The Danish referendum
The Danes will have a referendum... but don't hold the front page.
The Danish foreign minister has indicated the Danish parliament and government want a referendum to get rid of one of , won in Edinburgh in 1992.
They want to opt into the justice policy set out in .
When I first heard this as a bit of gossip, I got quite excited: any popular vote on further European integration would in effect be a vote on the treaty itself.
But when I checked further, the minister had also set out a timetable: the referendum could be held in 2009, after the treaty has been voted through by parliament.
Apologies, by the way, for suggesting the Danish prime minister was a conservative. Many people wrote in to point out he's a liberal and sits alongside the British in the European Parliament, as part of the .
I’m Mark Mardell, the ´óÏó´«Ã½'s North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Easy slip to make Mark - Venstre (Rasmussen's party) are not really very liberal any longer and I suspect many of their MEPs don't really see eye-to-eye with the Lib Dems in the ALDE in the European Parliament.
As for the referendum plans - this looks like a dangerous tactic. Promise a referendum on opting in to the JHA parts of the Reform Treaty, but not the entire Treaty. I wonder whether that position will be maintained? It will give plenty of ammunition to Naser Khader and his New Alliance party.
The Danish foreign minister Per Stig Møller IS a Conservative. His party sits in the government togheter withe the right-wing Liberal party
Avoid referendums at all cost. Further 'integration' at any price'. Harmonization for the sake of it.
Don't these EU-philes (aka quislings to national democracy) ever get tired of ignoring and riding roughshod over national democracy?
If Europe isn't a strange place I don't know what is. If the Danes are enamored of the EU justice policy, they could simply pass a law adopting it as their own law. So why would they instead prefer to cede the power to make law to Brussels? There can be only one answer, they do not trust their own future citizens to stay with that law, they wish to preclude the possibility that at some future time the Danish voters through their government would break with that law not knowing what that law will be including whether or not it will be in Denmark's best interest. This points out a very important difference between the typical European mentality and the American mentality. It's not just that Americans are suspicious of government and want to keep control as local as possible while Europeans are ready to accede to a far away authority, it's that Europeans are idol worshipers. They idolized the Church, then the king, then the US, and now the EU. Each in turn was seen to provide all that was needed in life in return for allegience and obedience. Europe's anger at the US may be based on the fact that now that Europe is fully recovered from World War II, the US will no longer provide all of its wants and desires, investement money, military defense, a ready market for all of its products while allowing it to keep its protectionist policies. Not only that, America has demonstrated that it is not worthy of the pedistal Europe put it on, it is made up of flawed people who make mistakes, are selfish, act in their own interest at the expense of others. In short, as with the Church and the Kings before it, America is dethroned as a false idol. Now a new idol of very dubious merit has arisen, one which cannot help but fail to meet the wants and expectations of the worshipers. Who or what will Europeans sanctify after the EU superstate turns out to be an undeniable super bomb?
Vendtre is Danish for left; the political party established with that name was intended to be of the radical left. At first sight, then, it would seem strange to translate "Venstre" with the English word "Conservative". Then again, though, under Thatcher, Britain's "Conservatives" were anything but conservative and attempted a wide ranging social and economic revolution. So what's in a name? In fact, the current Venstre, is really very "right wing" and many of their policies would make much of the English Conservative Party blanch. I think Conservative, in fact, a fairly reasonable translation.
Venstre are a liberal party, but in the European sense of the word - very much to the right, like the UMP in France.
To this you should add that they can only govern with the assistance of the Danske Folkepartie or the equivalent of the National Front, who have their seats in parliament, not because they have represent any constituency, but because of a "topping up" procedure that gives extra seats to parties according to their percentage of the national vote.
News of a referendum opting INTO something in Europe surprises me - unless it allows Denmark to sidestep condemnation for their racist policies (see ECRI 3).
Mark is dead right in suggesting that many European countries distrust themselves to do the right thing, to pass the right laws and regulate properly. Spain is a case in point. People welcome directives from Brussels, because they're convinced their own politicians would offer an inferior alternative. Politicians welcome them as a way to pass unpopular measures by stealth. The snag: this leads to the infantilisation of politics.
In normal circumstances, countries improve steadily over time by their own efforts. But now that the EU is the benchmark, "backward" countries feel they need to cede sovereignty to "catch up" in the required (absurdly short) space of time. Daddy has to tell them what to do, and smack them on the wrist when they don't do it. But institutions, respect for the rule of law and political culture exist in the mind, and they thrive on people taking responsibility for their own affairs.
The reason that the old democracies of the north take a more sceptical line is that they developed independently of the EU and don't feel the need to have anybody legislating for them.
I expect that France, with the war fading into the background as a reason for having the EU, and now that it is no longer the inspiration of much of the EU's rules, will steadily move towards the Eurosceptic camp (or more likely, a camp of its own somewhere).