The treaty's new clothes
I’m going abandon my objective approach above and say fervently that I wish all European Union meetings were held like this. Not just because it’s a sunny day in a pretty town, but because an incredibly informal walkabout by the foreign ministers gave such wonderful access.
So much better and simpler than standing around in a crush at the VIP entrance of building in Brussels.
The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, played to the gallery, kissing a woman kitted out in Portuguese national dress, after shaking hands with the Portuguese foreign minister. The ministers watched from a balcony as the local music school band played the .
I asked a number of them whether the was just the constitution in drag, and got replies tailored to each minister's own national audience.
For instance, in Luxembourg on the old constitution, so Foreign Minister Jean Asselborn told me: "That is a very British question. The most important thing is we have a treaty. Not the form but in the basis, the substance we are not far away from the constitutional treaty. All the important things for Britain and for the European Union are in this treaty."
In France they , so Mr Kouchner said: "No, one is shorter than the other, one is a constitution and the other is a treaty." So will they have another referendum? He laughs. "No, not now. We'll go through the parliament."
The Portuguese foreign minister said: "What a question!" But then, he’s chairing all these meetings and wants no trouble.
In Austria, the government was enthusiastic about the constitution, so Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik answered the same question in this way: "We have slimmed it down. It has undergone a diet. But for Austria it was important to keep the essence, to keep the institutional side of it intact, and also to keep the . This is the essence, and we were able to safeguard that."
In Poland, there were more concerns about the constitution, and the government won new concessions in the treaty, so Anna Fotyga said: "Absolutely not. We have gone much further and got a good outcome."
I asked her about the worries I mentioned before, about the Poles derailing the timetable. After making the point that the election date was not certain, she said: "There is no reason to think so. We are pretty united about the mandate we are able to discuss, and the government still has a mandate to act."
The British foreign secretary said: "The prime minister and I have both made this very, very clear - that the constitutional treaty has been abandoned... This is a treaty to make the European Union's institutions work better, and in line with all precedent it should be considered by Parliament.
"That is the right way of doing it, rather than referendum. Politicians of all parties are saying they want Parliament to play a bigger role in British national life, and here's an opportunity for Parliament to play that role."
When I asked if it was basically the same as the old constitution, he said, "It's completely different. This is not a new constitution for Europe, it's some institutional reforms."
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
It's not true that a date for the Polish election is not certain.
It will take place on October 21, after 2/3 of members of Polish Diet
have voted on Friday to disolve it.
Moreover it's not so uncertain which party will emerge as a winner, with ruling Law$Justice, much maligned by EU media, moving slightly ahead of its main opponent in recent polls.
As for Britons (who never never never shall be slaves) it seems they they've managed to secure enough of their MP votes to force Mr. Brown's government into holding a referendum
on this Phoenix (EU Constitution rising from the ashes in disguise of different plums).
I still cannot understand this government, who keep telling us this 'treaty' is not the same as the old 'constitution', when every other country of the EU says it's practically the same.
Do they really believe that we are so stupid as to believe them.
I reiterate the saying from Mirek Kondracki's letter above that 'Britain's never, never, never shall be slaves. (Even to our own dictatorial government)
Incidently I shall be watching the Last Night of the Proms tonight and singing along with rule Britannia because - there is a forgotten almost forbidden word that means more to me than any other - that word is England.
Glad that you could get such free access to these people who live in their artificial EU world which they perpetuate for their own self-serving interests. They protect it by living in denial that the Treaty is the Constitution thus avoiding having to consult the electorate. The comment by the Portuguese is very revealing - it shows how spineless these federalists are in that they will hide from intelligent debate when confronted with even the suggestion of dissent.
A comparison of the reform treaty and the old constitution is very interesting. The lawyers tell us that the old constitutional treaty grants the EU 105 new 'competences' (Euro-speak for 'powers'); the reform treaty also 105. Out go the EU symbols, in comes climate change. The other 104 remain the same.
Decision-making by qualified majority voting replaces unanimity in 62 new areas in the reform treaty, as opposed to 61 in the constitution. Out go intellectual property rights, in come energy and climate change. The other 60 remain the same.
If this new treaty is not an EU constitution then what does he call the old one?
