Well this is better – a substantive post by the Economist and not a lazy flick of the wrist dismissal of sceptics as types inhabiting a hysterical freak show. The Economist has at least taken up Richard North’s trenchant challenge.
The Economist states that, in law, the claim of eurosceptics that Britain is going to lose control of its foreign policy is false. The Economist states that the “unanimity lock” means that member states agreement is necessary before an EU foreign policy initiative can commence (point 34 according to Richard North).
Richard North & Helen Szamuely at EU referendum do not contradict this – they merely point to the new foundational principles which the treaty does embody and they suggest that these can be used to alter this legal status in the future. They also point out that the treaty permits the EU to "borrow" the British and French permanent seats at the UN and that whilst this does not mean (as some sceptics have claimed) the abolition of the French and British security council seats it does oblige them to stay silent and defer to the high representative on matters of agreed EU policy.
The EU foreign policy then is to be a “foreign policy of the gaps”. A “no objections” mandate is granted to develop foreign policy where the member states prior, unanimous and specific agreement is obtained. In this innocuous form and with fond wishes from family and friends a baby is born unto the world and his name will be High Representative.
We are hastily reassured that he will only ever be the high representative of low tasks – tidying up foreign policy lacunae, presenting a united EU front at harmless international boondoggles such as the conference of the regions etc. He will be just another pointless speechmaker in that home of pointless speechmaking – the UN.
But he is proud successor to a race of giants - Presidents of the European Commission, EU trade Commissioner, President of the European central Bank, President of the European Court of Justice and others whose modest beginnings have not prevented them from becoming mightier than their now anaemic nation state progenitors. He is a prince of the same incremental kingdom that gave us the “trade policy of the gaps”, “judicial review of the gaps”, the “currency oversight of the gaps” and so on, and on….and on.
In practise the gaps are quickly filled and the principles of “harmonisation” start to be urged. The helplessness of the puny nation state in a new world of hostile giants is the preferred rhetoric of dread. To this background orchestration of fear and loathing the clear note of a trumpet is sounded – salvation! The great ring of power can be forged by the high representative if the nation stations melt their puny rings of power in the sacred and cleansing flames of the European “pool”.
Here is where the currently anodyne words of article 9 cease to be aspirational and become the very bread and butter of practical power politics. They provide a legal basis to undermine, subvert and finally overthrow point 34 and with it the independence (inter alia) of British foreign policy.
And under the “ratchet clause” the Constitution (sorry treaty) provides the means to accomplish this without any of those troublesome summits with their “red lines” and vulgar brinksmanship. Now it can all be wrapped up elegantly and quietly by the “colleagues” behind closed doors - just business as usual – nothing to see here.
The Economist can claim that mine is only a forecast – and a pessimistic one at that. But it cannot do so with the sanction of history. It cannot deny that the EU “has form”. The words “ever closer Union” were an aspiration when they were written. Today they are a real and existing fact.
The Economist tells us that the gap between the “legalese” of the treaty and the “real politik” of nation state dominated power politics means that the treaty’s words are irrelevant. However the history of the European Union teaches us that these gaps between the de jure claims of the “project” and their de facto realisation are quickly closed and always in favour of the EU centre at the expense of the Nation State periphery.
I am also reminded of a tragic and romantic episode in the history of Ireland’s absorption into the Kingdom of England. Henry VIII persuaded the powerful chiefs of Ireland to acknowledge his suzerainty over them and granted them the anglicized rank of “earls”. At the time this was presented to the Irish chiefs as a harmless diplomatic formality as their power was greater in Ireland than his. But as Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth I, proceeded to make flesh his words against these overmighty subjects, one by one, she effectively relied on their “loyalty” oath (and heavy bribery) to keep them disunited. The end of Gaelic glory came when the last victims (O’Donnel & O’Niell) were forced to flee Ireland in the “flight of the Earls”. As they departed they may have ruefully reflected on their ancestor’s folly in accepting unenforceable legal claims of power instead of countering Henry’s de jure claim of authority with their united de facto power from the very outset.
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Europe. Show all posts
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The critics must fix the Treaty
Observer Editorial “The Tories have not said how they would change the treaty to make it acceptable. And if they think no treaty would be acceptable, they might as well be lobbying to quit the EU completely.”
This is the sort of cretinous circularity that routinely disfigures Europhile arguments. Unless you want more Europe you have to get out. Was the Observer demanding that France be expelled after the Non? – No it was not.
The critics of the treaty have no obligation to improve it. It is as valid for the British to say no as it was for the French & Dutch. It is also valid for them to state that no to “more Europe” really does means no and is not a flirts signal that can be cynically recast to mean “we really want more Europe please try again”. This rapists charter does greater harm to the image of the EU then any “myth” generated by the Sun could achieve.
The public in Europe are fed up of the EU claque pushing these dishonest options. It is a self destructive tactic since if they continue with it they will build a bigger “better off out” constituency then they will ever be able to handle.
This is the sort of cretinous circularity that routinely disfigures Europhile arguments. Unless you want more Europe you have to get out. Was the Observer demanding that France be expelled after the Non? – No it was not.
The critics of the treaty have no obligation to improve it. It is as valid for the British to say no as it was for the French & Dutch. It is also valid for them to state that no to “more Europe” really does means no and is not a flirts signal that can be cynically recast to mean “we really want more Europe please try again”. This rapists charter does greater harm to the image of the EU then any “myth” generated by the Sun could achieve.
The public in Europe are fed up of the EU claque pushing these dishonest options. It is a self destructive tactic since if they continue with it they will build a bigger “better off out” constituency then they will ever be able to handle.
They have come to bury Democracy – not to praise it….
