It’s no use blaming the Irish. If it hadn’t been they who rejected the Lisbon Treaty it would likely have been any number of other European countries if their leaders had had the guts to ask the people what they thought. The fact – which surely must now be universally acknowledged and faced up to – is that the people of Europe now no longer trust the European Union.
There are doubtless many reasons for this – a rejection of globalisation, a ‘politics of contentment’, the remoteness of Brussels, the perfidy of nationalistic media, gross failures within the EU. But I suspect the broader reason is a more conceptual one: the EU lacks a popular narrative.
The old narrative of the EU was crystal clear: to end war in Europe. For a continent scarred by centuries of warfare, and which had just emerged from the destruction – physical, economic and social – of World War II, selling the concept of a European Community of trading partners committed to peace was hardly a tough job. It was a narrative which bound European nations together in the half century after 1945.
That old narrative had been superceded by a new one: the enlargement of the EU into eastern Europe and the near Middle East. This is just as important, but much less easy to pitch to European citizens who have become accustomed to widespread (albeit not universal) peace. As Chris Patten has put it, this ‘next’ task:
… will do more than anything else we could attempt to prevent that ‘clash of civilisations’ predicted by Samuel Huntington and devoutly hoped for by extremists, especially (but not solely) Islamic ones. The reconciliation of France and Germany was the necessary and admirable European accomplishment of the twentieth century; reconciling the West and the Islamic world, with Europe acting as hinge between the two, is a major task for the twenty-first. (Not Quite the Diplomat, pp.143-44)
Indeed it is. But it is not an easy sell, as EU enlargement has and will unleash tensions: an expanded market results in winners and, at least in the short-term, also losers – with the losers inevitably shouting loudest. Turkey’s membership of the EU, so crucial to Europe’s long-term future, is regarded with deep scepticism by the EU’s two largest founders, France and Germany, each fearing the negative response of their own citizens.
If the national governments of Europe cannot find it in themselves to support the EU’s new raison d’etre, is it really so surprising that their own citizens can’t either?
Ironically, the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty reinforces the Lib Dems’ call for a referendum on the only question that matters: whether the UK should be in or out. Many saw this proposal as nothing more than a political tactic, a way of preserving party unity. And they were probably at least partly right.
And yet as time goes by the more evident it becomes that the EU is suffering a disconnect between the governing elites and the governed. I don’t buy for one moment the British public cares over-much about the nitty-gritty of the Lisbon Treaty – qualified majority voting and the number of EU commissioners – but I absolutely accept they care about the direction of the EU, and what Britain’s role in it should be. That is the only question worth debating. And it needs debating now more than ever.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Daniel Walker
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
52 Comments
The EU needs an elected Commission President. It certainly would be more fun than Eurovision for starters.
I think ordinary people do care about the division of powers generally, and specifically about which powers reside with European-level institutions and which ones are reserved to member states. The idea this is too “complex” to trust ordinary people on it is deeply undemocratic. Lisbon changed this division of powers, and the people should have to give their consent where these change. Europe needs to stop trying to bypass its peoples, and draft a constitution which really will get popular consent.
I think a major mistake EU and politicians supporting it are making is to refuse to take no for an answer. People aren’t that stupid, that they would think that the Treaty of Lisbon essentially differs from the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe which was already rejected by the voters in the Netherlands and France. By pressing the Treaty in a new form for people who have just rejected it they create a rift between themselves and the people, and give an impression that they actually really don’t give a dam to what the people are saying. No wonder, if they then face opposition. They should listen to the message the people are sending in the referendums and respect it, even if that message would (for whatever reason) be “no”. If they don’t, how are they different from Robert Mugabe who is forging elections?
I think Stephenis too kind to the EU establishment.
I am a committed European, and have been one since before the Treaty of Rome was signed. It seems clear to me that the EU will not be able to secure popular support for the reforms it needs until and unless it is seen to address its evident failings. The “Constitution” and the Lisbon Treaty fail to do that.
To me, the obvious failings of Europe’s present institutions are, in summary:
1. Many officials of the Commission (and some MEPs) display, almost proudly, the symptoms of a bureaucracy which maximises its own satisfactions. That is to say, they are very comfortable, avoid accountability, are rather ineffective, are expensive for what they do, and show persistent tendencies to tolerate corruption. The bureaucracy needs much more demanding leadership, management and oversight.
2. A shortage of effective control of activities and of expenditure.
3. An apparatus for reaching political compromises that is cumbersome, not consistently framed, and slow.
4. Institutional arrangements for putting forward the arguments of common interest have become diffuse and weak, as much within the institutions as in relation to the peoples of Europe and the wider world.
