Pushing through an EU amendment treaty without emphatic support from the individual nation states (that is the form people who democratically form such a body) smacks of ingenuity, covertness and a blatant disregard for opinions of those who should 'make or break' the institution that was established as a meeting of minds - not a system of instruction. It is denying the very political method it is meant to be representative of; democracy.
The agreement of a long session in Brussels last June is a re-badged constitution that is no different from its sister document; Ireland's Bertie Ahern reckoned it was 90% the same, the Spanish calculated 98% while Angela Merkel, whose EU presidency as German Chancellor presided over the formation of the treaty, admitted that they were using "different terminology without changing the substance...to make the constitution a success".
It is also not reassuring that the only faith that political leaders have in the treaty and its contents is to push it through 'the back door' rather than facilitating an open discussion or ratification by universal suffrage. The argument for this could be the rejection of the constitution by France and Holland first time round but I recall that the 'official line' on this was that the refusal to ratify was a retort for local political issues and not the EU constitution itself. Even if the opt-outs that Britain obtained in their so called 'red line defences' or Sarkozy's removal of free market competition being at the heart of the EU identity are considered as being enough amendments to permit a u-turn the promise of a referendum, As Tony Blair said in 2004 "You can't have a...rejection of a treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go”.Likewise, it is not right to have a scenario that the Irish found themselves in with the Nice Treaty where the people were forced to vote and vote again until they 'got it right!’ What is wrong with the theory that people should have the final say on how they wish to be governed and essentially the make-up of that system of governance?
The agreement of a long session in Brussels last June is a re-badged constitution that is no different from its sister document; Ireland's Bertie Ahern reckoned it was 90% the same, the Spanish calculated 98% while Angela Merkel, whose EU presidency as German Chancellor presided over the formation of the treaty, admitted that they were using "different terminology without changing the substance...to make the constitution a success".
It is also not reassuring that the only faith that political leaders have in the treaty and its contents is to push it through 'the back door' rather than facilitating an open discussion or ratification by universal suffrage. The argument for this could be the rejection of the constitution by France and Holland first time round but I recall that the 'official line' on this was that the refusal to ratify was a retort for local political issues and not the EU constitution itself. Even if the opt-outs that Britain obtained in their so called 'red line defences' or Sarkozy's removal of free market competition being at the heart of the EU identity are considered as being enough amendments to permit a u-turn the promise of a referendum, As Tony Blair said in 2004 "You can't have a...rejection of a treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go”.Likewise, it is not right to have a scenario that the Irish found themselves in with the Nice Treaty where the people were forced to vote and vote again until they 'got it right!’ What is wrong with the theory that people should have the final say on how they wish to be governed and essentially the make-up of that system of governance?
No comments:
Post a Comment