According to the Commission in 2005 the EU adopted 1,691 regulations, directives and decisions. According to the Office of Public Service information, in 2005 Britain enacted 3,326 statutory instruments (secondary legislation via which all EU legislation is adopted) and according to Wikipedia just 23 acts of primary legislation were passed (those quaint acts of Parliament that we used to be governed by).
As a matter of straight arithmetic therefore the EU is responsible for fully 50% of the total enacted law of the UK in 2005. This flatters the domestic contribution since a great proportion of domestic statutory instruments deal with the alteration of the status of individual schools hospitals etc. and is therefore not law binding on the land as are all EU directives.
Since 1965 fully 22,000 individual acts of enforceable law have been promulgated by the the EU and passed into British law via secondary legislation. In that time the British Parliament has passed just 2355 Acts of Parliament. In other words British primary legislation (the kind that's debated and modified by our elected representatives) comprises an average of 10% of the law passed in Europe over a forty year period. In 2005 the figure was 1%.
As a matter of straight arithmetic therefore the EU is responsible for fully 50% of the total enacted law of the UK in 2005. This flatters the domestic contribution since a great proportion of domestic statutory instruments deal with the alteration of the status of individual schools hospitals etc. and is therefore not law binding on the land as are all EU directives.
Since 1965 fully 22,000 individual acts of enforceable law have been promulgated by the the EU and passed into British law via secondary legislation. In that time the British Parliament has passed just 2355 Acts of Parliament. In other words British primary legislation (the kind that's debated and modified by our elected representatives) comprises an average of 10% of the law passed in Europe over a forty year period. In 2005 the figure was 1%.
Observer leader on the Referendum (I)....
Observer Editorial:
This is a completely false statement.
The differences between the treaties for WTO, NATO etc. and the treaties and institutions of the EU are not differences of degree but differences in kind.
Within an exponentially growing number of areas the EU institutions are a superior policy and law making body to the UK (German, French etc.) government and legislature. According to the German Ministry of Justice 80% of all German law originates in Europe.
In (again an exponentially growing number of areas) the EU court is a superior judicial body to the British (German, French etc.) courts. The definition of whether an area is within its competence is exclusively a matter for the European court to decide.
For members of the Euro the European Bank has supreme authority over interest rates and the Ecofin and commission have superior authority over elected finance ministers over spending and borrowing levels.
There is simply no comparison between these sweeping and expanding powers and the intergovernmental arrangements or treaties such as NATO or the WTO.
Our laws are not made by the IMF or NATO.
We do have free trade and arbitration obligations imposed by the WTO but these are not currently highly controversial and could be repudiated (without even an Act of Parliament) by any government so minded. Any judgement of the WTO arbiters is binding in honour on the government but it is not enforceable against the government or individual companies (or citizens) under British law. British courts do not have to accommodate regulations or judgements of the WTO into British law – it is entirely an intergovernmental matter.
Kyoto obliges us to deliver targets for greenhouse gas reductions. This has economic and regulatory implications but these are entirely for us to construct and deliver. No international agency other than the EU presumes to pass whole bodies of law direct, unchanged and undebated into British law. No other international agency can promulgate law that binds the British government, the British courts and British citizens.
Any agreement on co-operation between governments - membership of Nato or the World Trade Organisation, for example - requires some compromise on national autonomy. The new EU treaty is no different,
This is a completely false statement.
The differences between the treaties for WTO, NATO etc. and the treaties and institutions of the EU are not differences of degree but differences in kind.
Within an exponentially growing number of areas the EU institutions are a superior policy and law making body to the UK (German, French etc.) government and legislature. According to the German Ministry of Justice 80% of all German law originates in Europe.
In (again an exponentially growing number of areas) the EU court is a superior judicial body to the British (German, French etc.) courts. The definition of whether an area is within its competence is exclusively a matter for the European court to decide.
For members of the Euro the European Bank has supreme authority over interest rates and the Ecofin and commission have superior authority over elected finance ministers over spending and borrowing levels.
There is simply no comparison between these sweeping and expanding powers and the intergovernmental arrangements or treaties such as NATO or the WTO.
Our laws are not made by the IMF or NATO.
We do have free trade and arbitration obligations imposed by the WTO but these are not currently highly controversial and could be repudiated (without even an Act of Parliament) by any government so minded. Any judgement of the WTO arbiters is binding in honour on the government but it is not enforceable against the government or individual companies (or citizens) under British law. British courts do not have to accommodate regulations or judgements of the WTO into British law – it is entirely an intergovernmental matter.
Kyoto obliges us to deliver targets for greenhouse gas reductions. This has economic and regulatory implications but these are entirely for us to construct and deliver. No international agency other than the EU presumes to pass whole bodies of law direct, unchanged and undebated into British law. No other international agency can promulgate law that binds the British government, the British courts and British citizens.
More to and fro on the treaty.....
An exchange with d-jones on the Economist thread
With respect if we wanted a “charter of rights” then we are perfectly capable and have all the means at hand to enact one. A European tier is wholly redundant in this regard.
This is the problem – The entrance price for the EU compels us to trade our existing rights as voters to whom our rulers are accountable in order to obtain the privileged position of becoming petitioners to our new rulers in Brussels. “Please reform yourselves” we may plead - but like residents of the Hotel California we can never demand.
I am not interested in a fool’s mission of trying to make a European polity work. It is not anti democratic by accident - it is anti democratic by design and that is the way it will stay because anti democratic is exactly the way our rulers want it.
The notion that there cannot be (and has not been) regional collaboration without the EU is one of the most ridiculous fallacies of this debate. The EU may claim “collaboration” as a fully owned proprietary brand of Brussels inc. but this no reason to take its ludicrous monopoly claims seriously. Extra EU collaboration exists in the European space agency, the European Court of human rights, Nato etc. etc.