Above all, Mark, these EU people deny that the original 1957 Treaty of Rome is in itself a constitution. It defined the EEC institutions and organs of government with their responsibilities. It put member states in their place and committed them to a course of 'ever closer union'. Subsequent treaties merely extended the EEC's powers and institutions based on that overriding principle that one day there would be finally political union. Therefore, according to the existing EU constitution, there is by definition no constraint on the EU when taking away powers from member states because, by definition, it is only a matter of time before they must surrender them. The EU elite, of course, keep quiet about this until it is too late and they have achieved their goal by stealth because the rest of us were asleep.
The last 32 years have taught us that when you join the EU you sign the death sentence for democracy in your country, assuming that you had a decent democracy to start with.
It is obvious that the EU despises it s electorates by denying them their right to vote on who governs them. The only reason that it has accumulated as much power as it has is because it has systematically deceived, bullied and bribed electorates into getting its own way. Deception as in the case of the 1975 UK referendum - it was put to us that this was all about trade and not about political union. Bullied as in the case of Barroso's directive to Tony Blair in June to resist public opinion over the Bill of Rights: "We (the rulers of the EU) have to stand up in front of our national public opinions, not give up to some of the populisms we have in our member states." Bribed as in the case of all accession countries post-1985 who were promised (and given) £millions in net cash receipts per annum when they joined (funded mainly by the German and UK taxpayer). This demonstrates the true sinister character of the EU.
As long as the EU elite continue this strategy then there will always be a disconnection with the voters. The human condition is to oppose those who rule without consent, therefore until these federalists are removed the EU will be rejected by all who value freedom.
The EU makes it a condition of prospective new member states that they have a functioning democracy. This is the height of hypocrisy since the EU's only intention is to abuse and reduce that very precious gift which, in the case of the UK and indeed most other EU countries, millions have died for over hundreds of years. Next time you chat to the EU rulers please ask them how they can justify this. Thank you.
Stephen Farndon has described the E.U. much better than any politician so far (even those Euro-sceptics).
The whole integration process is being pushed through by deception and thanks to people's apathy. The referendum on the New Constitution is a useless exercise. The referendum that should be held across the E.U. should answer once and for all a simple question: "Do you want a superstate?" Failing that ALL the treaties, acts, legislations and silly interventions by the Commission have ONLY one objective in a near future: create the superstate. Those who keep swearing to the contrary should ask the Italians, Luxembourg, Belgians and Germans. The Italian President almost on a daily basis expresses his disappointment that integration is not happening fast enough.
The politicians have one objective: avoid referendums at all cost.
Deny democracy at all cost. The EU is a politician's gravy train and they will not risk its dissolution.
The constitutional concept hasn't been abandoned as there never was one to begin with, unless you are referring to the 1957 Treaty of Rome.
Both the failed EU constitution and the current EU reform treaty are treaties.
Why are politicians everywhere so desperate to deny national democracy and self determination and establish their supergovernment? Yes the EU is a supergovernment and not a state. This supergovernment has 84% control over national legislation (as former German president Herzog stated). This must be undone as the vast majority doesn't want this.
Young children are being brainwashed in schools to support the EUmpire. There isnt a single schoolbook which mentions politicians utter contempt for national democracy and the drive to create a supergovernment by the unelected crowd.
It can now truly be said: those who support handing over powers to the EU or did so in the past are quislings. Why should betraying your countries national sovereignty be treated differently now than it was in 39-45?
To suggest that member states are unable to avoid allowing certain powers at an EU level is silly. I'm quite sure Stephen himself doesn't buy it; if that were the case then why would nations be required to confirm their assent, be it by parliament or referendum?
Because the EU is created by its members and ruled by their governments and peoples.
I cannot speak for the government of the UK, but if they felt a referendum was needed because of certain areas and those are no longer there, then it seems logical that a referendum is no longer needed. The fact that so little has allegedly been left the same would then be irrelevant.
The last 32 years have taught if you join the EU you sign the death sentence of democracy in your country?!? Lol. Really, of an organization that demands its members be democratic that seems remarkable. Given that all states have chosen to join, choose to remain members and elect both directly and indirectly the officials of their local, regional, national and European houses of power that seems absurd, and is noted by the lack of substantive reasoning to support it.
This is piece from the Yes campaign in the UK, distributed to every house in the country. Just trade?