No doubt others can elaborate and improve on that summary. Nevertheless, the fundamental political problem for the EU establishment is that it cannot relate to us European citizens while it is in denial about its failings.
You forgot to add the fact that people don’t like being bullied or lied to in your list of reasons for the treaty being rejected.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
David – you are correct
IMHO at least 1,2 and 3 seem to apply to the UK government as well as the EU
Responses like this are a pretty good summary of why the argument gets lost
“Andrew Duff, a UK Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament, said: “People are still stupefied by the decision of the Irish, we need to wait for the clearing of everybody’s brains.”
I’m all for a good workable EU, but currently it’s a complete shambles : corrupt, ineffective, wastrel and arrogant.
You’ll never hear from your MEP unless it’s time for their re-election, should you contact them, you’ll be fobbed off, should you need anything done, you’ll be last in the queue after long list of businesses and special interests with deep pockets.
I’m pretty sure almost every EU country would sign up for a much smaller, much more accountable and cheaper EC/EP.
The other thing worth highlighting is that it’s not actually democratic – the EP has very few powers compared to the deals that unelected and unaccounatble Commisioners can make or break.
“Andrew Duff, a UK Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament, said: “People are still stupefied by the decision of the Irish, we need to wait for the clearing of everybody’s brains.”
I love Andrew dearly, but here in one sentence is the attitude of the Euro-Elite encapsulated. When are more of my fellow Lib Dems going to come to terms with the simple fact that being pro-European and being pro-EU are not the same thing and that we should be far more hostile to this corrupt bureaucracy, that stands for everything Liberals should be opposed to, than we are today?
Clegg, despite his background in the Euro-trough, seems to have no illusions about the EU and his affirmation that the democratic voice of the Irish must be respected is hopefully another stage on the road to a more realistic position on the EU.
Once we have that, we can have a proper policy on Europe. One that can encompass the two key elements that we give so little thought to today. Russia and Turkey.
The Liberal Democrat EU faithful must eventually realise that the EU does not suit us. We are being governed badly because of it, in many different ways, from CAP, CFP, to post office closures and excessive rates of immigration which suit the owners of capital but not those whose unskilled labour is thereby undercut.
The longer the Liberal Democrats are seen as EU-fanatics the more they will go into long term decline.
There is an EU-sceptic Liberal Party (www.liberal.org.uk). The Liberal Democrats ought to become EU-sceptic, merge again with the Liberal Party – or at least allow Liberal EU-sceptics to feel welcome within the Liberal Democrats – which we have not been – and help form a government to take us out of full membership of the EU and into an European Economic Area with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and any other country that feels the same way, hopefully including Turkey in due course, thereby solving the problem that the French and Germans (and the Vatican, for goodness sake!) will not let secular but Islamic Turkey in as full members.
To me it is sickening that the Liberal Democrats who call themselves Liberals are accomplices in the anti-democratic and deceitful process of promising a referendum on the EU Constitution and then denying one on the Lisbon Treaty.
It seems that Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats collectively are no longer to be trusted, any more than Gordon Brown’s New Labour. They must have a change of heart on the EU. It does not look as if Nick Clegg is man enough to lead such a change of heart.
So down the DimLibs will go! Unless they snap out of it! Stop being hyptotised by the EU! Leave full membership of the EU, which we can still do, since Parliament cannot bind its successors. To pretend that we could only leave the EU if we ratify the Lisbon Treaty is more deceitful nonsense.
Stephen is quite right that we need much greater understanding of what the EU is and does (even if people disagree with that and then want to change it) and the EU also needs greater clarity about its own purpose.
And I agree with most of what David Heigham asks for in terms of changes (a fair bit of it indeed is promoted by the Lisbon Treaty – which is exactly about better working, rather than some big new project, as previous treaties have been).
But the problem is that most of what David asks for (not quite all) – and essentially having a system which allows greater leadership, which is at the heart of of most of what he says – requires changes to the structures of the EU – which needs changes to the treaties. The problem now is that as Ireland showed last week, general suspicion about the EU is leading people, ironically, to veto any proposals for reform (this was to quite a large extent also true of the French no in 2005). This stalemate is a problem!
Aaron Trevena’s comments are a good example of this. He rightly demands that the EU should be more democratic and specifically the European Parliament have greater significance. This is one of many improvements that the Lisbon Treaty would have delivered, but which we can’t get because people (in this case the Irish, but obviously it’s true much more widely, especially in the UK) are suspicious of any change!
