大象传媒

And so it came to pass that indifference and anti-European scare-mongering just toppled the biggest reform of EU decision-making since its inception. The Lisbon Treaty (after previous ones completely failed on that front) would finally have allowed for greater national scrutiny and adaptability of EU law - rather than the current 1-size-fits-all EU regulations and directives which automatically supersede national law - but, no, that would have been far too progressive.

Lisbon is dead, long live a much too large and costly Commission, ineffective policy and unanimity haggling, national subsidies, etc... The treaty's abandonment and the revival of Nice'n'co are going to waste huge sums of money, much more than if it had gone through, for what will amount to political gridlock - in the meantime important decisions on the CAP, globalisation of trade, energy security, environment, immigration and so on will once again remain stalled. Trebles all round...

HERE IS YOUR JOKE FIT FOR AN 11 YEAR OLD

"THE EU IS A DEMOCRACY!!"

Please understand the Constitutional Treaty CAN NOT BE MADE INTO LAW for the following reasons:
Any member state can carry on and ratify the Lisbon Treaty, but it can't come into legal force unless and until all 27 have ratified it.

It says so, here:


"This new treaty is the result of negotiations between EU member countries in an intergovernmental conference, in which the Commission and Parliament were also involved. The treaty will not apply until and unless it is ratified by each of the EU鈥檚 27 members. It is up each country to choose the procedure for ratification, in line with its own national constitution."

Remember what we were told - "oh, this is just another amending treaty".

But under Article 48 TEU, which is already in legal force, the EU treaties cannot be amended IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER, unless all 27 member states agree to the amendments and they are then "ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".

xUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:321E:0001:0331:EN:pdf
"CONSOLIDATED VERSIONS OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY"

"Article 48

The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.

If the Council, after consulting the European Parliament and, where appropriate, the Commission, delivers an opinion in favour of calling a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States, the conference shall be convened by the President of the Council for the purpose of determining by common accord the amendments to be made to those Treaties. The European Central Bank shall also be consulted in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area.

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements."

So if the package of amendments agreed at Lisbon can't be ratified by even one member state, they can't enter into legal force. The same applies to any other package of amendments which may be proposed subsequently, including those to create a special "legal arrangement" for Ireland.

British people have never voted for an EU state - they only ever voted for an Economic Community. Given that the EU appears to be in the process of making itself into a state with a consitution, army, foreign policy, president etc it is perfectly understandable that the British at least have some reservations, especially given the evident duplicity involved.

An EU constitution was offered, and democratically rejected by two countries.

The politicians involved then arrange for a different coloured cover, change the title, make the document self-referencing so it is more convoluted and more difficult to understand its consequences. They then say it is a different document so no need to have any truck with democracy, just accept the decisions of your political overlords, sorry, inspirational leaders.

Any surprise then that the one country to adhere to any democratic values decides to wave it goodbye - one, two or five fingers depending upon how you feel.

No one should feel angry that the constitition, sorry, treaty was turned down - they're going to try to impose it on us anyway, regardless of the Irish vote. What we British should feel angry about is that our politicians are less and less accountable to us, and are systematically reducing our freedom and legal rights.

THANKS TOOHARDTOLOGIN THAT MADE ME LAUGH. HERE'S SOME PRAGMATISM:

If there are EU wonks who understand the Lisbon Treaty - or whatever is to came after it - let them prove it by putting its actual EFFECT ON US into language we can all understand.
Only then can another Irish referendum be honorably mooted. Only then can we all decide if our honorable MPs have sold us out as with the War.

Why should the rules for living in Europe be any more complicated than the byelaws on that notice in the local park; unless, of course, it is to obfuscate and manipulate.

Newsnight: please tax all apologists for the EU dream with WHY they did not insist on a document we could understand.

LEGAL NOT-NICETY

(1) In contract law, if I sign a contract but no one can be found who actually understands its terms, is it valid? I think I know what Lord Denning would have said.

(2) In a referendum, is there any requirement that the issue must be understood before it can be voted on?

(3) What was the morality (with or without a compass) of MPs who have not read and/or understood the Treaty, telling us it was good?

(4) Has the UK government's right to sign away law-making actually been challenged?
My instincts tell me that is like the guy in the bottom floor of a skyscraper selling the walls.