The “colleagues” in Brussels deeply resent these autonomous agencies of course – hence their attempt to claim the jurisdiction of the European Convention via this pointless charter. Or to absorb the most cost effective Space programme in the world into that wasteland of unaudited and failed programmes that it already runs. As for NATO the progenitors of the “praline alliance” are very anxious indeed to supplant that and even get their sticky hands on French and British defense capacity just as they got control over the Deutsche Mark via the Euro.
The EU does is not about “collaboration” it is about “compulsion”. You do not need a central power to ensure voluntary collaboration – because it is voluntary it will occur continuously and spontaneously. But you do need a central power if you are to compel states into ‘Collaboration” that they would not otherwise choose for themselves. The EU is all about removing such inconvenient choices. “conformity” and “compliance” are the watchwords of EU collaboration.
If your “ambition” is only to be told what to do and who you can do it with - then the EU is definitely for you.
D jones: “In the meantime, we should appreciate the (charter of) rights that we have protected for ourselves by creating an EU that we can be citizens of..”
With respect if we wanted a “charter of rights” then we are perfectly capable and have all the means at hand to enact one. A European tier is wholly redundant in this regard.
d- jones”..and seek to improve its democratic accountability further - making the council more transparent, increasing the powers of the parliament and working to develop a European polity.”
This is the problem – The entrance price for the EU compels us to trade our existing rights as voters to whom our rulers are accountable in order to obtain the privileged position of becoming petitioners to our new rulers in Brussels. “Please reform yourselves” we may plead - but like residents of the Hotel California we can never demand.
I am not interested in a fool’s mission of trying to make a European polity work. It is not anti democratic by accident - it is anti democratic by design and that is the way it will stay because anti democratic is exactly the way our rulers want it.
D-jones –“The advantages of regional collaboration are too great to throw away due to a lack of ambition.”
The notion that there cannot be (and has not been) regional collaboration without the EU is one of the most ridiculous fallacies of this debate. The EU may claim “collaboration” as a fully owned proprietary brand of Brussels inc. but this no reason to take its ludicrous monopoly claims seriously. Extra EU collaboration exists in the European space agency, the European Court of human rights, Nato etc. etc.
The “colleagues” in Brussels deeply resent these autonomous agencies of course – hence their attempt to claim the jurisdiction of the European Convention via this pointless charter. Or to absorb the most cost effective Space programme in the world into that wasteland of unaudited and failed programmes that it already runs. As for NATO the progenitors of the “praline alliance” are very anxious indeed to supplant that and even get their sticky hands on French and British defense capacity just as they got control over the Deutsche Mark via the Euro.
The EU does is not about “collaboration” it is about “compulsion”. You do not need a central power to ensure voluntary collaboration – because it is voluntary it will occur continuously and spontaneously. But you do need a central power if you are to compel states into ‘Collaboration” that they would not otherwise choose for themselves. The EU is all about removing such inconvenient choices. “conformity” and “compliance” are the watchwords of EU collaboration.
If your “ambition” is only to be told what to do and who you can do it with - then the EU is definitely for you.
Anti democratic argumentation for "Europe"
Recent Encounters at the Economist with commenter Stone Monk.
Well I take the old fashioned (and no doubt Churchillian) view that if Sun reader’s taxes count then so does their vote. If they are to be disenfranchised surely they should also be exempt from tax? Or is taxation without representation the cry for a brave new European order?
One of wonders of our time has been the enthusiasm and effectiveness of the “Europe project” to treat both sovereignty and democracy as obstacles to building a better Europe. Instead of the messy conflicts and policy shifts of National democracies they offer the panacea of permanent rather than transitory government, consistent rather than changeable policy, with power exercised by an oligarchy of experts rather than by a bunch of unqualified crowd pleasers.
Nor does comprehensive failure seem to dent this faith in government by “experts”. European fisheries policy has converted the abundance of our Northern waters into a vast marine desert. The Common agriculture policy, in a postmodern inversion of the Robin Hood ethos, has robbed both the African poor and the EU taxpayer alike for the benefit of a tiny landed class of parasites.
Of course the beautiful part of being of being an oligarchy with no elections to win is that failures such as these don’t have be either acknowledged or fixed – which is also why these massively destructive policies are still with us.
Democracy, as Churchill would point out, is only superficially chaotic – as an open system it responds to failure and changes policy. When measured by outcomes democracy will always beat an oligarchy precisely because the oligarchy has no feedback loop with which to improve its policies.
Instead of this Churchillian wisdom we are told by EU defenders that if people properly understood their own interests they too would embrace the need for oligarchy. The public’s persistent refusal to accept this truth is clearly a product of their ignorance and a testament to their wilful stupidity.
Nonetheless the continuing affection of the European public for both country and democratic liberty has meant that the European project has had to proceed cautiously by paying lip service to the vulgar competition for power in the open democratic marketplace whilst furtively detaching the hand of the democratic “circus” from its historic grip on the levers of power.
In this enterprise they have been astonishingly successful – elections will still come and go and they will still be full of sound and fury. Politicians will still strut their hour upon the stage but it will all signify nothing because decision making is no longer subject to the outcome of these arcane public festivals. Behind closed doors the important decisions will already have been made, the key policies will already have been decided and the government in power will never change.
Of course the Euro elite would argue that their success is not really astonishing because it simply confirms the truth of their belief that the people really are too stupid to understand what’s going on.
Maybe they’re right?
Stone Monk: “Secondly, regarding the referendum, I really don't see the need for football-watching-Sun-readers to express their "balanced and informed" opinions and turn everything in another example of how wrong Churchill was about democracy.”
Well I take the old fashioned (and no doubt Churchillian) view that if Sun reader’s taxes count then so does their vote. If they are to be disenfranchised surely they should also be exempt from tax? Or is taxation without representation the cry for a brave new European order?
