Jim Murphy

« Conversations about... | Main | Moving away from the... »

Monday 08 October, 2007

Thank you to everyone who's taken the time to post comments so far.

When I said that I wanted a lively public debate on the EU, I was prepared for some challenging arguments from you in reply - and there have been plenty of comments posted on the various blogs on this site.

I appreciate that people have strong opinions on this issue. I do too. I believe that Parliament is the right place to debate the Reform Treaty.

This is how previous European Treaties have been handled. No Government, neither Conservative nor Labour, has ever held a referendum on an amending Treaty. I would argue that both the Single European Act and Maastricht Treaty were more significant for the UK than the Reform Treaty. But they were not decided by a referendum, but rather by MPs and Peers in the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

The Reform Treaty is not the Constitutional Treaty - it does not rip up the existing Treaties and replace them. And we have negotiated safeguards that mean significant parts of it do not apply to the UK (for example, we can pick and choose across the board whether to take part in justice and policing co-operation). There will be no transfer of power away from the UK on issues of fundamental importance to our sovereignty.

What the Treaty does do is make sensible changes to help make an EU of 27 Member States work better. This will mean the EU can move on and concentrate its efforts on the issues that matter most, such as protecting the environment, fighting crime and creating jobs.

Did you know that there are currently 92 million people in the EU who are economically inactive - that’s more than the populations of Scandinavia and the 10 newest Member States. It’s in the UK’s interest that Europe is at work. It’s good for our economy and British business. What do you think we can do about this with Europe?

Posted at 18:24 08 October 2007 by Jim Murphy | Comments[5]

Share this with:

Comments:

You say "I believe that Parliament is the right place to debate the Reform Treaty." - in which case, why were we promised a Referendum. Similarly, given previous statements on inheritance tax, by Labour Party heavies, clearly stating it would not be changed, are you now suddenly preparing to change it.brbrClearly, this government's purpose is brbr1. Stay in power whatever it takes.brbr2. Do what we want, not what the people want. brbrA government that clearly believes it is fine to lie to its people is a government that has to go.brbr

Posted by Jeremy Poynton on October 09, 2007 at 04:54 PM BST #

In reply to your comment about "what can be done about economically inactive people in Europe", I think a starting point might be too look in more detail about which groups are economically inactive and why. For example some people labelled as "inactive" have worked for thirty-five years or more and have retired with a full occupational pension; they are however, below the UK state retirement age. The term also covers young people who have never worked and who have struggled to acquire basic skills. Neither group is helped by being labelled "inactive"; it should surely go without saying that they need to be treated as individuals with different needs.

Posted by Lisa on October 11, 2007 at 02:06 PM BST #

The solution to your question is simple, limit the number of people coming from outside the EU to work across Europe. How can you expect to get people in Europe working when 100,000s of jobs are going to NON European citizens every year in Britain alone. brbrImmigration is one of the main concerns of the British people right now, we can not place limits on people coming from current EU members but we can almost stop all other immigration from the rest of the world. brbrImmigration is a problem faced by Germany and France aswell, we need them onside so we can finally deal with the problems of mass immigration from Africa and Asia.

Posted by Simon on October 14, 2007 at 10:13 AM BST #

You argue that because both the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty were allegedly more significant, but we didn't have a referendum, then we should not have one on this forthcoming Constituiton Treaty either.brbrLeaving aside the fact that the Foreign Secretary has already admitted that the Maastricht Treaty involved a "smaller transfer of power" than the revised EU Constitution Treaty Hansard, 3 July 2007, why is the Labour Party attempting to justify its course of action simply based on what Margaret Thatcher and John Major chose to do? brbrThis seems a very strange and sorry state of affairs to me. brbrThe truth is that Parliamentary scrutiny of the treaty would be an utter charade because, unlike the normal legislative process, Parliament will not be able to amend one tiny word of the treaty.brbrSo while it may indeed debate it, Parliament will have no power to change any elements that are, resultingly, deemed unsatisfactory.brbrOur Parliamentary democratic process would therefore not be working as effectively as it would usually over domestic legislation. brbrThat is why the extra democratic safeguard of a referendum is required, and you must honour your clear manifesto promise.br

Posted by Stuart Coster on October 16, 2007 at 11:32 AM BST #

Dear Jim Murphy, Minister for Europe – and UK-in-EU Contributors.brbrIn the EU’s ‘Convention on the Future of Europe’ there were mostly very valuable discussion forums; at the end when the ‘Constitutional Treaty’ was signed by all, one could feel deterioration into already failed arguments – re-gorged out into the public sphere by euro-sceptic journalism. Its unproven facts simplified, thence can be put into workstation storage to be new-listed in each opportune chance: sold as historically normative arguments, whereas their original analyses stay unproven!brbrBut my researches were reflective: of EU Solidarity in ESDPCFSP sub ‘Petersberg Tasks’; also of NATO Solidarity – now no longer what was ESDI, certainly not ditto as in those unifying threats of Cold War. The CFSP was and still is developing as a logical trend – that is due to control by EU member nation-states by means of all our natural norms of a need for co-operative social economy. In the creations of a CESDP, however, what do “the powers that be” now think and future-expect of … brbr… the ‘EU copying NATO’? And without any EU hegemonic powers? On the other hand, that NATO’s hegemonic superpower, the United States of America, has now seemingly been isolated. With the USA ‘coalitions of the willing’ substituting alone for NATO’s newest role. It has been thrust upon us all by a too soon expansionism. Such a global shift, it seems to me, was imprudent. Best policy, it could have been, by prioritising EU ‘widening’, so utilising its part-neutrality diplomatic possibilities.brbrI would surmise that such steps might still benefit all concerned in the EU/Europe:br• by Principle of Solidarity, CFSPEU can be achieved via ‘ever closer union’.br• selective ESDP delegates Petersberg Tasks to pre-competent milicivi ERRFs.br• EU member-states co-allocatable to neutrality, ex-colonial, or NATO conflict.br• globalised military peace-enforcement is task-allocated to new ESDINATO.brQuestion: would it benefit the USA, acting globally by macro-security partnerships within limited sub-global stability-zones? the EU could still offer global soft power, cum USA/UNO and EU as permanent confederation with global peace-only reach!br

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
« November 2009
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30
Today

Jim Murphy

Minister for Europe

Calendar

Search

Feeds

Tag cloud

Blogroll

Evaluations

FCO bloggers

FCO partners overseas

FCO websites

UK government websites