David Miliband

Foreign Secretary

FCO Logo
« For Queen and Countr... | Main | Engagement with Cuba »
Wednesday 18 June, 2008

All eyes on Luxembourg 2

Thank you to those who commented on my blog about the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Luxembourg.  Here are answers to some of the points.

Precedent:  it is true that in 2005 after the French and Dutch votes ratification was halted (admittedly at a very early stage in the process).  But equally in 2001 after a previous Irish vote ratification carried on. And in 1992 John Major committed himself to continue ratification after the Danish referendum – but delayed. So precedent plays all ways. In this case we are 96% there, all other countries are going to proceed to a conclusion (yes or no) and it is right that we take a view.

Saying No: the views of Ireland cannot be ignored.  If they don’t support the Treaty it will not come into force.

Dead in the water: the rules cannot be changed – they are in Article 6 of the Treaty.

Generic point. Many of those opposed to the Treaty are worried that it reduces national sovereignty. But abandoning ratification because of another country is an odd definition of national sovereignty.

Posted at 12:58 18 June 2008 by David Miliband  |  Comments[24]

  • Share this with:
Comments:

David, I am glad to see that some of the comments on this blog are actually passed on to the instigator for discussion but how on earth can you advocate the "British view" when the views of the British public have been steadfastly ignored and our illustrious government has ridden roughshod over due political process e.g. turning the line-by-line scrutiny into the mockery of special discussion topics and now spouts forth on how it is going to be ratified despite the Irish rejection. It wouldn't be because the EU is going to build the bulk of Lisbon in under the auspices of the accession of Croatia treaty next year when the Irish won't have to hold a referendum to pass it? How low would Brussels stoop to get this heinous piece of legislation ratified?

Posted by Paul Everest on June 18, 2008 at 07:15 PM BST #

Any chance of a guarantee that this wont result in a two-tier situation, inner circle and fringe member EU? Starting to seem like a distinct possibility

Posted by David Mclellan on June 18, 2008 at 09:38 PM BST #

Here is an article that may interest your readers, David: http://www.neurope.eu/articles/87836.php Romanian social-democrat MEPs believe that "The referendum in Ireland has demonstrated that direct democracy by way of referendum cannot ensure the progress of the European process. The security, liberty and prosperity of hundreds of millions of European citizens ask for complex leadership actions, which cannot be appreciated by heterogeneous populations, from the point of view of the information level and the education one." So there you have it, the hoi polloi are indeed too thick to know what is good for them.

Posted by Paul Buddery on June 19, 2008 at 05:50 AM BST #

You say that if the Irish do not support the treaty then its dead in the water, yet you are ignoring the fact that the Irish government gave their people a vote on the treaty, which your leader promised then renaged on that promise, and the Irish have indeed voted against the treaty, yet you still are trying,along with the appointed, not elected, commision to force this unwanted and clearly very unpopular treaty onto the people you say you represent, yet you will not allow us to voice an opinion.

Posted by Nick Harrison-Sleap on June 19, 2008 at 11:57 AM BST #

It is well known that The British People would have voted "NO" if they had been given the promised referendum. A number of other countries may well have voted "NO" also? Is it not time The European Union listened to The People whose tax actually pays for these unelected leaders? Surely this would be true democracy. As it is I feel we are heading for a "Soviet Style" Europe on which we the people have no say.

Posted by Peter Gizzi on June 19, 2008 at 03:56 PM BST #

With the Lisbon Treaty in crisis, there is only one way in which European citizens can have their say - through the 'Europe Needs Initiative' online forum http://www.we-change-europe.eu. The initiative is calling for the EU Commission to implement a pan-European referendum on key issues affecting the public – for example in the case of all future EU enlargements. If a million votes are collected in favour of the referendum, these can then be transmitted to the European Commission with the request of constitutional amendment. In view of Ireland’s referendum last week and yesterday's passage of the EU Amendment Bill, this is the right time to reassess the EU’s responsiveness to its citizens.

Posted by Professor Dr Johannes Pichler on June 19, 2008 at 05:40 PM BST #

Re: Precedent - how interesting that a Labour Foreign Secretary needs to justify his actions by those of the previous Tory government, rather than being consistent with his own party's previous actions. That rebuttal might work when you're speaking to the Tories in Parliament, but it just looks odd out here. Likewise your 'generic point', which I'm sure everyone in a debating chamber would think frightfully clever. But, frankly, it's far too late and completely implausible given the measure you have just pushed through Parliament to try to claim you are upholding national sovereignty. Altogether a very disappointing response.

Posted by Mike Hanlon on June 19, 2008 at 06:29 PM BST #

iMany of those opposed to the Treaty are worried that it reduces national sovereignty./i I'm afraid, "the people" never come of age. See ... A HREF=http://http://selenadreamy.blogspot.com/ rel="nofollow"Memoranda/A Little Englanders...

Posted by Selena Dreamy on June 19, 2008 at 07:46 PM BST #

To Selena Dreamy. Our greatest bard said of England, "This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall, Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands, This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England" The refusal to agree with the Treaty of Lisbon isn't about "Little Englanders" trying to hold back progress. This is about the failure of democracy, whether it be in England or continental Europe, to allow the people to vote on their future.