One of wonders of our time has been the enthusiasm and effectiveness of the “Europe project” to treat both sovereignty and democracy as obstacles to building a better Europe. Instead of the messy conflicts and policy shifts of National democracies they offer the panacea of permanent rather than transitory government, consistent rather than changeable policy, with power exercised by an oligarchy of experts rather than by a bunch of unqualified crowd pleasers.
Nor does comprehensive failure seem to dent this faith in government by “experts”. European fisheries policy has converted the abundance of our Northern waters into a vast marine desert. The Common agriculture policy, in a postmodern inversion of the Robin Hood ethos, has robbed both the African poor and the EU taxpayer alike for the benefit of a tiny landed class of parasites.
Of course the beautiful part of being of being an oligarchy with no elections to win is that failures such as these don’t have be either acknowledged or fixed – which is also why these massively destructive policies are still with us.
Democracy, as Churchill would point out, is only superficially chaotic – as an open system it responds to failure and changes policy. When measured by outcomes democracy will always beat an oligarchy precisely because the oligarchy has no feedback loop with which to improve its policies.
Instead of this Churchillian wisdom we are told by EU defenders that if people properly understood their own interests they too would embrace the need for oligarchy. The public’s persistent refusal to accept this truth is clearly a product of their ignorance and a testament to their wilful stupidity.
Nonetheless the continuing affection of the European public for both country and democratic liberty has meant that the European project has had to proceed cautiously by paying lip service to the vulgar competition for power in the open democratic marketplace whilst furtively detaching the hand of the democratic “circus” from its historic grip on the levers of power.
In this enterprise they have been astonishingly successful – elections will still come and go and they will still be full of sound and fury. Politicians will still strut their hour upon the stage but it will all signify nothing because decision making is no longer subject to the outcome of these arcane public festivals. Behind closed doors the important decisions will already have been made, the key policies will already have been decided and the government in power will never change.
Of course the Euro elite would argue that their success is not really astonishing because it simply confirms the truth of their belief that the people really are too stupid to understand what’s going on.
Maybe they’re right?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Sarkozy wants the reins of economic power
Sarkozy has tried to make eurozone economic policy more reform friendly – i.e. extend deficits beyond stability pact limits and reduce euro interest rates. He has succeeded in the first objective but not (yet) succeeded with the second.
The ECB is bound by its incorporating treaty to target inflation only. This means that it has no remit to adjust rates to reduce unemployment or stimulate growth. The US fed has a looser remit and it has explicitly included growth and unemployment as part of its rational for setting interest rates. The low dollar policy is designed to be growth friendly.
Sarkozy has pointed to the essential benefits of a looser monetary policy to absorb the painful impact of substantial structural reforms i.e. extending the working week, reducing employment protections etc. This pressure valve is now seen by many as being fundamental to the growth actually achieved from the structural reforms in Britain.
A tight monetary policy at a time of comprehensive labour market reform resulted in the record unemployment of the late Callaghan and early Thatcher era in Britain. Conversely the liberation of the pound from the ERM, and the subsequent cut in interest rates was the trigger for the longest sustained growth cycle in British history.
Sarkozy understandably wants to skip the pain of early Thatcherism by loosening both the monetary and fiscal corset imposed by the EMU. Nor is this uniquely a problem for right of centre reformers. Oskar Lafontain found (to his great cost) that a socialist policy also required a looser monetary framework and that this was impossible to achieve under EMU. "Political control" of monetary policy was deemed to be anathema to the founders of EMU.
The electorates of Europe can vote for any policy they like as long as it is ECB policy. European electorates cannot however change ECB policy - it is set in stone by treaty and designed to be independent of electoral interference.
So the elephant in the room neither mentioned by Sarkozy or others is that the Eurozone is not merely a sub optimal currency area but without a Euro fiscal policy (Euro taxes and borrowing) the eurozone is not even a viable currency area in the long term. Hans Tietermayer said of EMU that absent a European central tax and borrowing capability the single currency was "a house without a roof".
The stability pact was tacked on to cover this gap so that countries could not recklessly import inflation to the whole Eurozone by increasing their domestic deficit in the knowledge that the inflationary consequences would be everyone’s problem and not just theirs. This pact has been serially violated by the bigger Eurozone economies notably Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands. As Sarkozy has again demonstrated it no longer even serves as anything more than an aspiration.
As Sarko points out these annual borrowing targets are not realistic at national level but they are still essential for the survival of the Euro. To repeat - the Euro cannot bridge the asymmetric impact of 18 untethered fiscal policies. The pact no longer has teeth and has swiftly loosened its targets so that chronic instability threatens the Euro itself as Eurozone economies diverge. This is no laughing matter.
So an ostensibly left of centre government in Germany under Schroeder had to fire Lafontain and implement labour law reforms and cut taxes in order to boost German growth. An ostensibly right of centre government in France will be unable to enact labour reforms because the dead weight of ECB policy will rob those reforms of effectiveness and make them politically impossible.
Sarkozy will now have no option but to cut taxes and to follow Germany in "the race to the bottom" via "fiscal dumping" which we are always being told by our European masters is such a "bad thing". This will further blow out the French deficit and increase the breach of the now pointless stability pact.
As inflation is fed into the system by reckless debt on the part of large economies Euro interest rates will rise and likely so will the exchange rate thus prompting a further spate of fiscal irresponsibility as the one legged man of Eurozone economic policy is trapped in ever tightening circles.
So glad we're still out....
The ECB is bound by its incorporating treaty to target inflation only. This means that it has no remit to adjust rates to reduce unemployment or stimulate growth. The US fed has a looser remit and it has explicitly included growth and unemployment as part of its rational for setting interest rates. The low dollar policy is designed to be growth friendly.
Sarkozy has pointed to the essential benefits of a looser monetary policy to absorb the painful impact of substantial structural reforms i.e. extending the working week, reducing employment protections etc. This pressure valve is now seen by many as being fundamental to the growth actually achieved from the structural reforms in Britain.
