Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040618192808.xxk7e3qj


>>give it 6 months till one of the big 3 doesn't follow something.

 

[norinrad21]

historic constitution

LOL

 

[Hamfam]

Don't worry, the UK won't pass this thing, and it'll be back to the drawing board.

 

[DSN2K]

 

[Ripclawe]

Don't worry, the UK won't pass this thing, and it'll be back to the drawing board.

I like the fighting going on with Blair leading other countries telling France/Germany to go screw over their choice for EU president.

 

[gofreak]

I for one hope it's adopted by all. Though it prob won't.

 

[cja]

The Times

A flawed document
The EU constitution is a recipe for confusion


Any institution born in acrimony and wrangling stands little chance of winning respect or general acclaim. The European Union constitution has suffered a confused genesis, a protracted negotiation and a bitter dénouement that has left it without authority, coherence or meaning. Although agreement amongst the leaders was struck last night, the thought that an ill-considered jumble of incoherent philosophical pretentiousness and mindless micro-managing should define British and European identities is absurd.
Few would dispute the need for new rules to accommodate the entry of ten extra nations into a union that was already finding difficulty in coping with 15 existing members. The constitution was mooted as a short declaration of principles and sold, especially in Britain, as a “tidying up” exercise. Whatever claims were made for it under that heading by Tony Blair in his attempt to ward off criticism, the constitution now has gone far beyond any such exercise. Under it, Britain will lose more national vetoes over more areas of policy than were removed by the Maastricht treaty.

Worse than that, the months of negotiation have so freighted the document with addenda, footnotes, interpolated paragraphs and additional clauses that it has become monstrously cumbersome: the very opposite of the short, clear statement of basic values and principles that lies at the heart of most democratic nations’ constitutions. Indeed, it is this lack of clarity that is its most vexing and unacceptable aspect. There is a dangerous ambiguity over the fundamental issue of where power lies and will lie. This ambiguity is not the result of oversight or drafting carelessness: it has been crafted in order to produce a false consensus among EU leaders who each believe that their mutually contradictory interpretation is correct. The result is predictable: at the first clash of meaning, the wording will be referred to the European Court of Justice, which will therefore become the de facto supreme court of Europe and routinely find in favour of “Europe”.

That would be unacceptable not only to Britain but to many other countries, especially those in Central and Eastern Europe which have only just begun enjoying sovereignty outside the Soviet orbit. Within Britain, ambiguity also arises over the status of the EU constitution. Does it take precedence over Britain’s own unwritten constitution? The Government asserts that it does not; senior lawyers insist that it does. From its proponents there has been no effort to explain the ambiguities; instead, they have merely lambasted as Europhobic those who have queried the impenetrable wording.

The fundamental objection to the document is that it is pointing in the wrong direction. The peoples of Europe want lighter regulation, especially from Brussels, and a less intrusive EU presence in their personal lives, in their businesses and in the practice of their democratic freedoms. That was the striking message from the cacophony of results in the recent European elections. The 2001 Laeken Declaration, which set in train the negotiations, envisaged a constitution that would bring the EU closer to its peoples and transfer some powers back to its members, which this constitution has utterly failed to do. The opposite has occurred. The confusion between defining values and laying down workplace regulations has left a document with a built-in bias towards a creeping federalism. This document offers not a roadmap to the future but gives an opportunity for discredited ideologies and government intervention to make a grand return. It is not designed to secure and enhance individuals ’ rights, but to enshrine the right of a self-interested, self-serving bureaucracy to meddle at will.

Telegraph

Signing the constitution is Mr Blair's big blunder
(Filed: 19/06/2004)


At EU summits, there is always a row and always a deal – and the European constitution negotiations did not disappoint. Tony Blair's spin doctors did not quite say, "Gentlemen in England now abed shall think themselves accursed they were not here," but he was, apparently, battling like Henry V against the French and also the Germans. But he signed the constitution anyway, even though last week's election results clearly show he had no mandate to do so.

There was something distinctly phoney about the row. It was all part of an elaborate political game, in which the players moved rhetorical armies across Europe, emitting smoke to deceive each other and us. The most obvious ruse was that Mr Blair was fighting to see off tax harmonisation. That was hardly mentioned in the draft and, to the extent that it was, the clauses related to various minor, irritating, matters. Their removal is only a symbolic victory. Like the other red lines, tax harmonisation is an Aunt Sally.

