Comments on: Why Ed Davey is wrong about the Lisbon Treaty

By: Abstention on the Lisbon treaty referendum vote would be a disaster… probably « THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF MORTIMER

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:41:18 +0000

[…] from the treaty referendum vote (“What? Repeat that at once, scurvy knave!”). Two, Ed “Da Man” Davey told the bloggers that pressurising the government was not a realistic possibility, numerically speaking (“What […]

By: James Graham

James Graham — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:13:22 +0000

Paul P: I did read that although I’m sceptical that Ming needed much convincing either way. Another factor would have been the now LDEPP Leader Andrew Duff’s trenchant opposition to a referendum.

Mike: Thanks, I didn’t appreciate the EPP-ED angle.

By: Mike Wood

Mike Wood — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:24:56 +0000

The requirement to consider the results of the European elections in nominating a President of the Commission is a new development. In 2004, the EPP-ED Group made it clear that, if they won the most seats, they would expect the Council to nominate a candidate from one of its member parties. This followed the disquiet in 1999, when despite the EPP-ED “winning” the elections, the Council still nominated Romano Prodi - a member of the Party of European Socialists.
Making this, currently informal, measure a Treaty provision is a significant step and makes it unlikely that whichever of the two largest Groups wins the 2009 European elections would support a nominee from the other Group. It might also make it virtually impossible for an ALDE candidate to be elected as the Group is always (at least in the foreseeable future) will be a distant third in the European Parliament. Given that a large number of EU Member States have ALDE parties in Government, this could exclude the strongest candidates from a number of Member States.
I think you’re still understating the powers of the President of the Commission - they certainly have greater powers than most EU heads of state. I would have thought that Barroso has more powers than the Presidents of Germany, Italy or Ireland and more than the monarchs of the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands or Belgium. The President of France is the only head of state in Europe that I can think of who has greater power in practice.

By: Will Rees

Will Rees — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:12:08 +0000

Gordon Brown uses the if this were the Maastricht treaty there should be a referendum and the constitutional concept has been abandoned instead we are amending the existing treaties….In which case it is the Maastricht treaty again. Another bit of this treaty formerly recognizes the EUro as a EUropean currency, weren’t the electorate promised a referendum on that too?

Maybe as a result of I Want a Referendum’s mass lobby (which took place over several hours so they did not all have to be there at the same time) or maybe as result of Martin Bell’s avowed intent to stand against Michael Martin at the next election or maybe as a result of Lib Dem theatrics whatever - Ian Davidson got a two part referendum amendment of
(a) “Should the United Kingdom retain its membership of the European
Union?”
(b) “If it remains a member of the European Union, should the United
Kingdom approve the Lisbon Treaty?”

to be voted on, on Wednesday, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/048/amend/pbc0482702a.1319-1321.html

will be interesting to watch the Lib Dems eat their cake

By: Tim Leunig

Tim Leunig — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:04:25 +0000

“But he gave us a full hour; it has to be said that in some of the recent interviews we’ve done the interviewees have barely managed 30-40 mins. Given that Ed had promised his wife to get home early was greatly appreciated.” - but not by Emily, I fear

By: newmania

newmania — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:52:52 +0000

Incidentally , you miss the point of the claim to want a referendum ..on the EU . The point is to be Euro loons in a country where, especially Liberal areas, the people are highly suspicious of distant bureaucracy. In my own Constituency where I am assisting with the campaign against Norman Baker , he latches onto every local protest going ( in typical pantomimic Liberal fashion). In the case of the proposed incinerator , it has been shown that for all his posturing actually thanks to EU guidelines we have no say. He is seen as a pointless self dramatist and not before time
I do believe for many Liberals this was the first time they realised their local nonsense was inconsistent with attacking Parliament and the country as a self governing nation. Why lobby anyone when they can`t hear in Brussels . The planned walk outs repeated , I daresay in District Councils all over the country were a palpably meretricious show of fireworks to obscure the glaringly obvious inconsistency in the Liberal case

By: newmania

newmania — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:51:05 +0000

In think you are making a simply thing complicated. The Liberal party are not supporting the amendment because they wish to defraud the public by reason of a quasi religious commitment to eradicatingthe coutry whuch , in truth , they hate . They are supporting Labour because they have already done a deal for power sharing with Gordon Brown and they have got away with it because the subject has been suppressed in the BBC.
I am interested to read that other countries require super-majorites and that is exactly what should be happening here. This is not something that can go ahead in the face of the hate loathing and now contempt of all those who supportive of this country and its right for independence.This is truly an elected dictatorship and I believe the shameful role played by the Liberals will haunt them.

No-one wants to “pool ” sovereignty , we were sold acess to a market and threatened with isolation by our continental rivals acting together, you have consructed a catsle in the air of lies fanatsy and disinformation and it is hilarious to see the it woven into increasingly pointless complexity

Pah

Liars .

By: Paul P

Paul P — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 02:20:53 +0000

According to Dominic Lawson writting in the Independent we are against a referendum on the Lisbon treaty to placate Shirley Williams and other pro-EU former SDP members: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-an-absurd-tactical-ploy-ndash-and-the-paradox-of-the-new-liberal-democrat-leaders-position-789308.html

By: James Graham

James Graham — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:39:16 +0000

Cov, I broadly agree. My reason for asking that question was not out of some fanatical enthusiasm for a President of Europe but because there has been a change and that it was a moot point. My own position is that I think that such a situation is inconceivable for the foreseeable future but that it is possible that at some point and individual may emerge who galvanises enough support to make it happen and that it probably only has to happen once before it becomes the norm. After all, party groupings in the European Parliament is a relatively recent phenomenon and democratic elections for the US Parliament is neither stipulated in their constitution nor something which the Founding Fathers wanted.

I also think it is an entirely legitimate question to ask Euro-candidates how they intend to vote in this important election. Of course, that assumes the electorate gave a shit.

What I was surprised by in Davey’s answer was that he didn’t even recognise it was an area of legitimate debate. There has been a change in the wording and we should be clear about the potential implications. And we shouldn’t run away screaming from the idea of having a more open process for electing the President of the Commission for fear of rousing the Eurosceptics (who presumably would prefer it to be stitched in the proverbial smoke filled room with no public debate at all).

By: Cov

Cov — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:30:41 +0000

As you know this is an issue close to my heart so I’ve followed your recent postings with particular interest.

For what it’s worth, I’ve long believed that the only way to deal with this issue is to have a referendum on membership. So I don’t have a problem with the Party saying that if it were in government it would ratify Lisbon and then put the overall question of membership to the vote (even if that position has clearly arisen out of political expediency). I do, however, think that the walk out was a bit pathetic.

As a bit of an anorak when it comes to these things I was also interested in your comments on the increased role for the European Parliament in choosing Commission Presidents. This was something that Richard Laming and the European Movement got quite excited about at the last election but Lisbon won’t fundamentally change the existing position.

After all, the power to propose a candidate will still remain with the Member States and they will do so AFTER European Parliamentary elections.

It may be that before the elections a series of candidates with distinct agendas will put themselves forward for the job. At this point the European Political parties can support who they like, but the final decision on a candidate will remain a highly political one to be fought over in the Council through the usual bitter backroom negotiations. (And QMV makes no difference to this process.)

The main influence the parties would have would be in making clear during elections who they WOULDN’T support for the role. If, for example, the favoured candidate of member states was a politically divisive figure (a Blair for example) the Council would surely think twice about putting them forward and running the risk of rejection by the Parliament. However this is arguably already the case under the existing Treaties.