A tight monetary policy at a time of comprehensive labour market reform resulted in the record unemployment of the late Callaghan and early Thatcher era in Britain. Conversely the liberation of the pound from the ERM, and the subsequent cut in interest rates was the trigger for the longest sustained growth cycle in British history.
Sarkozy understandably wants to skip the pain of early Thatcherism by loosening both the monetary and fiscal corset imposed by the EMU. Nor is this uniquely a problem for right of centre reformers. Oskar Lafontain found (to his great cost) that a socialist policy also required a looser monetary framework and that this was impossible to achieve under EMU. "Political control" of monetary policy was deemed to be anathema to the founders of EMU.
The electorates of Europe can vote for any policy they like as long as it is ECB policy. European electorates cannot however change ECB policy - it is set in stone by treaty and designed to be independent of electoral interference.
So the elephant in the room neither mentioned by Sarkozy or others is that the Eurozone is not merely a sub optimal currency area but without a Euro fiscal policy (Euro taxes and borrowing) the eurozone is not even a viable currency area in the long term. Hans Tietermayer said of EMU that absent a European central tax and borrowing capability the single currency was "a house without a roof".
The stability pact was tacked on to cover this gap so that countries could not recklessly import inflation to the whole Eurozone by increasing their domestic deficit in the knowledge that the inflationary consequences would be everyone’s problem and not just theirs. This pact has been serially violated by the bigger Eurozone economies notably Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands. As Sarkozy has again demonstrated it no longer even serves as anything more than an aspiration.
As Sarko points out these annual borrowing targets are not realistic at national level but they are still essential for the survival of the Euro. To repeat - the Euro cannot bridge the asymmetric impact of 18 untethered fiscal policies. The pact no longer has teeth and has swiftly loosened its targets so that chronic instability threatens the Euro itself as Eurozone economies diverge. This is no laughing matter.
So an ostensibly left of centre government in Germany under Schroeder had to fire Lafontain and implement labour law reforms and cut taxes in order to boost German growth. An ostensibly right of centre government in France will be unable to enact labour reforms because the dead weight of ECB policy will rob those reforms of effectiveness and make them politically impossible.
Sarkozy will now have no option but to cut taxes and to follow Germany in "the race to the bottom" via "fiscal dumping" which we are always being told by our European masters is such a "bad thing". This will further blow out the French deficit and increase the breach of the now pointless stability pact.
As inflation is fed into the system by reckless debt on the part of large economies Euro interest rates will rise and likely so will the exchange rate thus prompting a further spate of fiscal irresponsibility as the one legged man of Eurozone economic policy is trapped in ever tightening circles.
So glad we're still out....
British sceptics "hysterical"
From the Economist again:
It is notably British euroscepticism that is always highlighted in this pejorative way but this is surely perverse given the results of the French and Dutch referenda. Not to mention the fact that according to Open Europe 75% of the total EU population (83% in Britain) also want a referendum on the reform treaty. The British public are certainly still the most sceptical but the Germans are fast coming up on the inside post. Not only would a 52% majority of Germans vote against this treaty but 54% would also vote to repeal the Maastricht treaty, abolish the Euro and restore the Deutsche Mark. All of this demonstrates yet again that British eurosceptics, whilst well ahead of the curve, are hardly the isolated "awkward squad" of legend.
Let us take another instance - was Roman Herzog the former President of Germany being "hysterical" when he stated in Welt Am Sonntag on 14 January 2007 that:
He was referring to the pre treaty dominance of European legislation in Germany (80% of all German legislation originates in Europe according to the German Ministry of Justice). He didn’t use the expression “coup d’etat” but his sentiments hardly contradict the general thesis of British critics in the Telegraph or elsewhere.
This is all relevant in considering the charge made by the Europe correspondent above that parts of the British press are being "hysterical" when they are not only reflecting the concerns of their own readership but also the majority of not only British but European public opinion as well.
In fact the boot is entirely on the other foot. The Economist’s Europe correspondent should be questioning why the media in the Netherlands and France turned out to be so massively unrepresentative of Dutch & French public opinion? He or she should be demanding to know why there are not more papers like the Telegraph in Europe since there is clearly a large, growing and underrepresented demand in Europe for eurosceptic views.
Feeding British voters unserious nonsense about coups d'état only serves to whip people up into a hysteria—and that makes other Europeans look at British voters and call them hysterical. It is hard to see how that is in Britain's national interests.Well I suppose "Hysteria" is an improvement on "swivel eyed" which epithet this correspondent recently used about British Eurosceptics.
It is notably British euroscepticism that is always highlighted in this pejorative way but this is surely perverse given the results of the French and Dutch referenda. Not to mention the fact that according to Open Europe 75% of the total EU population (83% in Britain) also want a referendum on the reform treaty. The British public are certainly still the most sceptical but the Germans are fast coming up on the inside post. Not only would a 52% majority of Germans vote against this treaty but 54% would also vote to repeal the Maastricht treaty, abolish the Euro and restore the Deutsche Mark. All of this demonstrates yet again that British eurosceptics, whilst well ahead of the curve, are hardly the isolated "awkward squad" of legend.
Let us take another instance - was Roman Herzog the former President of Germany being "hysterical" when he stated in Welt Am Sonntag on 14 January 2007 that:
"By far the largest part of the current laws in Germany are agreed by the Council of Ministers and not the German parliament ... Therefore the question has to be asked whether Germany can still unreservedly call itself a parliamentary democracy."
He was referring to the pre treaty dominance of European legislation in Germany (80% of all German legislation originates in Europe according to the German Ministry of Justice). He didn’t use the expression “coup d’etat” but his sentiments hardly contradict the general thesis of British critics in the Telegraph or elsewhere.