The proposal made by Ordovicius above (which I would broadly support, and which again Lisbon would have made some significant progress towards) is another example of a change we can’t get because it would require treaty change, which now seems to be impossible.
This is all why the simplistic comments made above by the cowardly individual hiding behind the word ‘Anonymous’, that all treaty reform should be abandoned are, while perhaps understandable, not a realistic way forward.
I am also 100% pro European but I am coming firmly to the conclusion that the system is just broken and needs to be replaced lock, stock and barrel, not with a tweaking treaty but with a radical re-think about just what we want Europe to achieve.
We need a small group of clever people – why not Paddy Ashdown and Chris Patten for starters – to come up with a ‘constitution’ which is short and which sets out the essence of Europe, not details like what kind of pig feed farmers should use.
Once the basic principles are in place, the rest can follow but for the moment let’s get radical.
Europe needs to be a strategic government, not a nannying, interfering edifice. Let’s have some more subsidiarity.
Sorry, I forgot to say the original piece is excellent and I agree entirely with the main thrust.
“…excessive rates of immigration which suit the owners of capital but not those whose unskilled labour is thereby undercut.”
Oh dear, like a fool I’m going fall for this transparently deliberate provocation.
Leaving aside that much manual labour performed by immigrants is not ‘unskilled’. (eg. the wrongly-maligned Polish plumber or the eastern European teaching assistant) why should workers in less wealthy countries be kept on low wages due to governments of wealthier nations protecting ‘their own’?
The answer from those of a socialist leaning, like the folk at the ‘Liberal Party’, is that wealth and wages need managing from government, and all that comparative advantage / benefits of trade stuff is nonsense, as proved by the unparalleled success of the Soviet Union. So rather than allow poor people the crazy, controversial freedom of actually being able to move around the world they inhabit, government must hem them in – and never mind that we deprive them of the chance to improve their wealth, government can account for that too, via massive transfers of wealth – between governments. Hey, it’s worked for Africa…
The timing of your post, Dane, is also a tad odd as it comes directly after two posts by Lib Dems (Martin and Aaron) who both issue sentiments critical of the EU as it currently exists. Contrary to your strange assertion that such sentiments are ‘not welcome’ in the LDs, many of us are of the opinion that whilst the single market and intergovermental structures across Europe are a good thing, much about the EU is not positive and needs reform. This makes us not Euro-septics but Euro-reformers – which appears to me somewhat more liberal and reasonable than your UKIP-like Euro-sceptic position.
Jeremy Hargreaves, In what way are ‘Anonymous’s views simplistic. Is that just another way of saying that you disagree with them, without saying why? To me her or his views seem very much to the point, albeit with a bit of a colourful ending.
And to call someone cowardly because they use a nom de plume is again a way of saying that you disagree with her or him without saying why.
Perhaps it may be necessary for ambitious individuals within the LibDems who hold the EU-sceptic views that Anonymous does to present them anonymously while the pro and anti EU tectonic plates seem to be shifting within the party.
I must say I found it a great relief to rediscover the nowadays EU-sceptic Liberal Party and leave UKIP, to which I belonged for a while. But it is fundamentally unsatisfactory to have two Liberal Parties.
A single Liberal Party ought to become the non-single issue party of protest in favour of leaving full membership of the EU, undercutting the single issue right wing UKIP, while being in favour of European and international cooperation. A Clause IV moment for the LibDems?
* “Euro-septics”
Perhaps a Freudian slip. You know what I meant.
‘Julian H’, I take your point. My point is about the rate of immigration, not the level. Too much change too quickly can be harmful. Labelling members of the Liberal Party as being of ‘socialist leaning’ is to be ignorant of the facts.
‘Julian H’, I hadn’t noticed the “Euro-septics”! But thank you for your elliptical apology – if I may take it as such!
Well I apologise for the generalisation; sadly I suffer from a bizarre form of politico-tourettes in which I instinctively accuse everyone of being either a socialist or a fascist. In fairness, this is probably provoked by waking up to interviews on ‘Today’, at which such outbursts are usually justified.
Having said that, the last time I looked at the Liberal Party’s site (admittedly about two years ago) I recall my main thoughts being that it suffered from pedantry and a strong veering to the Left. I confess to not being aware until today that they (/you) are in favour of withdrawing from the EU.
Lib Dems seem to be in contradiction with themselves in one major point.
Lib Dems often declare that they want to devolve power to the local government, closer to the people. At the same time they support treaties devolving power to Brussels, further away from people.
