sell the uk out to Brussels . What as the eu brought to Britain answer half of Poland thanks EU