This is all relevant in considering the charge made by the Europe correspondent above that parts of the British press are being "hysterical" when they are not only reflecting the concerns of their own readership but also the majority of not only British but European public opinion as well.
In fact the boot is entirely on the other foot. The Economist’s Europe correspondent should be questioning why the media in the Netherlands and France turned out to be so massively unrepresentative of Dutch & French public opinion? He or she should be demanding to know why there are not more papers like the Telegraph in Europe since there is clearly a large, growing and underrepresented demand in Europe for eurosceptic views.
Article 9 and the new loyalties of the European Council
The Economist takes Christopher Booker to task for claiming that via Article the new treaty subordinates the European Council to EU objectives and alters it fundamentally.
Probably because, as Booker rightly says, via this article the Council can and will be made to dance to a “European” rather than a “Nationalist” tune.
All of the powers exercised by EU institutions were hitherto secondary powers delegated from the member states and the only mantle of democratic accountability these institutions have ever had rests absolutely on the primary authority of National democratic legitimacy. EU institutions were subordinate to the council precisely because their authority proceeded entirely from the consent of the democratically legitimate intergovernmental Council of nation states.
As Christopher Booker points out, the Council was not itself an EU institution but an independent supervisory board which governed the subordinate EU institutions (notably the unelected Commission). This means that although the Council has been the dominant force throughout the history of the EU the council itself was never an institution of the EU. Richard North on his blog EU Referendum notes that the Council first received legal notice under EU treaty law at the time of Nice ( in ’01) where under article 4 it’s mandate was defined as providing
".. the Union with the necessary impetus for its development" and to "define the general political guidelines thereof".
The European Council has always governed the EU institutions and has thereby provided the EU with its “democratic cover”. In the both the failed constitution and the current “reform” treaty this relationship is reversed.
The supervision of EU institutions by an independent Council is now to be changed with the incorporation of the council as just another EU institution now made itself the subject of the rulings of the ECJ. Its primary objectives are now redefined as being the promotion and support of EU policies and its fellow EU institutions. It is no longer tasked with supervision but with support.
If, for example, an electricity supplier in the UK could effect an exercise in “vertical integration” that would permit it to absorb the regulatory body Ofgen into its own management structure with a remit to support other departments within the company and make it primarily answerable to the company’s shareholders then clearly Ofgen would no longer be what it was before – namely an independent supervisory body answerable to the public.
This is precisely what has happened to the European Council.
It is a sad comment on the state of our debate that what would be universally condemned as an unprincipled power grab by an electricity company is seen as a perfectly acceptable “reform” of our national government. How has it come to pass that our standards for the governance of our electricity industry are higher than our standards for the governance of our country?
So – the current “reform” treaty transforms the ministers in Council from being the agents of the Nation states tasked with governing the EU institutions into agents of the EU institutions tasked with governing the nation states.
In the reform treaty the Council can now only act within “the limits of the powers conferred on it in the treaties”. The terms of its incorporation specifically subordinate it to treaty law i.e. its actions are now subject to veto by the European Court of Justice. Its objectives are now to primarily support EU policy and ensure the “consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.” It is further obligated to practise “mutual sincere cooperation’ with the other institutions.
In future any minister who is deemed to be obstructive by the “colleagues” will, no doubt, be reminded of his paramount legal obligation to “advance the objectives of the EU” and to “ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions”. His binding duty of “mutual sincere cooperation” with the other institutions will be gently raised.
If this doesn’t bring him or her into line the European Court of Justice, that most activist of courts, may extend it’s jurisdiction to arbitrate on whether his or her claim of National interest is a legitimate “process” given the ministers treaty obligations to the EU. I don’t think it’s hard to guess which way the Court will go – Euro Turkeys don’t vote for Nation state Xmas.
So the EU tail gets to wag the nation state dog and the accountability of ministers to their electorates via mandate has been reversed by treaty into an overriding accountability to the EU and its institutions.
National democracy is thereby rendered as obsolete as National Sovereignty.
Mr Booker makes a second big assertion, in which he falls into the wood-for-trees trap of so many Eurosceptics, of seizing on some arcane detail of wording, and assuming that it has legal force of a nature to trump the political realities of Europe. He writes:
Christopher Booker: “But only now is the council being formally incorporated into the EU's structure. This is not least significant since, as the new treaty makes clear, when the heads of government meet in council they are no longer to represent their own countries. Like the members of all other "Union institutions", their first loyalty will now be to the EU. To "promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests" takes precedence over any national loyalty."
Economist European Correspondent: “Oh, come on. To believe that, you have to believe seriously that the likes of Mr Sarkozy, Mrs Merkel, the new British PM, Gordon Brown, the Polish twins, the Czechs and the Dutch are all going to abandon their national interests at the first summit governed by the new treaty.”If the real politik of National interests will always trump the obligations of the new treaty then why have this treaty provision at all? If the wording is merely so much “arcane detail” then why is it there? Why incorporate the European Council into the formal structure of European institutions if it can never be made to dance to an EU tune?
Probably because, as Booker rightly says, via this article the Council can and will be made to dance to a “European” rather than a “Nationalist” tune.
All of the powers exercised by EU institutions were hitherto secondary powers delegated from the member states and the only mantle of democratic accountability these institutions have ever had rests absolutely on the primary authority of National democratic legitimacy. EU institutions were subordinate to the council precisely because their authority proceeded entirely from the consent of the democratically legitimate intergovernmental Council of nation states.
As Christopher Booker points out, the Council was not itself an EU institution but an independent supervisory board which governed the subordinate EU institutions (notably the unelected Commission). This means that although the Council has been the dominant force throughout the history of the EU the council itself was never an institution of the EU. Richard North on his blog EU Referendum notes that the Council first received legal notice under EU treaty law at the time of Nice ( in ’01) where under article 4 it’s mandate was defined as providing
".. the Union with the necessary impetus for its development" and to "define the general political guidelines thereof".
