Was Gordon foolish not to sign the EU treaty along with the other heads of state, as almost everyone seems to think? I’m not so sure. When British people are pressed to think through what they want out of Europe, a sensible majority grudgingly accept the benefits of the single market and the need to pool sovereignty on some things - but what the British have always been allergic to is the supranational aspects of EU symbolism, precisely those things on display in Lisbon today. So for Gordon to distance himself from the pomp and ceremony while still signing up to what is valuable about the EU may be populist, but it is not completely unreasonable.
In any case, it turns out that the whole premise of the treaty was false. The EU is not suffering from gridlock as a result of enlargement, as many predicted; indeed, if anything, it is working better now with 27 members than it did when it had 15. This is not what either Eurosceptics or Europhiles want to hear; the former never accept the EU might be working well, and the latter are wedded to the logic of “gridlock” as a justification for the latest round of institutional reform. That is why a remarkable report by Helen Wallace, the noted pro-EU academic at the LSE, got so little publicity earlier this week. Wallace points out that of the EU decisions that are subject to complex co-decision rules, the number that went through on the first go actually rose from 34 per cent in 2003 to 64 per cent in 2005 (easing to 59 per cent in 2006), after the first wave of enlargement. Moreover, about 90 per cent of EU decisions continue to be made by consensus and the number of pending cases at the European court of justice is falling. Even the arrival of Romania and Bulgaria is failing to screw things up.
The Late Mr Brown
This seems an informed, kind and generous interpretation of events.
However, a recent statement from The Countryside Alliance reads :
“Yesterday we signalled our intention to take our challenge
to the Hunting Act to the European Court of Human Rights
…….unfortunately the ECHR is unlikely to hear the case
for several years ”
Even to we English harrowed by a mere politician, let alone a Scot , surrendering more of our envy-of-the-world sovereignty to the EU ,
Mr Brown’s failure to show up on time seems insupportably rude
Doubtless some others amongst the foreign gentlemen present also
had pressing previous engagements - but managed to observe :
” public service must be preferred before private passions “(ER.I)
Perhaps he was feeling a little shy ? After all , he promised us a Referendum . Going back on his word might have been compounded by
global press photographs advertising the event including his grin ?
Either way, the negotiating entry level of Eurosceptics accepting any European integration was that we might be less likely to bash each other up , save the odd bit of football buffoonery , in order to avoid an action replay of WWII
Mr Brown’s smug attitude to the ink well of integration , including not bothering to ensure any explanation nor apology was effectively circulated to the other heads present before the actual event began, was both uncivilised and distinctly un-British
OF course we must not rule out the possibility that perhaps Mr Brown is a secret Eurosceptic, and is hoping that Europe will reject us ?
With all due respect to Mr Goodhart and the noted pro-EU academic.. In light of the recent BBC Newsnight v Policy Exchange spat over
the possibility of fabricated expense claims ; is there any way in which British taxpayers can be reassured that the pro-EU figures supplied to the emminent researcher herself are entirely correct ?
Well, yes, in some ways Lisbon was required - not because of the legislative powers it extended to the supranational EU - but because of the partial remedy it offered for the democratic deficit. Lisbon did four main things to bring the voter and Brussels closer together. It allowed a million signatories on any particular issue the right to petition the Commission to initiate law (along the lines seen in Switzerland). It made express provision for countries to leave the EU and set out a timetable for them to do so. It said the Council of government ministers from the 27 countries would henceforth meet on the record, so we’d all know whether our continental neighbours or our own cabinet member had stitched us up in negotiations… And it said the appointed head of the Commission would have to be of the same political hue as the majority grouping in the elected European Parliament.
This, of course, was why the Eurosceptic lobby in this country hated it and why these democracy-enhancing provisions got so little mention amid the half-truths and downright lies about more of our sovereignty being sold down the river.
Incidentally, if it’s sovereignty we’re worried about, then the stink should have been created first with the Single European Act in the 1980s and particularly with Maastricht in the early nineties. Lisbon was small fry by comparison.