Maybe there isn’t a contradiction, but Lib Dems are just inable to articulate how are these two objectives compatible with the other. In that case they should figure out how to articulate how these two objectives are compatible with the other. If they can’t do that, they should choose which objectibe they are supporting.
EU has many fine qualities, not least the common market, to which Liberals, having always supported free trade and freedom of movement, naturally feel affection to. But Lib Dems should be able to a more nuanced analysis about what is good and liberal and what isn’t.
EU has many illiberal features as well, the obvious loss of direction, the ignorance of the democratically expressed opinions, the inclination to devolve more and more powers to unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels and inability to stop the swelling of the EU machine.
Lib Dems shouldn’t just swallow anything that comes from the EU as inherently good. What are they afraid of? Being scolded by José Manuel Barroso?
‘Julian H’,
Thank you, again! Not an unique syndrome, I guess!
Is accusing people of being pedantic another problem?
Left/Right? Personally I am, and have always been, in favour of a meritocratic popular capitalism in which all have greater equality of opportunity in education, health and the inheritance of wealth, while all activities are privatised except for those which either cannot be or ought not to be rationed by price.
The latter include education and health, in my opinion. I, but not as yet the Liberal Party, would put VAT on all expenditure on private education and private health in order to use the proceeds to improve the National Eduction Service and the National Health Service.
Dangerous socialist leaning or Liberal concern for greater equality of opportunity?
You might like see http://www.liberal.org.uk. It has recently been updated
Dane Clouston wrote:
“The longer the Liberal Democrats are seen as EU-fanatics the more they will go into long term decline.
There is an EU-sceptic Liberal Party (www.liberal.org.uk). The Liberal Democrats ought to become EU-sceptic…”
– And raise their support to the same level as The Liberal Party? I actually agree with you that the Liberal Democrats should merge again with the Liberal Party and allow liberal EU-sceptics in, but if liberal Euro-sceptism would be the trick to get the support in rise, why hasn’t The (Euro-sceptic) Liberal Party done better?
I would recommend constructive criticism towards EU. There are liberal elements in it, and those should be defended by Liberals, and there are illiberal elements, that should be opposed. There’s no reason why Liberals should take or leave EU as it is, they should try to reform it more vigorously, and even sometimes publicly oppose attempts to increase its powers, which are tried to disguise as “reforms”.
Jeremy Hargreaves: “This is all why the simplistic comments made above by the cowardly individual hiding behind the word ‘Anonymous’, that all treaty reform should be abandoned are, while perhaps understandable, not a realistic way forward.”
Maybe I’m giving an extra weapon against myself by remaining anonymous (Actually I didn’t fill the Name box at all), and let people like Jeremy Hargreaves instead of actually answering my arguments to abuse me by calling me a coward.
However, Jeremy Hargreaves or anybody here has never met me, and my name would not tell them anything, so it wouldn’t help them in any way. If I used my real name, on the other hand, my comments could be easily found with Google by people, who you also don’t know but who could use them against me. I could of course also use a pseudonym, but somehow I don’t feel that would be honest, I prefer to remain openly anonymous.
After answering to the personal abuse issued by Jeremy Hargreaves, I’d like to add that I’m for some kind of reform. However, this treaty has been rejected in its two incarnations, and the EU Elite should already accept that. They should take a long break, stop trying to patch up the treaty already dead, and concentrate to every day things that need to be done. After perhaps 10-20 years they could draft a whole new treaty, much simpler so that people can actually understand it and not be left with the suspicion that the EU Elite is trying to slip something that the people are opposed to in the mega-sized paragraph jungle.
The basic treaties don’t need to be long. The United States Constitution has 27 amendments that can easily be printed on few pages. The Treaty of Lisbon has 152 pages (before the protocols and declarations). The EU Elite can’t expect people with day jobs to read the whole treaty before accepting it in a referendum. Few people are ready to sign a paper without reading and understanding it.
Therefore this kind of basic treaties should be kept short and simple. The details can then be agreed for instance in the EP in accordance with the basic treaty that is controlling the power of the EP and other EU organs and protecting the rights of EU citizens. The paragraphs about the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy or common safety concerns in public health matters don’t need to be included in the basic treaty nor be presented for a referendum.
I think the basic treaty should be few pages long, using intelligible language, and it should be send for each EU citizen, who could then read it and make up his or her mind, whether he or she supports it.
‘Anonymous’
Why have the Liberal Party not done better?
To start with, as I am sure you know, the Liberals were restarted in 1989 with the same Liberal Party Constitution by people who did not approve the merger with the SDP. Personally, I was all for the merger, and was criticised for joining the SDP while being Chairman of the Oxfordshire Liberal Group.