The European Council has always governed the EU institutions and has thereby provided the EU with its “democratic cover”. In the both the failed constitution and the current “reform” treaty this relationship is reversed.
The supervision of EU institutions by an independent Council is now to be changed with the incorporation of the council as just another EU institution now made itself the subject of the rulings of the ECJ. Its primary objectives are now redefined as being the promotion and support of EU policies and its fellow EU institutions. It is no longer tasked with supervision but with support.
If, for example, an electricity supplier in the UK could effect an exercise in “vertical integration” that would permit it to absorb the regulatory body Ofgen into its own management structure with a remit to support other departments within the company and make it primarily answerable to the company’s shareholders then clearly Ofgen would no longer be what it was before – namely an independent supervisory body answerable to the public.
This is precisely what has happened to the European Council.
It is a sad comment on the state of our debate that what would be universally condemned as an unprincipled power grab by an electricity company is seen as a perfectly acceptable “reform” of our national government. How has it come to pass that our standards for the governance of our electricity industry are higher than our standards for the governance of our country?
So – the current “reform” treaty transforms the ministers in Council from being the agents of the Nation states tasked with governing the EU institutions into agents of the EU institutions tasked with governing the nation states.
In the reform treaty the Council can now only act within “the limits of the powers conferred on it in the treaties”. The terms of its incorporation specifically subordinate it to treaty law i.e. its actions are now subject to veto by the European Court of Justice. Its objectives are now to primarily support EU policy and ensure the “consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.” It is further obligated to practise “mutual sincere cooperation’ with the other institutions.
In future any minister who is deemed to be obstructive by the “colleagues” will, no doubt, be reminded of his paramount legal obligation to “advance the objectives of the EU” and to “ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions”. His binding duty of “mutual sincere cooperation” with the other institutions will be gently raised.
If this doesn’t bring him or her into line the European Court of Justice, that most activist of courts, may extend it’s jurisdiction to arbitrate on whether his or her claim of National interest is a legitimate “process” given the ministers treaty obligations to the EU. I don’t think it’s hard to guess which way the Court will go – Euro Turkeys don’t vote for Nation state Xmas.
So the EU tail gets to wag the nation state dog and the accountability of ministers to their electorates via mandate has been reversed by treaty into an overriding accountability to the EU and its institutions.
National democracy is thereby rendered as obsolete as National Sovereignty.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Habemus Papa!
The European Summit is over and the “Constitution” is reborn as a “treaty”.
All of our destinies have been decided in secret conclave over an unpublished text which is now revealed and simultaneously proclaimed to be an absolute mandate totally binding on the IGC conference who must rubber stamp it and pass it unaltered to the National Parliaments who also cannot amend it by a jot or tittle but must accept or reject the whole package tout court. No public ratification - the people are cattle to be milked, not citizens to be consulted.
These are processes which would have brought a blush of shame to the cheek of a tridentine Pope. How reassuring it is to know that the challenges of the 21st century are going to be met with the sophisticated political processes of the 14th century.
Oh brave new Europe that has such leaders to fearlessly lead us from the dark chaos of government by the elected to permanent government by the elect!
All of our destinies have been decided in secret conclave over an unpublished text which is now revealed and simultaneously proclaimed to be an absolute mandate totally binding on the IGC conference who must rubber stamp it and pass it unaltered to the National Parliaments who also cannot amend it by a jot or tittle but must accept or reject the whole package tout court. No public ratification - the people are cattle to be milked, not citizens to be consulted.
These are processes which would have brought a blush of shame to the cheek of a tridentine Pope. How reassuring it is to know that the challenges of the 21st century are going to be met with the sophisticated political processes of the 14th century.
Oh brave new Europe that has such leaders to fearlessly lead us from the dark chaos of government by the elected to permanent government by the elect!
Don't talk about the Referendum & Browns "Constitutional Conversation"
If the EU provides as much British law in Britain as it does in Germany (80%) then addressing its legitimacy and accountability is the overriding Constitutional priority. The sudden enthusiasm to discuss the (admitted) deficiencies of the British Constitution also has the look of a tactic – coming as it does in the precise period when the treaty is to be reviewed. For instance our dear leader Mr. Brown recently published a government discussion paper on the Constitution and said he wanted to start a “National conversation” on our Constitution. Europe (or English devolution) was not mentioned.
Why this sudden interest in moving all the deckchairs noisily around the deck of the good ship Great Britain at just the time when Brown wants to quietly hand over the keys, the wheel and the engine room to EU institutions? Could this be a diversionary tactic dressed up as "a constitutional conversation".
If Brown were serious about kick starting a real "constitutional conversation" he would honour his existing pledge and hold the referendum on the treaty. Inviting us to a theoretical constitutional conversation instead of delivering on his actual constitutional pledges is an exercise in crude manipulation and misrepresentation.
As mentioned above - Brown could kick off his “constitutional conversation” by explaining to us that he, as a member of the "reformed" European council of ministers, is now bound by articles 1-19 (of the defeated Constitution but fully restored in the "reform" treaty) to offer his highest loyalty to the EU and not to the British State. His allegiance to the peoples of Europe now comes before his former allegiance to the British people (who are no longer referred to as a distinct people). His allegiance to the institutions of the EU comes before his former allegiance to Crown, Cabinet or Parliament (and the electorate don't even get a mention). His allegiance to European law overrules his former allegiance to British law.
In better times he would have been made to register with the foreign office as the representative of a foreign power. But in our brave new European world of keeping up national appearances whilst obeying EU directives we will still have a foreign office but we won't have a foreign policy. We will still have elections but we won't change direction.