CHLOE_F

You seem to understand the entire impact of the EU (as defined by the treaty) on the UK, or I guess you would not be so positive.
Did you also understand the previous Constitution? I had a serious go at it and ground to a halt. It seemed to have some very simplistic statements like: "everyone will co-operate in the interests of co-operation". Much of it was impossible to fathom (as far as I got).
I get the impression that most of us have no idea what the Treaty is saying (it appears that includes the Irish). Would you agree that a simplified document: "The powers of the EU over life in Britain" with the "Crystal Mark" on it, would be a kindness? Assuming we would discover the advantages know to you, it could also make us pro-EU.

I want the EU.

I want democracy and people power.

Well done the Irish!

Leadership means going forward WITH the people, not dragging them behind.

The reaction of the EU Commission President and others since the Irish referendum result just confirms why it is that so many people have a negative attitude to the EU and its institutions.

Whatever your views on the treaty, it is a fact that every single member state of the EU must ratify it for it to enter into force. Yet, as previously, all you hear in Brussels is the various EU bigwigs stating that the treaty is still alive, and other countries must press ahead with ratification. What breathtaking arrogance! If they spent more time engaging with the people of Europe and listening to their concerns and priorities, rather than their own, the citizens of Europe might take them more seriously.

Of course, it's only a matter of time before the Irish are instructed to vote again until they come up with the "correct" result.

McShane, Brown's Europe Minister, has insulted the intelligence and integrity of the Irish by suggesting that the IRA are keeping Croatia and Turkey out of the EU. He also insults the British by denying Britons the chance of a referendum. This man should understand why Ireland voted no before spreading the kind of rubbish that he has said on this program.

Elected MEPs have no power.
The appointed European Commission can force through laws such as handing over PNR data to the US and the security theatre of banning liquids on aircraft.

The Treaty should have been just about commerce, rather than adding in a President and sections requesting countries spend more on their military.

McShane is a foreigner. He was born as Denis Matyjaszek, to an Irish mother and her Polish husband. So is David Miliband. What do you expect?

Your guest tonight from the EU represents the EU intelligentsia. Fact.

She said I think "this rejection still leaves us with the problems of enlargement".

Call me Mr. Stupid but would would most plain and simple thinkers have worked out the problems, consolidated and THEN enlarged the community.

Nah!

If you want to know the arrogance and high handed mentality behind the EU, and the kind of government we'd be subjected to if this treaty went through, just listen to what the EU leaders are already saying: 'We must go for another referendum...'; 'we will press on with ratification..'. So they either plan to keep asking until they get the 'right' answer, or they ignore the NO vote and ratify it anyway.
Secondly, Brown: first of all his government promises us a referendum and then breaks it, then he declares he will plough on and ratify the Treaty even though it has no chance of success because it has been rejected by Ireland? What kind of man is this? what kind of arrogant, high-handed government?
Finally, the woman interviewed by Gavin Esler tonight might as well have been deaf - obviously she believes that we should all be forced to keep voting UNTIL WE GIVE THE 'RIGHT' ANSWER.

Barrie - what the **?! I never pretended for 1 sec to 'have seen the light' ......... It's really late, I'm exhausted - it'd take me too long to write a proper answer and frankly, given your comment, I'm not sure you care all that much. If you seriously want to discuss this, I'll elaborate a bit on Sunday.

CF

I just want to point out that Gavin Essler's argument tonight that the Irish electorate are well informed about EU matters and hence the implication that this was an informed vote against the Lisbon treaty is factually incorrect. As successive evidence in Eurobarometer opinion polls show, when it comes to subjective and objective indicators of knowledge of the EU (i.e. what they think they know about the EU and what they actually know about the EU), the Irish have one of the lowest scores of citizens across the 27 member states. In that sense, a deep lack of knowledge amongst the electorate is an issue and is linked with why people voted no. Of course, there are a multiplicity of motivations behind the No vote - this was not a vote against the government or against the Lisbon Treaty per se. What is clear now is that contrary to what Declan Ganley of Libertas or Mary-Lou McDonald of Sinn Fein assert, there is now a deep vein of Euroscepticism in Ireland.

I don't know where else to complain about this. In the current lead story on the 大象传媒 News front page - "EU grapples with Irish 'No' vote" - when you click to read



pretty much the first thing you see is that there are four video options on the right hand side entitled "IRELAND REFORM TREATY REACTIONS". The reactions consist of

1. The returning officer in Dublin (neutral, factual, no opinion)

2. Irish Prime Minster (pro-Yes, believes Lisbon should go ahead)

3. EC President (pro-Yes, , believes Lisbon should go ahead regardless, anti-all-referenda)

4. UK Foreign Secretary (pro-Yes, believes Lisbon should go ahead regardless, anti-all-referenda)

That is outrageous as a summary of all reactions. How about Czech President Vaclav Klaus (mentioned early in the text) who says quite rightly says that the treaty is dead? How about the leader of the UK opposition, who agrees, and has said consistently that we should have had a similar referendum as the Irish? How about the leader of UKIP, the main party wanting withdrawal of the UK from the EU?