I hadn’t even heard of the restarted and very small continuation Liberal Party until a few years ago. They have kept going in local government and have gradually changed as perceptions of the EU have changed – and as the founding father Michael Meadowcroft has left to rejoin the LibDems. They are still small, but were it not for a defection from Independent to another party they would have held the balance of power in Liverpool City Council this year.
I joined them with a great sense of relief because they were opposed to the Euro, which the Liberal Democratic Party misguidely supported. Interestingly they had also changed from support for the old Liberal Party shibboleth of regional government into opposing to the EU inspired regional assemblies that would take us into the break up of the UK and its absorbtion into a dozen or so regions in the single country called Europe.
Why have they not done better? Why had the Liberal Party not done better in 1970. I remember a Constituency Party meeting after the 1970 election in Newbury when we had about three people present (maybe that is a Hilaryism and my memory is exaggerating – but it seems like that in retrospect. I know we were very few.) but then we went on to very nearly win the seat in 1974 – twice.
There was a tipping point then, because we had clear and distinctive ideas distinguishing us from both Labour (privatisation) and Conservatives (fairness). There will be a tipping point now when Liberals generally re-assess the public perception of our full membership of the EU and distinguish themselves from both New Labour (EU-scepticism) and Conservatives (fairness). We seem to be at the beginning of such a process. At least it seems that for Liberal Democrats to criticise our membership of the EU is no longer a kind of EU-blasphemy.
Constructive criticism is good, but there is more to the world than Continental Europe. I do not want to be ruled by a Bureacratic Empire from Brussels. I remember a meeting with Vaclav Klaus, now the President of the Czech Republic, in Brussels, many years ago. He said that when they said “Back to Europe” they thought they were going back to being one of a number of independent sovereign nations, not to a new bureacratic empire of the kind they had just left. I hope he will be able to stop the Czech Rephublic from ratifying the Lisbon Treaty.
There is too much that is wrong with the EU for us to continue to be full members of it. Let others pay for the bloated bureaucracy, corruption, accounts that are never signed off and inappropriate meddling in our affairs. Let us rule ourselves and cooperate with others in all sorts of ways without being forced into a direction that does not suit us or our history or our friends throughout the world.
Dane Clouston, what I meant is that you suggested (thoug indirectly), that if Lib Dems would become Euro-sceptic, the decline of their support would stop. If liberal Euro-scepticism would be more popular than liberal Euro-fanatism, shouldn’t the support of The Liberal Party be higher than the support of the Liberal Democrats?
I think that leaving EU as whole is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there is much objectionable about the EU from a liberal point of view, but it has also achieved a lot of good. Therefore I’d prefer constructive criticism. Let’s abandon the illiberal features of EU, but lets keep the liberal features.
And you are right when you say that there is more to the world than Continental Europe, but that doesn’t mean that Britain should turn it’s back to the Continental Europe. The EU should be more open to the rest of the world (a place for constuctive criticism), but leaving EU would close more doors than it would open.
Any discussion of the EU really does bring out the nutters, doesn’t it? (See above)
sad sad sad.
I thought there were some rules of condunction on this site, but it doesn’t seem to apply to everyone. ColinW, sad that you can’t play the ball, not the player.
LDs don’t agree with everything which comes out of Europe. We’re the only party in this country that believes that the ineffectual system the Tories signed us up to in 1973 (Heath), 1985 (Thatcher) and 1992 (Major) is in need of urgent reform, which is why we support the Lisbon amending treaty.
When Labour or the Tories have any kind of policy on Europe beyond ‘giving-in-when-in-government’, then perhaps they can criticise us for, er, wanting to reform the EU and make it more democratic.
If by EU-sceptics we mean constructive critics, rather than destructive critics, then, yes, there is space in the LibDems.
Some of the criticism does have a strong basis which follows the old debate about free trade vs tariff boundaries, but it is a false debate to view it as a fight between an international elite and a national elite for the dominant political position.
In my personal opinion the EU is reaching an existential impasse of it’s own creation of which the divergence between people and politicians is a disturbing symptom.
In one sense I agree that Brussels has missed a step in its progress by failing to integrate Switzerland, Norway, Iceland etc before looking further eastwards, in a second sense I think the EU isn’t moving in tempo so these frictions are unavoidable. At one level this results in the linguistic difficulty of writing singular tracts which can be uniformly interpreted by all sides, at another this can be seen in the disconformity of adherence to the commonly agreed regulations.