Posted by Paul Everest on June 19, 2008 at 09:34 PM BST #

The problem is, many are opposing this treaty due to opposition of the EU itself. If the public looked at this treaty in a way of improving the European Union and not in voicing their complaints about it, then it would be implemented no problem. Currently the treaties that govern the European Union are outdated due to the expansion and need to be updated, simply put that is what this treaty does. Unfortunately, the result of a referendum is rarely about the core issue at hand yet an indication of wider issues, such as a criticism of the government or of the European Union itself. In Ireland it was also a reflection on how poorly the 'yes' campaign was run, where no one was even sure what they were voting on.

Posted by Ben Ross on June 19, 2008 at 10:32 PM BST #

"If they don’t support the Treaty it will not come into force." They don't. They very clearly said they don't when they were asked. If you support any effort to ask them again, that is not only gravely insulting to the Irish people, including those who voted yes, it is an affront to any notion of democracy in the EU. You cannot condone offering any changes to the treaty to "persuade" them to vote yes either, as the treaty cannot now be modified. Any amendments will require a new treaty. "abandoning ratification because of another country is an odd definition of national sovereignty" You have said the treaty cannot come into force if it is not supported. It has been established, beyond question, it is not unanimously supported, therefore what is the point of ratifying it? Is it also odd to honour the EU Treaty? Isn't it really odd to continue devoting parliamentary time to a treaty that cannot be implemented?

Posted by Hamish Hossick on June 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM BST #

For Paul Everest! Permit me, Sir, to reply to your “greatest bard” with the following, somewhat sardonic, quotation: i“The age of kings is past: what today calls itself “the people“ deserves no king. Just see how they now behave like shopkeepers: they glean the smallest advantage from sweepings of every kind.”/i Nietzsche. And remember, the lowest common denominator always triumphs. What must be noted, moreover, about the Irish referendum is that it was conducted under extremely unfavourable conditions, and if - trust me on this - social evolution had had to be ratified by referenda, the UK would still be using the old monetary system instead of the decimal one. What’s more, on August 19, 1934, a ibplebiscite/b/i was held to give Hitler absolute powers, and it is indeed a blessing that the pivot of history does not turn upon public processes of decision-making, but upon the effective exercise of ielected/i parliamentary authority and independent judgement of action.

Posted by Selena Dreamy on June 20, 2008 at 12:26 PM BST #

Selena Dreamy says: "the lowest common denominator always triumphs." Yet that is one of the most common complaints about the EU method and its negative effect on the development of Europe. For when the lowest common denominator triumphs, the EU ensures it is imposed on everyone. Progress slows. Selena, you also talk of the "effective exercise of elected parliamentary authority". But from where is that authority gained, and what should be the proper process when those who are elected want to hand that authority to more remote institutions? Referenda are indeed rarely suitable, but they are appropriate in those circumstances. And after all, is not Switzerland with its citizens initiatives a quite civilised and modern country?

Posted by Mike Hanlon on June 20, 2008 at 06:21 PM BST #

To Selena Dreamy. We can quote back and forth as much as you like but the matter stands that the rules must be obeyed. As David has said "Dead in the water: the rules cannot be changed – they are in Article 6 of the Treaty." The Irish were given the opportunity to vote on their future, we, the English were not. The plebiscite which gave so much power to Adolf Hitler; we are not voting for absolute power - I leave that to the Eurocrats who won't even allow a free vote for so many millions of citizens. We, the English, haven't been given the option to vote and must rely on other nations to do so for us by proxy. Our government wouldn't even allow the result of the judicial review brought by Mr Stuart Wheeler to be announced before ratifying this duplicitous piece of legislation. I would ask you the following questions. Is there no room for dissent in your world? Which part of "No" and "all 27 states must ratify" is giving you a problem? I leave you with another piece of Shakespeare "O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath! "

Posted by Paul Everest on June 20, 2008 at 08:51 PM BST #

to all those foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down, screaming about our staring over the precipice, right on the edge, just one more step and we may as well submit ourselves entirely to the fascist masters in the soviet states of europe. i would just like to ask - so what do you propose we do about the problems the Lisbon Treaty effectively addressed? just ask the Russians nicely to stop being such really big meanies and would they mind awfully if they played fairly on the global stage now? we need a unified european policy on Russia. this is either unlikely or will take so long without the Lisbon Treaty, by the time any agreements will have met a whole other set of problems will have arose. we are all just chasing our tails, squabbling and falling out,

Posted by sarahsmith232 on June 21, 2008 at 04:17 PM BST #

a happy consequence of what has been recognised as Russia's divide and rule strategy. we elect British representatives to parliament, handing over responsibility for our continued stability, security and prosperity. they have recognised that this can only be achieved through a european union. we elect british representatives to the european parliament, the only difference is one parliament is made up british politicians and only 2 europeans. the other has british M.E.P's surrounded, i'm sure, flanked on all sides, by europeans. they collectively, along with our leaders and foreign ministers, take on responsibility for our continued stability, security and prosperity. the only difference is one parliament has mainly just british representatives, one has british and europeans.