Well done to Gavin last night on his "Which part of the word No don't you understand?" approach to Barroso's charming sidekick.

But please, can the 大象传媒 provide more balance in this frontline story on the web?

It is rather unedifying being told again and again in certain media that the 'wrong' result was arrived at in an... election, from people who seem to think they are better able to assess what's 'right'.

Thing is, those of us who support democratic freedoms and tolerate such views are rather up against the simple strategy of ignoring 'inconvenient' results and banging on and on, in slightly different ways, until the 'right' one is achieved.

At which point the process is suddenly changed to stop everything at this 'acceptable' point and lock it down.

RE SUBMITTED IN LIGHT OF ABOVE POSTS

(1) In contract law, if I sign a contract but no one can be found who actually understands its terms, is it valid? I think I know what Lord Denning would have said.

(2) In a referendum, is there any requirement that the issue must be understood before it can be voted on?

(3) What was the morality (with or without a compass) of MPs who have not read and/or understood the Treaty, telling us it was good?

(4) Has the UK government's right to sign away law-making actually been challenged?
My instincts tell me that is like the guy in the bottom floor of a skyscraper selling the walls.

As I have said before: there must be a natural right to be informed of things that are to be 'done to us'; informed in language we can understand. If 'they' really understand, let 'them' explain before any more is set in stone.

PS I came wide awake when Gavin said the Irish had made an informed decision! I am still searching for an informed person.

CHLOE - AN APOLOGY +

Being one of the great army of parasitic retired, I am free to irritate all and sundry at any time of day or night; sleeping in the intervals. I presume you are very kindly working to keep my pension coming; for that: thanks.

Contrary to your divination, as posted at #14, I am DEADLY SERIOUS but keep myself sane, and homicide-free, with a degree of levity (not foreign to you I notice).

I got the impression that you drew an informed comparison between EU as currently configured and EU as it would be under Lisbon - hence I felt you KNEW the latter to be much preferable.

If you were relying on the word of 'others', I regret I do not trust 'others'. However, if you understand the stuff I don't: Sunday is fine for me as all days are Sunday! I have nothing to lose but my ignorance.

I think it is very mischievous of Michael Crick to ask the voters of Howden what they think of "detaining terrorists for 42 days".
If that were the case, no-one would be objecting to it.
The objection is to locking up SUSPECTS for 42 days WITH NO REASON GIVEN.
A little more precision please.
And you an ex MGS boy as well.

RELAX DEADTIRED

The Beeb will soon set Crick to music - oh god, he might even dance with those feet - the centre cannot hold.

Seriously: the point is well made but will not be well taken; not the way 'news' is going. Now that the 大象传媒 is setting links and trails to music, even coordinating the phrasing, it will be a long way back.

SOMETHING COMPLETELY RELEVANT

13 June 2008 (Radio 4 'Thought for the Day'.)

Some points from Vishvapani鈥檚 piece.

Invigorating to hear politicians discuss fundamental principles and their interpretation.

Neither scripture nor power is a sound basis for believing something is right or true. Experience is called for.

Contentment, kindness, wisdom - connect us to others and reality.

Understand your own motivations and transform them.

Morality is a skill

Self knowledge, integrity and careful reflection permit you to move forward as a worthwhile being.

more david davis tilting at windmills please.

Re my own #16

They have indeed changed the "IRELAND REFORM TREATY REACTION" section. Removing the video of the result being announced, leaving three Pro-Yes reactions!

The EU representative who appeared on Friday's show had me almost frothing at the mouth with rage. She just didn't get it, did she. So full of missionary zeal that she is apparently incapable of understanding that the majority of the population of Eire who voted on the issue don't share her vision of an EU super-state.

Gavin Estler was far too gentle with her. His 'what part of no do you not understand' line was good, but he really should have persisted, Paxman style, to ask the same question until she answered in a way that didn't involve explaining that the current EU structure 'has a problem that must be solved'.

It is SHE, and the other closed-ears and open-mouthed Europhile politicians, who have the problem. In their world, democracy is only acceptable when their argument wins the day.