‘Colin W’
‘Nutters’ and ‘sad, sad, sad’ are par for the course as ways of defending a philosophical or political view that has turned into a kind of unquestionable dogma or religion.
Which countries put people into mental hospitals when they become politically inconvient? China, for one, I gather, from a recent BBC report.
Are you a PC EU-fanatic Liberal Democrat? Or were your comments addressed to the defenders of the EU?
‘Anonymous’
My contention is that when people know that there is a growing EU-sceptic Liberal Party as well as a declining EU-fanatic Liberal Democratic Party, and if the opinion polls are right, for a start, in the percentage of people who wish to have a referendum and those who do not, then, leaving aside habit and personal loyalties to individual representatives, more voters will support the former than the latter when they have an opportunity to do so. It is just a question of information and the time it takes to spread and to sink in and change voting habits.
Of course if public opinion becomes overwhelmingly pro-EU and really pleased to be relieved of the responsibility of voting on how and by whom they are to be governed, then that would be another matter!
Dane, it is a shame for your argument that your contention doesn’t reflect reality.
Dane Clouston @12.24: sorry if my argument wasn’t clear. I wasn’t calling Anonymous’s arguments “simplistic” just as random abuse – my reason for thinking they are simplistic are that (many) people don’t like the EU and want it reformed, but a suspicion of anything to do with the EU means they veto any proposals to improve it, as happened in Ireland last week. This is why I think it is “simplistic” just to suggest that the idea of this or any other treaty be simply abandoned. I had tried to make these points in my comment above and also in the comment on my own blog that I linked to, but sorry if this wasn’t clear.
[email protected]: I accept your suggestion in this comment about leaving it a while and then trying to do the whole thing again more simply in the future, as a sincere one. But I’m afraid – again, not abusively, but realistically – that I do think this is a simplistic view of what’s possible. Each of us might not want very much from such a new constitution or document, but the document we have had in front of us for the last few years (first the so-called Constitution, now Lisbon) is the outcome of just such a process (indeed a very exhaustive and lengthy one). Some people may not like the outcome, but it is essentially the result of just such a process as you describe. The problem is,of course, that different people and different countries want different things out of it, and this is why agreeing something by all is so difficult.
The parallel with amendments to the US Constitution is an an apt one I think, if somewhat depressing. Because any amendment to it requires the unanimous agreement of all 50 States, it is now almost impossible to amend the US Constitution.
On the “Anonymous” thing: I think calling what I said “abuse” is a bit strong, but I’m afraid I do think it is somewhat cowardly to hide behind it, even if people do feel they have reasons for it.
However you do also raise another point which I think is a good one and worth pursuing further. Lib Dems supporting both more devolution to the local level, and also the sharing of some sovereignty at the European level may well at first view appear to be contradictory.
I don’t think they are, however. I think there are essentially two views of this: firstly that all power should reside at the level of the nation state, with just a few minor powers allowed to local areas, and some shared at EU level, but both still essentially controlled at national level.
The second view is that sovereignty does not belong uniquely at national level, but that in order to work in the best interests of citizens, some powers should be shared at a local level, others at a national level, and others at European (and others a global) level. This seems to me fairly self-evidently true though I’d be happy to argue it through further (though perhaps not here as this comment already seems to be quite long enough!).
You may or may not agree with this approach, but this is the common thread between these two apparently contradictory approaches: that there is nothing uniquely special about the level of the nation state.
Jeremy, I think we could go one stage further and apply that analysis to governance at a global level, rather than just up to continent polities.
Many of the criticisms of the EU apply equally to the UN and could be solved in a similar manner.
I think we do need to understand government as a layered chain of powers to be held and operated by representative bodies at the appropriate level for their function, but I’m split over whether to support a UN parliamentary assembly to balance and offset the powers of the general assembly and various councils, or whether this would be better constituted on a regional basis, and at what size – maybe you could offer some thoughts.
It strikes me as blindingly obvious however, that once you accept the principle that is is impractical and impossible for any single person to rule with divine right it becomes an open question what the correct level of decision-making powers held by any representative group should be.
wit and wisdom
You asked for a short new euro constitution. There is one up now on the Members Forum. It is pretty simple, and almost understandable. You and others may wish to use the draft as a chopping board.
Jeremy Hargreaves wrote: “Each of us might not want very much from such a new constitution or document, but the document we have had in front of us for the last few years (first the so-called Constitution, now Lisbon) is the outcome of just such a process (indeed a very exhaustive and lengthy one).”
