[Goober5000]

Discouraging, but not altogether unexpected...

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjEzOWQ0ODhkZmI2ODUyMGUwMDE2ZDgxMDg2Y2NjY2I=

Taking full advantage of the opportunity made for him by one of the last of Tony Blair's lies (in office), Gordon Brown today has signed Britain up for the EU 'non-constitution' constitution without, of course, having bothered to have held the referendum that the Labour party had promised. Unsurprisingly enough, there's an angry round-up over at EU Referendum. The best comments, however, come from two veteran parliamentarians, one Conservative, and one Labour. Here's the Conservative, Richard Shepherd:

This House is at the lowest ebb of my lifetime. People's contempt for our institutions and our Parliament is at a level that I have never perceived before. Why? Because we are not trustworthy. That is the truth. People do not believe what we say.

And from Labour's Austin Mitchell there's this on the 'debate' that is to come:

What is the use of discussing something that we cannot change? It is important to amend this constitution, because it will be our constitution if it is passed - it will say what we can and cannot do, and it will take powers away from this place. It is thus important that we are able to have our say on it. It will make us part of a larger entity - a larger state - and it will close the door on that. That is what it is about. If we cannot change that and if we cannot put it to the people, we are futile and useless.

Mitchell is right. They are. They should turn out the lights, and all go home. It's over. Done. Finished.

EDIT: This isn't ratification, of course; and there's no guarantee when or if this new "constitution" will come into effect.  But it's a significant step in that direction, and it was done without democratic consent.

[Flipside]

Not surprising, it's almost an exact replica of what they did when we joined the EU in the first place. I'm not really sure what way the wind is blowing on this, no doubt the ****e will hit the fan at some point.

[Rictor]

Can't say I'm too happy about this. Of course, I'm not too happy about any state seceding it's sovereignty to the EU, but the UK in particular has a history of holding the line.

[Shade]

It's sad that they're so afraid of letting the public decide for themselves. They seem to have forgotten the meaning of democracy. The even sadder thing is that if they bothered to actually explain what the treaty entails, and discuss any changes that might be needed to make it acceptable if it wasn't already, there probably would be little risk of a no vote were it to be put to the test. Hell, the truth is that in many ways it's already a good treaty, even from a eurosceptic's point of view. For one thing, for the first time it specifically allows countries to leave the union.

Among other things I have no argument with are the charter of fundamental rights (it's good to have an extra check on national governments that might be tempted to employ less-than-humane methods or start to trounce people's rights. Interestingly, the UK is excused from this, so they're free to oppress their citizens), the stuff about global warming, and the increase in power for the EU parliament over the EU council (The MEPs are directly elected by each country's citizens... the council members are not necessarily elected anywhere at all. Win for democracy). All that stuff is fine in my book.

Then there's the stuff that does nothing at all, like the formation of offices for "president" and "foreign minister". Sure, the titles are new, but in reality they're just combinations of existing offices so the net effect will be a few commisioners less on the payroll.

Unfortunately there's also the bad stuff. Mainly, the qualified majority that can now overrule a fairly significant opposition on most proposals. There are still a few things that require unanimous approval, but not many. Now, as bad things go, this one is really bad. If there were oversight by the EU parliament I might go for it, but leaving it to the council means a significant risk of all kinds of measures being railroaded through despite considerable opposition. For this alone, I'd vote no had our government not also chickened out and refused a referendum, but on the other hand, were just this provision removed, I'd almost certainly have voted yes.

[Flipside]

Whilst I'm in two minds about the whole EU thing, I still think that we should have been asked, and it should have been signed by a Prime Minister who's policies we had voted in. At the very least, it should have waited until after the election.

But then, I suspect that is why he signed it right now.

[karajorma]

I wouldn't trust the British electorate to make a sensible decision on Europe even if the constitution was nothing more than a proclamation claiming that puppies and bunnies were cute.

That said this did need some sort of oversight from parliament rather than simply being rammed through.

[Colonol Dekker]

I like the 1984 reference.

Aside from that as it says, i never really believe anything our government says when it comes to "betterment of our quality of life".

[Janos]

Hahaha
I love British attitude:
"We were among the first, we have a lot of power, we always get our will through while making it sound like a good deal to other countries, and now we can freely trade with other European countries! **** THIS LET'S GET OUT"

[TrashMan]

I wish I could nuke the EU...

I don't like it's inner working at all.

[Flipside]

Should I want to Nuke the US then?

Edit: Basically, we aren't going to fix problems by walking around wanting to Nuke everything we don't like.

[Colonol Dekker]

Worked for skynet. . .

[Roanoke]

No more than a few days after the EU Accounts were not signed off for another year. That's what, 13 years now ?

Not to mention the "no" votes in (IIRC) Ireland & Denmark.

[Shade]

Actually our government (in Denmark) hasn't dared let us vote on anything EU related in the last many years. We were promised a referendum on the constituation, but it was cancelled after the no vote in France.

[Flipside]

Of course, that does raise the somewhat interesting prospect of the people of Europe uniting in one coherent group to protest the fact that their governments are trying to make them into one coherent group.....

Weird....

[Sarafan]

Of course, that does raise the somewhat interesting prospect of the people of Europe uniting in one coherent group to protest the fact that their governments are trying to make them into one coherent group.....

Weird....

 

[Rictor]

Hasn't that already happened with various right-wing MEPs, who formed a "Europe of Nations" bloc?

What I don't get is the insistence by some that it's a choice between an ever-expanding EU or essentially a return to the Dark Ages. It's not as if free trade and freedom of movement disappear if the various other extraneous powers of the EU are curtailed or, hell, if the Union is abolished alltogether.

None of the really valuable things, like trade and immigration treaties, need a supranational government. Countries from all over the world conduct business with all sorts of other countries based solely on good-old-fashioned treaties and agreements between sovereign governments.

[Roanoke]

Yeah but the likes of Tony Blair have their eyes fixed firmly on Their Place in History^tm.

I read somewhere they see themselves in the same light as the US' Founding Fathers.

[TrashMan]

Edit: Basically, we aren't going to fix problems by walking around wanting to Nuke everything we don't like.

Actually, we will. Nukes are the solution to any problem in the world.

In essence, I have nothing againt a strong, united europe a union of hte pople - but not in the form it is now. All members must be equal. period.

[karajorma]

Yeah but the likes of Tony Blair have their eyes fixed firmly on Their Place in History^tm.

After Iraq it's assured. He can rest easily knowing that history will remember him as one of the great prime ministers. Just like Neville Chamberlain.