Who in their right mind would sign a document that contained a clause saying 'we reserve the right to change the rules at any time, without consultation with anyone'.
That's basically what the 'Treaty' is all about, and I'm very glad that the people of Eire had the good sense to reject it.
However, judging by the attitude of that woman on Newsnight, it looks like it's business as usual over in Brussels - they plan to steam onwards, ignoring the rule that says all 27 nations must agree or the Treaty falls. Or perhaps they plan to keep on asking Ireland until they get the right answer, and then the asking will miraculously stop. Democracy? Don't make me laugh.

Europe:

it is sad that the ireland rejected this constitution, but they had some misgivings about it.


David Davis:

It is sad that he is resigning from office....I hope he will return to this profession.

Europe's Friday 13th

It is a very sad day for the people in Brussels, that thought they were going get the constitution voted YES in Ireland on the 13 June...

'WHAT'S UP?' (Apologies to Linda Perry)



Sinn Fein (in an odd political marriage of convenience with the SWM in Eire just as Respect *was* with the SWP here) say they backed the NO vote for a better deal in a re-negotiated Treaty.

So what's really going on? I'm with Barrie on the (intentional) opacity of the Lisbon Treaty (so was the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee).

I had a few things to say about all this last year, and the waters haven't cleared since. I too welcome education.

As I see it, ratification of Lisbon will lead to Regional Assemblies (states) and the loss of sovreignty (each Assembly about the size of London, Sweden, Finland, Scotland, Eire etc, wit the big nations fragmenting). We will see the Third and Private sectors replace Public (national) services (stealthily but systematically undermined by the major parties over the past 30 years or so).

The 53 article European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights is (red-lined temporarily only), is pernicious/subversive. It's rife with contrary to the evidence assumptions of 'equality' which will bring more anarchism and hasten the break up of the big national public services, health, education, criminal justice in favour of EU model systems i.e. free-market driven (aka grass roots, bottom-up, 'workers' democratic) entrepreneurial 'panaceas'.

For what's likley to happen in the longer term, look to Zimbabwe, Kenya and similar dysgenic 'illiberal' countries which lack the human capital (in large enough numbers) to manage liberal-democratic economies.

It doesn't look good, does it? Do those engineering it really know what they're doing (cf. Fratini's immigration from Africa/S. Asia plans and our TFRs).


/blogs/newsnight/2007/10/monday_29th_october_2007.html.

ALL METAPHORICALLY GREEK

Jaded Jean has touched the shifting shadowy nub of all this. I really do not believe 'they' know what they are doing; but BOY, to them, it feels great doing it. (Blair syndrome?)

There must be a Greek Myth to cover it. I am no scholar, but have read a few and admire their cogency. The Emperor's New Clothes (whence - originally?) is obviously part of it and I think the EU FUNCTIONARIES are most akin to the dodgy tailors who stuffed the Emperor?

But how much do the EU tailors understand their own actions? Has the whole thing taken on a life of its own? Do Barroso et al get up each morning, sure that someone must really know what is going on when, in truth, no one does? This is how an ant colony functions, but the ants will still be around when we have shafted ourselves; it clearly doesn't work for us.

I watched Tailor-Miliband on Sunday AM talking with great surety about the wonderful EU and its treaty. Does he understand it - or is he assuming SOMEBODY MUST DO, SO IT'S OK? If Miliband DOES understand, let him re-write it in plain English. I am not going to let this go. I doubt there was a single Irish voter truly qualified to vote from an informed position. This iniquity has to be dragged into the light, and the lie, within which we are currently sleep-living (Vaclav Havel) exposed, disempowered and replaced with wisdom and integrity. I'll be back.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

We did not have to wait long for a new "missing documents on the train" story.


The cultural attitude to security and in particular secrecy is absurd and contrary to what will facilitate effective standards.

Look at the culture. I assume the case of the security services officers wife and the Formula One functionary at a party can't be covered because it is so hush hush!

Apologies for this but I'd like to know whether these work, and there's no preview anymore.

---Testing HTML formats---

Italic : italic
Bold : bold
Ampersand inserted in text : News&Night

Live link :

/blogs/tms/2008/05/possibly_the_most_famous_momen.shtml
Who's Rod

And these formats too, if you don't mind:

---Testing HTML formats 2---

Table :


Quote :

Broad's in, he bowls, this time Vettori lets it go outside the off stump, good length, inviting him to fish,.. but Vettori stays on the bank, and keeps his rod down, so to speak.