Does anybody anymore remember, how it all started? Valéry Giscard d’Estaing get a task to bring together the various basic treaties of EU in order to simplify the paragraph jungle. Instead he exceeded his authority and desided to erect a monument to himself, by drafting “a constitution” (which was never called for). Instead of merely bringing together the existing treaties he invited the representatives of different interest groups to record their privileges into the “constitution”. It no longer was what a constitution is, it became a whole legislation called a “constitution”. And all those people who now claim that this “reform” is “needed” have totally forgotten what the reform was supposed tp achieve. Now the only possibility I can see is to start again from scratch. Not because of the French, or the Dutch, or the Irish who all rejected the treaty, but thanks to Valéry Giscard d’Estaing who refused to stick to his last.
Now we could go on with this forever, but actually after the abuse you have aimed at me, I don’t have any more time to you.
‘Oranjepan’,
There is a lot of anger in the country at the way Gordon Brown’s New Labour, Nick Clegg’s LibDems and EU leaders are treating us over the promised and then denied referendum.
Given the starting point, the EU-sceptic Liberal Party has a long way to climb, and the EU-fanatic Liberal Democrat Party a good way to fall. Somewhere along the line there may be a meeting of minds again over the EU between the two. That would be good.
It is interesting that being far from significant power has enabled the Liberal Party to reflect the sense of protest in the country better than the Liberal Democrats do, given that the latter are now part of the political establishment as they never were when I was nearly elected Liberal MP for Newbury in 1974.
In present curcumstances I do not see a successful narrative for the EU-fanatic LibDems as a party of protest nor as a partner in government. After all, they would have taken us into the Euro. At present, I and many others see them, with their current EU-fanatic cast of mind – ‘Colin W’ being an example, perhaps – as people who would give away our country as a collection of regions in a country called Europe.
It is that about which we wish to protest. So, from our point of view, the fewer EU-fanatic LibDem MPs there are at Westminster, the better, since they might hold the balance of power. For that reason, they are nowadays regrettably the last possible party for which we would vote.
“Because any amendment to it requires the unanimous agreement of all 50 States, it is now almost impossible to amend the US Constitution.”
Only 3/4s of states are needed.
The last amendment was as recently as 1992 – though as this took over 200 years to be ratified it may not be strongly supportive of my case 🙂
Thanks Diversity, this may have to wait until I leave the office…
Dane, given that neither Labour nor the Conservatives are liberal in any real sense of the word (although there are undoubtably liberal members of both parties) the fact that you elevate some bizarre notion of “EU fanatics” to the issue on which you would base your vote (at presumably any level of Government) suggests to me that you would be more at home in UKIP than the continuing Liberal Party. There are issues on which I disagree with Lib Dem policy – but I’d rather have a Lib Dem MP in parliament than a Labour or Tory one because I want to help ensure that Britain is a more liberal country.
I don’t think the Liberal Party reflect much at all, let alone a sense of protest. If anything, the Green Party can increasingly claim this mantle. They too are a eurosceptic minor party, although I don’t necessarily think that voters vote for them on the EU issue.
For me, part of being a liberal is recognising that there are appropriate levels of governance for all issues. We need full scale and appropriate devolution depending on the issue – to communities, local councils, (dare I say it) regions, national assemblies, the UK parliament and supranational bodies.
That’s not to say there aren’t problems with the existing structure (ironically that I think Lisbon might solve some of these) and especially in perception. People genuinely do believe the establishment is shoehorning them into it. We need a referendum on EU membership and the ‘establishment’ needs to argue properly in favour of it (and hopefully win).
‘Grammar Police’
What a daunting Nom de Plume!
Thank you for your comments. I joined UKIP when I left the LibDems because it became heretical to question our membership of the EU (hence “EU-fanatics”), but left because they were too right wing for me. Our local UKIP representative was of the “All tax is theft” school of thought! In particular the party now offically espouses the abolition rather than reform of Inheritance Tax, which puts them completely beyond the pale as far as I am concerned. (see http://www.universal-inheritance.org)
So I was very pleased to rediscover the EU-sceptic Liberal Party opposing the Euro while the LibDems were swallowing it hook, line and sinker. I am glad to say that the Liberal Party has since adopted British Universal Inheritance, a policy proposal others will pick up in due course.
As for how to vote in the Henley By-election, I had come to the same conclusion as you. Unless and until the LibDems take a Liberal, Democratic and honourable view of the way the EU operates and the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution, the Green Party seems the best alternative to the Liberal Party from my EU-sceptic point of view.
I take your point about appropriate levels of governance and international cooperation, but within the UK I am inclined to prefer unitary authorities to regions nowadays, mainly because the latter are now EU-inspired and unelected.
