Anyway, David Miliband will do the honours on the UK's behalf, but please remember that it's a Treaty not a Constitution which is being signed....
...and as the government says, a public vote on the Treaty is unnecessary because there are no reference to "constitutional" issues, it just tidies up the bits and bobs, odds and ends, a bit of consolidation if you like, doesn't really change anything.
Well, when almost no one was looking, an extra piece was been popped into the new EU Treaty/Constitution(pdf: Members' Declarations, page 31, Article 52):
Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Spain, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic declare that the flag with a circle of twelve golden stars on a blue background, the anthem based on the "Ode to Joy" from the Ninth Symphony by Ludwig van Beethoven, the motto "United in diversity", the euro as the currency of the European Union and Europe Day on 9 May will for them continue as symbols to express the sense of community of the people in the European Union and their allegiance to it.
We're not included, so not to worry, we can keep flying the Union Jack and singing GSTQ, but for everyone else, all this talk about flags, anthems, currency, Europe-wide holidays, isn't that all a bit..."constitutional"?
And if it is a "constitutional reference", then shouldn't we (we as in "all the citizens of the European Union") be not getting a vote on the matter?
Hattip: EU Referendum.
10 comments:
Course, if you actually had a Constitution, you might be able to bitch about it.
I know of a nearby state where all of these treaties must go to referendum by the people automatically and without question. Perhaps you'd like to join.....
I know of a nearby state where all of these treaties must go to referendum by the people automatically and without question.
Unfortunately the will of the people expressed in that type of referendum isn't automatically respected...remember Nice?
Unfortunately the will of the people expressed in that type of referendum isn't automatically respected...remember Nice?
True enough, however the point is, that it cant pass without the acceptance of the people, regardless of how many times they go back to ask. The people can always say no.
You have to admit that there must be a problem with the existing system in the UK, and other EU countries, which allow this treaty and other treaties pass without passing them first by those whose lives these treaties will effect.
Kloot
True enough, however the point is, that it cant pass without the acceptance of the people, regardless of how many times they go back to ask. The people can always say no.
So what they're saying, in effect, is: " Of course we'll keep asking "the people", but only until they give us the *right* answer"? Isn't that a superficial kind of democracy, just for appearance's sake?
You have to admit that there must be a problem with the existing system in the UK, and other EU countries, which allow this treaty and other treaties pass without passing them first by those whose lives these treaties will effect
We should be getting a vote on the EU Treaty/Constitution.
But it's only the ROI (and poss. Denmark) as far as I know who're giving their citizens that option and it's not just the ROI which has a written constitution. So the fact that we don't have a constitution hasn't put us in a better or worse situation than those citizens in other country's which do.
"So what they're saying, in effect, is: " Of course we'll keep asking "the people", but only until they give us the *right* answer"? Isn't that a superficial kind of democracy, just for appearance's sake?"
I dislike the going back, but they could have justifiably placed a minimum turn out for ratification; many countries do for referendum's. It's unthinkable they'd have went back for a third time.
If the Irish people take a mind to get out of Europe, it's unthinkable it won't happen, because they'll merely keep defeating it in necessary referendums. You can't actually say the same about Britain.
So what they're saying, in effect, is: " Of course we'll keep asking "the people", but only until they give us the *right* answer"? Isn't that a superficial kind of democracy, just for appearance's sake?
Theres nothing "Just for appearance sake" about it. Regardless of how many times they went back, the government had to go back. It could not ratify the treaty without a yes referendum vote. Of course I dislike them going back, they would justify it on the grounds that there had a been a lack of public education on the treaty. I do not think they would have gone back a 3rd time.
In contrast... no other member state is willing to give their citizens an opt in our out. Which would you prefer?
In contrast... no other member state is willing to give their citizens an opt in our out. Which would you prefer?
I want a referendum, of course.
What a typically strange piece of misinformation from EU referendum. First, you may not have noticed, but eleven countries are missing from the list, so so much for "for everyone else."
Second, a member's declaration in a treaty isn't the same as a treaty provision. Which makes the difference here between something being real and imagined. All that's happening is that 16 countries have reaffirmed something that has existed since 1985: that the Union has a few symbols. Where, pray, does it say that these supersede national symbols?
This, of course, is going to be the tone of the no side of the Irish referendum campaign: strange scare stories drawn from distorted readings of select parts of the treaty. The treaty is flawed (more flawed than the constitution as first mooted would have been), and the pro-side in Ireland certainly won't make sensible arguments either (they'll rely on various threats about influence and jobs).
Still, why not try to get to grips with the treaty itself than seek out people who simply aren't interested in what the facts of the case might be? How depressing.
Found these guys yesterday:
Libertas.org
Good luck to them.
For all the talk about the Irish government having to ask the people in referenda before handing over sovereignty (which, I'll admit, I envy) it seems like they won't have to do this in future.
I just hope they realise this when they're voting on it, or else this consultation of the people will be pretty meaningless.
Beano
First, you may not have noticed, but eleven countries are missing from the list, so so much for "for everyone else."
That was more a rhetorical flourish on my part, I didn’t count the number of countries, but I did realize that both the ROI and more curiously perhaps,France were excluded. Also Treaty/Constitution or not, I also realise that the EU’s ability to limit the flying of flags other than their own, is rather like their ability to limit Romanian farmers from their traditional way of killing their pigs.…ie “limited”! So I am aware at the minute we're debating more theoretical than real powers.
Nevertheless, Brown and the UK govt have not granted the referendum on the basis that it is a Treaty with specifically no constitutional references included, which (whether the points in question are simply declarations or not) is simply not true. Pedantic point perhaps, but still technically a valid one.
Your point about actually checking out the treaty for myself, fair enough, but this is one of the reasons why I believe we should have a referendum. I’m a Europhile and broadly agree with the concept of the EU, however, I also believe that the European Union should be accountable to the citizens of the EU- let's have all the issues out in the open, give us an open and honest debate; let the Eurocrats explain to me in words of three syllables or less why this isn’t a constitution...and if they still can’t convince me and other UK citizens of its worth via a referendum, then whose fault is that?
Post a Comment