Auntie Beeb , Your Amazing, I Love You,
But and its a Big Butt, Freedom of Speech is Impotant/Important?

Thankyou post 33 I do like a giggle

Ok, here we go...

Barrie - reply part 1 of 2

my turn to apologise (for #14), I was very tired and allowed your comment to get to me..

As for its content, I think the likelihood of us seeing eye to eye on European matters is infinitely small, I'd probably get better odds for the next Pope being a woman.

Do I just rely on the word of 'others'? I certainly question people's motives long before I'll accept their argument, on all sides. I read a range of European coverage, both pro and anti (some links in the next post), and have repeatedly delved into the suffocating, trickle-filled depths that are EU treaties and regulations. I have for the last few years been in the rather unenviable position of auditing EU aid (as an independent outsider). If this makes me a rampant pro-EU apologist in your eyes, then so be it, I can't really do much about that.

That said, I would very much welcome a detailed crystal-mark breakdown of the implications of the Lisbon Treaty - it would save me a lot of time and hassle. There are readable summaries but 99% of them are far too approximate/superficial.

Personally, I'd apply your four questions (#5 and #18) just as much to the 'anti' as the 'pro' camp, particularly with regards to 3). Most vociferous anti-Europeans - a majority of whom are viscerally opposed to anything European - are just as unlikely to have read, let alone understood, the treaty and its implications.

As the pro-camp focuses on the 'benefits', they concentrate on the 'negatives'. For instance, admitting that the reduction of vetoes is matched by a clarification of competences, particularly with regards to that alpha-devil, the Commission, and greater powers for both the European Parliament and national ones, is clearly beyond them. One of the very few Euro-sceptics who talked some sense about this issue, was Stanley Johnson (former Conservative MEP), [1].
_____________________

[1] (unfortunately no longer available on the EV website)

Barrie - reply part 2 of 2

Regarding the Lisbon Treaty itself, reforming EU27 institutions and their decision-making powers/procedures is not optional, otherwise they'll grind to a very expensive halt.

Part of Lisbon was to streamline the European commission with fewer Commissioners and fewer Directorate Generals, and reduce the scope of cases on which is has to act. Add to that the new powers given to parliaments and efficiency savings at the European Council (in part by changing the six-monthly rotating presidency to a 2 1/2 year term).

Concerning the abolished vetoes, with other members' support (about 3-5 countries out of 27) these issues can still be blocked - when there are widespread concerns that grouping is easily negotiated. The main red lines (justice, border controls, social affairs, taxation) remain.

If you want, have a look at the europa.eu pages (in the sources below). If you want to discuss this in more detail I'd be happy to oblige although more detailed procedural comments on the treaty itself it would probably be posted by the end of the next week only.
_____________________

Here's a selection of English language sources I use, in no particular order

Press/media/magazines:

*
*
*
*
*
*
* Der Spiegel - English

Blogs/forums:

* 大象传媒 blog - Mark Mardell
*
*
*
*
*
* (unfortunately this no longer seems to be active)

Europa.eu (inevitably some are complex, some can be terribly patronising):

*
*
*
*

Sorry, drop in concentration towards the end. Final sentence in #38 should read:

... comments on the treaty itself would probably be posted by the end of next week only.

CF

BEWITCHED, BOTHERED AND BEWILDERED?

CF, forgive me if I'm mistaken, but you appear to be as bewildered as Barrie, myself, and the New Labour dominated European Scrutiny Committee.

Cloe GENUINE RESPONSE

I am truly grateful for the effort you have made on my behalf, and delighted you are a Duracell Bunny today. I don't pretend to understand all references - I was already adrift at your allusion to auditing EU aid!
I will trawl through the links tomorrow, and do my best to comprehend. (None of this is false modesty, my favoured nickname of 'smartart' is half derived from 'artisan'.)
My four questions were intended to be (sort of) absolute, in the matter of binding majority decisions. Indeed I have, elsewhere, argued for a 'Certificate of Voting Competence' within Britain, rather than universal suffrage - the latter being a manipulating scoundrels' (aka politicians') charter.
SIZE MATTERS.
Look in your local paper at wedding photos: similar 'family-faces' tends to marry. Assuming Nature does not want incest, She certainly wants to constrain 'the group'. (Hurrah for Schumacher) Add to that (in my case, and many more like me) the memory of being an island bulwark against a frightening enemy. Then you will understand why I do not feel part of a continent let alone 'AT THE HEART OF' as Major and his successors would keep trumpeting. I am no more at the heart of Europe than a Manxman is English. It is my considered opinion, that any cultural construct that is at odds with natural tendencies will end in tears. All this comes before any consideration of the commercial, environmental, military etc etc pros and cons of being tied into the European project.
As I posted recently: WE HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO MEASURE THE IMMEASURABLE. Worse, we no longer value what we cannot quantify. Nigel Kennedy illustrated the point on Sunday AM when he said, of the Poles: 'They still have aspects of identity that, hopefully, won't get washed out by the European rinse.' Amen to that.