"Our trade, our jobs, our food, our defence cannot be wholly within our own control. That is why so much of the argument about sovereignty is a false one. It's not a matter of dry legal theory. The real test is how we protect our own interests and exercise British influence in the world. The best way is to work with our friends and neighbours. If we came out, the Community would go on taking decisions which affect us vitally - but we would have no say in them. We would be clinging to the shadow of British sovereignty while its substance flies out the window."
Even if the EU has gained competencies over time then so what? Its direct by a mix of EU and national officials all of whom have democratic legitimacy. If the project has moved forward it's only because our elected officials has done so. This is what really irrates Euro-phobes, that they can't and have never won through elections, so they fall back on petty manipulation of truth, dressed up nationalism and unfounded paranoia.
I see it as totally legitmate that leaders sometimes stand up to elements of their electorate. Otherwise you would be demanding that those leaders not do what they think is best for the country, a strange demand for those in high office. They will be judged by the electorate and history.
Bribes? How is it that Germany can make such contributions? Because the allied states after WWII invested in infrastructure to help rebuild Germany. The UK personally has recieved many many times over its initial investment. The same functions with the eastwards expansion. This is ultimately giving the UK money, and so if you make the case that the UK should donate no more to the EU then you also have to tell us how we will fill the holes in tax reveneues when UK companies hasn't been able to thouroughly exploit emerging markets because the linchpins of a European modern trading partner are not there.
The human condition is opposed to those who rule without consent? Probally, so thank god the EU has receieved the consent of its peoples over and over and over again. Infact, only Greenland has chosen to leave the club, showing both that it can be done and that when the people of Greenland no longer wanted to be part of the club they could. This is the really problem, history has shown Europhobes are completely incapable of winning the arguments they make at elections, so again, they resort to absurd labels and play on paranoia about "foreign" powers. Given the current stock of argument I see no reason for this to change.
On the the issue of Brown ruling out a referendum, I came upon this link
It's in the Observer today, where there is an article by Ruaridh Nicoll, which says that Labour's new leader in Scotland, Wendy Alexander, has let slip that Labour, in order to dish the SNP, are going to agree to a referendum on Scottish independence in 2010.
Party sources are refusing to comment. Not surprising. She is a Brown protégé so this will have been agreed with the PM but it's the last thing he wants people to know about this side of a general election.
It would not only draw attention to his hypocricy in not allowing a referendum on the EU treaty, but play into the hands of those who question right, as a Scottish MP, to be prime minister at all.
As Anthony Wedgewood-Benn has pointed out many times - In this country no MP has the right to give away the power that is entrusted to him by his voters. This means that under UK law, we are not in the E.U. nor have any right to benefit from it.
But MPs 'give away' powers all the time!
by making the Bank of England independent, they gave away the power to set interest rates
by signing any number of trade deals they have given away the power to set tariffs on goods entering the country
by agreeing to the 'dual key' with the US, they have given away the power of an independent nuclear deterrent
we didn't need referendums on any of those things...
Thank you Oliver Lewis for your thoughtful counter-arguments to my points. I am ready to answer all that you have raised if you are ready to keep this discussion logical and level-headed. I am a scientist and an engineer and I have read a lot of small print on the subject. I welcome any intellectual challenge to what I have concluded. I too believe that it is wrong to stir up irrational fears in order to win arguments, what matters are facts. If you agree to these terms then I will go on. What do you say?
The new "Reform Treaty" is according to Angela Merkel the old "Constitution" minus the flag, anthem, the word constitution. Great! so when can we look forward to the disappearance of these tedious symbols from our public spaces? Will I be allowed to remove the blue EU flag from my car's numberplate? Blue and gold are sooo retro!
When the French and Dutch voted against the constitution the also voted against every article contained within that constitution, this means that if any articles contained in the constitution are also in the treaty, then there is no legal mandate for the treaty without the consent of the people. Acting without the consent of the people constitutes an act of treason.
To Paul Cadier,
My friend you can remove the "ring of barbed wire" from your car number plate any time you like. Despite what some garages might say there is no legal right to display such a monstrosity.
It will cost you approximately £20 for a new plain set of plates plus proof that you are the genuine owner of the vehicle.
You can even have any British flag on the plate instead of a two fingered sign if you so wish!