We need the referendum Nick Clegg’s LibDems promised us first, before any ‘In and Out’ one, if the party is to recover its reputation.
Indeed; it’s certainly daunting to live up to (not something I always do)!
Ignoring, for the moment, whether the Lib Dem manifesto did promise a referendum on a treaty like Lisbon: surely Lisbon is just a side issue. The thing you really want is an in-out referendum? How do you argue in favour of an amending treaty? It would turn into a proxy pro/anti referendum. We might as well just have the real thing – which is what Liberal Democrat policy is.
Dane, I wasn’t agreeing, but you did sort of make sense up until
a) you demanded the resurrection of the constitution (so that we could vote on it), and
b) opposed the in or out vote (because you want to get out)
Shome mishtake shurely.
‘Gammar Police’
Not a side issue, but a halt to the onward march of EU control – including stoppoing the EU from being able to make more changes in the future without another treaty.
Yes, you would lose a referendum on this EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, but you would not necessarily lose a different amending treaty, if it were heading in a direction voters approved of – (Sorry Sergeant! – of which voters approved!). By making it acceptable is how you argue for an amending treaty.
You cannot leave to one side the question of the promise. There is no question of “it might as well be the real thing” – which you think you would win.
I cannot see why you are not feeling extremely uncomfortable arguing as you do, which is really trying to avoid sticking to a promise and instead sliding round a promise in a slippery way. Really very wrong! I would be ashamed to belong to a party which did that without putting it right.
The Liberal Democratic Party now has a great opportunity to do just that, by supporting the Conservative proposal in the House of Lords to delay ratification following the Irish No. How can you possibly let the Conservatives be the defenders of democracy against the Liberal Democrats? I am dumbstruck (metaphorically speaking), flabbergasted and appalled at my old party.
Joe Otten,
Did I? I thought I demanded a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty in order to halt the onwards march of EU control, and then, when that is won, I would like there to be a referendum on ‘In or Out’ at some stage. Firsht things firsht!
Dane you said a referendum on the constitution – a document that was dead long ago. OK, if you meant the constitution or Lisbon, that is different, the latter is only recently dead.
And why first things first? I think there is something of a scorched earth attitude to opposing reforms to make the EU more democratic and efficient, simply because you want it to fail and to get out.
Joe Otten:
The King is dead. Long live the King! The EU Constitution may be dead but the Lisbon Treaty is essentially the same, even for Britain. The EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty reforms would increase the power of the EU and enable them to make future changes in the same direction without any further treaties. EU democracy and EU efficiency do not necessarily go together.
This amending treaty would be lost in a referendum. No scorched earth! It is just that from the point of view of EU sceptics that would be good, even thought the best would be to leave altogether.
First things first because one should never make the best the enemy of the good.
Samuel Brittan: Why the Irish were right to say No
“If you are looking for examples of nonsense on stilts you could hardly find a better instance than the reactions of the European political establishment to the Irish No vote in the referendum on the Lisbon treaty.
To begin with, it is not “a defeat for Europe”. It is not even a defeat for the European Union. It is a defeat for a certain vision of the EU.
First and foremost there is the goal of shifting more and more decisions to the EU level. This started after the second world war as a noble effort to end all possibility of war between Germany and France. It was twinned with the creation of a large area of liberal trade, in a world still full of restrictions. As the original goals have been lost in the mists of time, the aim of “more Europe” has been pursued by the leading group of politicians and bureaucrats for its own sake, even to extending to the Brussels level decisions that are left to the state level in the US. …”
Read the whole article here.
Joe Otten, please read the article I refered to in my previous message. It says:
“But the framers of the ill-fated constitutional treaty were determined to extend the EU competence. When France and the Netherlands threw this out in their referendums the eurocrats came up with the Lisbon treaty. Valérie Giscard d’Estaing, who presided over the original convention, declared that it amounted to the same thing. “
Forgive me if I don’t take Valery Giscard d’Estaing’s word every time. Do you think I should?
However similar the documents are, a vote to approve one would not be valid as a vote to approve the other. To demand a vote on the constitution is therefore to demand its resurrection.
This was a pedantic point, not one of any great political significance, so I think I will drop it now.
You don’t have to take his word every time. However, he was the author of the original constitution, so he should know. But perhaps he’s just lying, like all of those b****y Frenchmen?
But you are right in one thing; I think that the Lisbon Treaty indeed is an attempt to resurrect the constitution, although with another name. Those EU bureaucrats just don’t know when to give up, do they?