Why this sudden interest in moving all the deckchairs noisily around the deck of the good ship Great Britain at just the time when Brown wants to quietly hand over the keys, the wheel and the engine room to EU institutions? Could this be a diversionary tactic dressed up as "a constitutional conversation".
If Brown were serious about kick starting a real "constitutional conversation" he would honour his existing pledge and hold the referendum on the treaty. Inviting us to a theoretical constitutional conversation instead of delivering on his actual constitutional pledges is an exercise in crude manipulation and misrepresentation.
As mentioned above - Brown could kick off his “constitutional conversation” by explaining to us that he, as a member of the "reformed" European council of ministers, is now bound by articles 1-19 (of the defeated Constitution but fully restored in the "reform" treaty) to offer his highest loyalty to the EU and not to the British State. His allegiance to the peoples of Europe now comes before his former allegiance to the British people (who are no longer referred to as a distinct people). His allegiance to the institutions of the EU comes before his former allegiance to Crown, Cabinet or Parliament (and the electorate don't even get a mention). His allegiance to European law overrules his former allegiance to British law.
In better times he would have been made to register with the foreign office as the representative of a foreign power. But in our brave new European world of keeping up national appearances whilst obeying EU directives we will still have a foreign office but we won't have a foreign policy. We will still have elections but we won't change direction.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Edward Pierce has this comment in the July 1 Guardian – CiF:
Edward Pierce
Edward, suck it up – the French didn’t say no because of Rothermere or Murdoch. The Dutch didn’t say no because of Goldsmith. It is you, a midget Englander, who measures world affairs solely against your local preoccupations and prejudices (fired by Murdoch were you?). The French and Dutch opposed the treaty because of what it was and what it represented – a power grab by the unelected at the expense of the electorate itself. Given the choice the British will do precisely the same. That, of course, is the sole reason why you don’t want the British to have their say.
Edward Pierce
"If the Brussels treaty is the old constitution, it is so only because the old constitution, at its core, was a treaty! And despite some florid aspirational rhetoric, it was a very sensible treaty, asserting certain obvious standards of social morality and judicial rights, and concerned otherwise chiefly to establish limited majority voting. The purpose of that was to free the EU from a clogging immobility, best defined as stasis tempered by blackmail ”Edward, the European Union is not clogged – it gallops through its business unhindered by current voting arrangements. If Edward Pierce did his homework he would know that this treaty is a solution in desperate search of a problem. Of course it has nothing to do with “efficiency” and everything to do with centralisation of power. According to the Economist:
‘Overall, the EU has been adopting new rules and regulations some 25% faster since enlargement, says a study published by Sciences Po in Paris. Its authors have tracked thousands of proposals, large and small. “Contrary to much received wisdom,” they conclude, “the data gathered shows that enlargement has not...brought Europe's machinery to a halt.”Edward Pierce obviously is happy to subscribe to the managerialist myths that contaminate both domestic and European politics but he needs to explain why (if these central organisations are so efficient) can’t their accounts be signed? Why does their policy product (agricultural policy, fisheries and yes the Euro) set the global standard for stupidity and failure?
When eurocrats call for more streamlined decision-making, what they mean is making life more frightening for laggards. Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European Parliament, is admirably frank: “If you have majority voting, you can overrule those who don't want to move ahead.”
If only everybody were so honest. There is a legitimate political argument to be had about picking out all or parts of the EU constitution to make Europe work in a different way. But it is dishonest to disguise this argument as a technical one about getting Europe to work at all.”
“The old EU document was not rejected because it threatened liberties. It failed in France largely because a troublemaking politician, Laurent Fabius, campaigned, by way of a stunt, for a "No" vote, proclaiming "Europe is being weakened!" In the Netherlands, voting against was a handy way of raising another issue, an utterly unrelated and wholly national problem: Asian immigration. Both failures demonstrate the malignity of referendums.”Apparently the French voted no for the wrong reasons as did the Dutch- interestingly no such complaint arises over the Spanish who voted he other way. Edward Pierce and others have decided that the French and Dutch have failed a comprehension test so they must now have their votes confiscated. It never occurs to the Pierces of this world that socialist voters and conservative voters combined against the constitution for the same reason – it removed powers from their domestic political structures and they were overwhelmingly opposed to that removal. Indicting the French and Dutch electorates with “false consciousness” and using that shibboleth as a justification for cancelling their past vote as well as abolishing their future vote is all very Soviet and clearly appeals to many unreconstructed nostalgics for that grim slave state.
“As for the "European threat", the problem is bumbling and lack of cohesion, not surveillance and super-state bullying. Leave that to Blairite home secretaries, wanting, as the EU doesn't, to know the colour of your iris, seeking, as the EU would not think of, to hold you incommunicado for 90 days after arrest.Actually a great many of them do so – repeatedly. The press clearly has you in it’s thrall but the blogosphere is full of Eurosceptics opposed to the Security state – see Richard North and Tim Worstall and many, many others. Typically as an authoritarian you cannot concede any principled opposition to the removal of national powers to an unaccountable central committee; you can only see what your prejudices permit you to see - the unprincipled opposition of press barons. Yours is the sort of lazy bad faith which has cost the European project its public support over many years now.
Oddly, very few people doing outrage about Europe's totalitarianism offer significant resistance to New Labour's New Tsarism (although David Cameron, coming out against ID cards, is an honourable exception).”
Edward, suck it up – the French didn’t say no because of Rothermere or Murdoch. The Dutch didn’t say no because of Goldsmith. It is you, a midget Englander, who measures world affairs solely against your local preoccupations and prejudices (fired by Murdoch were you?). The French and Dutch opposed the treaty because of what it was and what it represented – a power grab by the unelected at the expense of the electorate itself. Given the choice the British will do precisely the same. That, of course, is the sole reason why you don’t want the British to have their say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)