DESIGNED TO MARGINALISE AND CURTAIL

Hi Jaded Jean, Jaded Barrie here. I followed your link and now I want to die. What is the EU Reform Treaty? Or what was it 27 Nov 2007? Did it turn into Lisbon?
I do see what you mean. But this is the trouble. This is why I challenged Cloe to declare her degree of expertise. This VERBATIM extract is damning:

'Conference process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate.'

The last three words should resonate through all our exchanges.

MANY THANKS NEWSNIGHT

The exchanges on this blog are invaluable. I hope the Beeb does not decide to close it and use the money to swamp even more speech radio with maddening music that defeats the hearing of much of the core audience.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY*

Apparently 'we' have a motto! All the time the Eurocrats are trying to 'harmonise' our idiosyncrasies into conformity, it is being done in celebration of diversity! What a fool I've been! Everything is alright. We are going to have agreement in dissent, simplicity in complexity and clarity in obscurity. Or have I succumbed to levity in insanity?

*

I was in Ireland last week before the referendum and everyone I talked to was going to vote against the Treaty for different reasons.
The most common was the French plan to 'Harmonise' corporate tax rates across europe (which is code for making everybody as globally uncompetitive as they are and thereby making France competitive inside the EU). Of course this would devastate the Irish economy, but who cares about that in the new efficient, streamlined EU where Britain, France, Germany and Italy get together and decide policy for the whole of Europe. Which is basically what this Treaty will involve.
As a person from a small nation, I have to say that colonialisation was so much easier to understand when people just showed up with an army and invaded your country. At least that way you didn't have to read 1,000's of pages of legal gibberish to realise that you had lost your rights. Plus you didn't have to fund a sham national government with your taxes.
I'd also like to say finally that if we intend to give the European Union an army and the ability to raise taxes, maybe the MEP's that we send to it shouldn't just be politian's that are either too old or too politically embarrassing to actually get elected to our national parliaments.

Barrie I thought this was your blog ?

Pantsman

NUTS: THE 'REFORM TREATY'/'LISBON TREATY'/'NOT THE EU CONSTITUTION TREATY'





In the last, please see the VIDEO AND AUDIO NEWS box: 'Committee chairman on EU treaty report'. You may have to download this to make it run properly....

Our New Labour (New Left) Great Leaders appear to be working very hard along with the rest of the Socialist International for a Worker's Democracy (not Old Labour type Democratic Centralism, i.e. Big Government), so an alternative, ironic, title might have been 'DEFINITELY NOT THE EUSSR GOSPLAN/GOSBANK ENABLING TREATY'.

NUTS: THE 'REFORM TREATY'/'LISBON TREATY'/'NOT THE EU CONSTITUTION TREATY'

*
*
*
*
In the last, please see the VIDEO AND AUDIO NEWS box: 'Committee chairman on EU treaty report'. You may have to download this to make it run properly....

Our New Labour (New Left) Great Leaders appear to be working very hard along with the rest of the Socialist International for a Worker's Democracy (not Old Labour type Democratic Centralism, i.e. Big Government), so an alternative, ironic, title might have been 'DEFINITELY NOT THE EUSSR GOSPLAN/GOSBANK ENABLING TREATY'.

*
*
*

Oh dear - just prefacing links with asterisks doesn't work, and asterisk + space makes the link drop a line. What works CF? Are there guidelines?

Adrienne/JadedJean, I'm itching to add comments , to #40 etc- but put in the wrong batteries at 530 this morning.. screen's melting in front of my eyes.

Link's nothing to do with asterisk, you'll need to use HTML formating codes . Quick search foudn this



but drop the 'target' command (browser handling of it is too varied) - can/will post simpler instructions , just not tongiht. Many apologies.

Thanks Cloe. I tried some of the HTML code but what I was submitting seemed to be at odds with the blog filters (and I'm not at all sure that any of it had anything to do with the code!).

JadedJean, see Thursday's Peter Barron piece:

Formatting live links