On the Today programme yesterday, Jack Straw got away with claiming that national parliaments will actually have their powers increased by the constitution. That is untrue. According to the draft, if a third of all parliaments oppose a law, it can be referred back to the Commission which can then press ahead anyway. The Government is also making much of the so-called "emergency brake". But that is also only a delaying device. And, as the president of the European Court of Justice made clear in an interview yesterday, it is untrue that the constitution will not give the Charter of Fundamental Rights legal force: it will.

Such trickery aside, we must take the constitution seriously. Mr Blair has made perhaps the most serious blunder of his premiership by signing it. He should have rejected this mind-numbing, 260-page document on principle. It is the capstone of a federal state, and gives the EU a foreign minister, a criminal code, a European prosecutor and a police force. We face a net loss of vetoes in about 40 areas and the constitution sets in stone an outdated, over-regulated economic model just at the moment that it is failing.

Numerous polls and the European and local elections suggest Mr Blair has virtually no chance of winning a referendum - which he has promised - on the constitution. The Labour Party itself is split on the subject. Many business leaders are against it and some are already raising money for a No campaign, which we should hear more from in the next few days. Mr Blair might hope that he can scare people into believing the real issue is "Europe in or out", but most voters are not stupid and will answer the question on the ballot paper: "Do you agree with the EU Constitution, yes or no?"

Hence the unconvincing war dance with Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder. Mr Blair made a historic mistake yesterday. His only hope of avoiding defeat in a referendum is that the constitution must still be ratified by every one of the EU's 25 national parliaments; and it could therefore fail elsewhere before it reaches Westminster. And if another country rejects the constitution in a referendum, there may never be a vote here at all. But as it stands, Mr Blair has given his enemies – many of whom are in his own party and even in the Cabinet – casus belli.

I was hoping to post the leaders from the four UK broadsheet papers to this news. Unfortunately the left-wing is rather quiet on the matter. The Guardian totally ignores it as an editorial piece ,poking fun at Chirac in its analysis. The Independent also dodges the constitution by talking about the far lesser matter of the presidency, starts off with:

Europe needs a strong leader, as this shambolic summit proves
19 June 2004

Henry Kissinger's old complaint about the European Union was that you never knew who to call. He was speaking from the transatlantic perspective. But from inside Europe, it is still almost as difficult to tell who is in charge.

Arsed if I'm paying to read the rest of this. Never has my contempt for the quisling left been greater.

 

[SFA_AOK]

"Never has my contempt for the quisling left been greater."

Why? Because one paper's said nothing (yet*) and the other you're giving up on after 3 (short!) sentences (which seem to be saying "It still doesn't really say who's in charge" - not unlike the Times leader then?).

* I'm sure the Guardian will have plenty of op-ed pieces on it... I might pick it up tomorrow...

 

[cja]

Why? Because one paper's said nothing (yet*)

The Guardian has three pieces yet nothing in their comment or leaders . Instead their leaders are about the Tory health policy, the green party and the zillionth piece pointed at the ineptitude of the British. Sorry, but I think that's contemptible. I do lean to the right but try and give the Guardian a chance and read. Its just so hard to stomach the same anti-English, pro-political establishment claptrap from them all the time!

and the other you're giving up on after 3 (short!) sentences

Yep, The "Independent", pfft! Nope, its because the article is talking about the presidency rather than the constitution. Unless the heading and opening paragraph is totally unrepresentative of the entire 521 words. This seems remarkably like the previous days skew on events. The president is a token position unless the constitution is passed. I'd liken it to concentrating on idle tittle tattle on who is to succeed QEII over talk of a new government that had been voted in the previous day. The lack of editorial on the constitution from the two leading leftist papers is bordering on the dishonest.

 

[Hamfam]

The Guardian is anti-English? ;o Remind me who their main readership is again? -_^

 

[MrPing1000]

The situation here in the uk is pretty damn interesting atm. The vast majority of English people do not want to be part of the european union. Scotland and Wales I don't think really mind either way, and here in Northern Ireland its similiar (probably more pro european due to the southern influence)

The growth of the UKIP a totally anti european party is reflecting the attitutide gaining the 3rd most amount of seats behind the big 2 parties. Blair is running to to twouble

 

[iapetus]

The vast majority of people don't have a clue about the effects of being in or out of the EU.