Posted by sarahsmith232 on June 21, 2008 at 04:20 PM BST #

where's the difference? people other than ourselves are making decisions which affect our lives. only the most backward of xenophobic little englanders could imagine they have legitimate reason to object. the Labour front bench being made up of a few european M.P's would help. an ethnic minorities, women only and europeans list for prospective M.P's anyone?

Posted by sarahsmith232 on June 21, 2008 at 04:20 PM BST #

i"O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath! "/i - and all the more so, when employed to rebalance a self-image that has drifted from patriotism and justifiable pride in the country's achievements towards an increasingly defensive and xenophobic nationalism! But I agree with you, Paul Everest, a British referendum would be a massive defeat of the projected Union. Indeed, the democratic justice of national referenda may well be the most resounding of injustices: government by the lowest common denominator leads in reality to a government where altruistic values and democratic humanism no longer play a part.

Posted by Selena Dreamy on June 21, 2008 at 04:28 PM BST #

To: sarahsmith232 - the difference is in people who we don't elect and have little control over making laws we must all live by. Nothing to do with nationalities. It is about democracy. And throwing around accusations of xenophobia and nationalism just doesn't cut it as a response to that fundamental EU problem, unless you simply wish to distract from it because you don't hold democracy that highly. Working together in Europe on the issues that affect us all does not necessitate passing ever more decision-making to unaccountable central institutions. Quite obviously, the EU model is not the only method by which countries can work together. Co-operation is also perfectly capable of providing common policies, where they exist. But that's not what the EU is really all about, is it. The EU is all about political integration towards a 1950s-envisaged superstate. An honest debate can only start when EU supporters accept that reality.

Posted by Mike Hanlon on June 23, 2008 at 09:52 AM BST #

Selena, the result of a plebiscite is never a foregone conclusion. The "lowest common denominator" can, and often do, astound and confuse the higher echelons with their wisdom. If the political elite are so sure of our love for their wisdom, knowledge, benficience and that of the European institution then should we not be given the freedom of choice to express our gratitude?

Posted by Paul Everst on June 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM BST #

mike hanlon. there's absolutely not one jot of difference between human beings, other than ourselves, being in a position which means that the decisions they make affect our lives, either those people being europeans and making decisions, or british and european together and making decisions, or being just british. recently a judge, could be your standard fare, very old and very white, sympathetic to the euroskeptic cause male, could be a younger, more open and less rabidly hostile to europe type, has just attempted to bring the ratification through parliament of the Lisbon Treaty to a dead stop, a political process decided by our elected MP's and government. this is an unelected, faceless and remote bureaucrat. we don't know who he is, he could be politically motivated,

Posted by sarahsmith232 on June 24, 2008 at 10:08 AM BST #

he may be a passionate UKIP supporter. he will never need to make his decision on a referendum accountable to the electorate. yet, we're accepting of this faceless cog in the political wheel because he is british? the problem Labour has never seemed to consider relevant enough to bother tackling is that the european institutions seem so far removed and, as people say, remote. we don't know anything about José Manuel Barroso, for e.g, if we here in britain had been allowed to really connect with him, get to know him, understand his politics, i'm passionately pro europe, i have not the foggiest about his views, is he left wing, right wing, centrist? haven't a clue. this will create anxiety in people. some strange, unknown quantity, and a foreigner to boot, having control over your life.

Posted by sarahsmith232 on June 24, 2008 at 10:09 AM BST #

doesn't work. it's no wonder people in this country don't feel secure about the direction abandoning our futures to europe will bring. but this is the only stumbling block. if we do start to get to know these people, some of them seem awfully charming and perfectly lovely, i'm sure José Manuel Barroso could be described as one of them, even. and start to understand the process and benefits these institutions are responsible for then we in britain will soon become pro instead of paranoid about europe. so mike hanlon, we DO elect M.E.P's to parliament, the E.U is democratic, the system is identical to the one we're living by in this country, it's just that the more visible of the european politicians are still very alien to us. it is just a frantic clinging on to that rabid, very, very old world, insular and fearful nationalism that is your problem with europe.

Posted by sarahsmith232 on June 24, 2008 at 10:10 AM BST #

"If the political elite are so sure of our love for their wisdom, knowledge, benficience and that of the European institution then should we not be given the freedom of choice to express our gratitude?" They don't need our gratitude, Paul. In fact, they are so scared of our innate stupidity that we daren't be given such an opportunity for fear that instead of saying "Yes, you are all-knowing guardians of all that is good for us miserable, worthless peasants." we might stupidly say "No, leave our political and legal rights where they have been for centuries, we like being protected from the excesses of the state and don't want even more power transferred to unelected eurocrats." As Selena and Sarah Smith have made perfectly clear, democratic rights should not be given to nasty, snivelling little ignoramuses who don't appreciate that their political power should be diluted to an extent that makes it entirely meaningless. We should welcome the idea that what may best suit the majority of EU citizens may well spell disaster for us and at our cost.

Posted by Paul Buddery on June 24, 2008 at 01:27 PM BST #

Post a Comment:
  • HTML Syntax: NOT allowed