• Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook
  • Facebook

Search This Blog

Loading...
Visit our new website.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Virtual organisation

An agreement has finally been reached. Predictably the Government has claimed victory and is attempting to persuade us it has secured its so-called "red lines".

The reality is that new treaty contains at least 90 -100% of the substance of the old Constitution.

The tough talking and the bluster in the press about red lines was a transparent attempt by the government to create a fake debate in order to appear tough for its domestic audience.

Unfortunately for the Government, it won't wash. Everyone knows that the ludicrous "red lines" were just a distraction. For example - Blair was the only person in Europe talking about giving up the veto on tax. For an analysis of the revised Constitutional Treaty download our new report - "The Constitution by any other name".

Our phones haven't stopped ringing as the press attempts to decipher exactly what the Government gave away in the negotiations. It's strange then that the groups acting as cheerleaders for the new Constitutional Treaty are uncontactable. The BBC has even had to resort to asking us to find people who actually support the new treaty because virtual organisations such as Business for New Europe have gone AWOL on the busiest day of EU news since the French and Dutch no votes two years ago.

Is it possible that their business leaders are finding it difficult to bring themselves to publicly support a new treaty which - despite the Government's promises - will make the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding in the UK for the first time?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Ahem.

The proposed "Article on the role of national parliaments in the Union" starts with the phrase:

"National parliaments shall contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union".

Is this to be read as a direction to Westminster? Will it fetter the actions of the Commons and the Lords in adopting reports and resolutions which are actively critical of the EU?

If that is so -- and the freedom of action of the Westminster Parliament is to be circumscribed -- does this not give the Reform Treaty envisaged by the negotiating mandate one of "the characteristics of a Constitution", at least in the UK's case?