For the record the Times is a rabidly anti-European newspaper - don't expect fair and balanced reporting from that source (not that you should expect fair and balanced reporting from any newspaper unless you like disappointment...)

 

[SFA_AOK]

Unless the heading and opening paragraph is totally unrepresentative of the entire 521 words.

Re-read the first 3 sentences of the Telegraph piece and see what you think of that. Maybe your bias will not treat it as harshly, but it's really talking about whether or not Britain should sign or not - and that's certainly yesterday's news.

The lack of editorial on the constitution from the two leading leftist papers is bordering on the dishonest.

Dishonest? WTF?

The Guardian is anti-English? ;o Remind me who their main readership is again? -_^

Self loathing Englishmen of course!

(BTW, I'm not even sure what cja means by "anti-English." I used to read the Guardian quite regularly and wouldn't have called it that... it's been a while since I've read it properly though.)

The vast majority of people don't have a clue about the effects of being in or out of the EU.

IBTN. I don't really fully trust either side as they're both ready and willing to distort things to fit their agenda.

 

[cja]

The Guardian is anti-English? ;o Remind me who their main readership is again? -_^

Of course they're anti-English!

NEGATIVE NATIONALISM
1. ANGLOPHOBIA. Within the intelligentsia, a derisive and mildly hostile attitude towards Britain is more or less compulsory, but it is an unfaked emotion in many cases. During the war it was manifested in the defeatism of the intelligentsia, which persisted long after it had become clear that the Axis powers could not win. Many people were undisguisedly pleased when Singapore fell ore when the British were driven out of Greece, and there was a remarkable unwillingness to believe in good news, e.g. el Alamein, or the number of German planes shot down in the Battle of Britain. English left-wing intellectuals did not, of course, actually want the Germans or Japanese to win the war, but many of them could not help getting a certain kick out of seeing their own country humiliated, and wanted to feel that the final victory would be due to Russia, or perhaps America, and not to Britain. In foreign politics many intellectuals follow the principle that any faction backed by Britain must be in the wrong. As a result, "enlightened" opinion is quite largely a mirror-image of Conservative policy. Anglophobia is always liable to reversal, hence that fairly common spectacle, the pacifist of one war who is a bellicist in the next.
~ George Orwell, May 1945

Just change your WWII rhetoric with that on the war "on terror". Iraq or Al Queda for Germans or Japanese. The "quagmire" of getting into Baghdad for el Alamein. The UN now for Russia then. The Guardian is the very essence of Anglophobia.

The vast majority of people don't have a clue about the effects of being in or out of the EU.

It's good to know you can read the vast majority of peoples minds iap. Their lack of knowledge must be a bane

For the record the Times is a rabidly anti-European newspaper

Have you read anything from columnists such as Matthew Parry or Peter Riddell on the matter? I suggest not since they're very much pro-EU. Of course the paper is overall anti Euro federalism but then Murdoch does own the paper.

- don't expect fair and balanced reporting from that source (not that you should expect fair and balanced reporting from any newspaper unless you like disappointment...)

It isn't the reporting but op-ed pieces I was concerned about. Fair and balanced is impossible, period. It is fair and balanced only when a person agrees with the assessment, that person is a political animal and so is never going to be "fair and balanced" according to someone of a different outlook. Much to the chagrin of most posters here I'd say Fox News' pronouncement of "fair and balanced" is very apt for its viewership. Whether people who naturally disagree with Fox scoff at the proclaimation is of no concern, they aren't what Fox would consider "fair and balanced" people.

Dishonest? WTF?

It is dishonest because the Guardian would rather shirk the responsibility of giving its view on an "historic agreement" to talk about the Greens. WTF? The Guardian is doing what I'd expect of a "political establishment" paper to do. The decision has been made by your betters over in Brussels, why should we comment on this since the proles are subjects of these champagne socialists and it is better to say nothing at all than upset the applecart. Yah, that is what I think goes on in the head of Guardian editorial staff, WTF?

 

[SFA_AOK]

"Have you read anything from columnists such as Matthew Parry or Peter Riddell on the matter? I suggest not since they're very much pro-EU."

Having columns from people whose ideas run contrary to what you'd expect of the paper is not a feature exclusive to the Times.

"The decision has been made by your betters over in Brussels, why should we comment on this since the proles are subjects of these champagne socialists and it is better to say nothing at all than upset the applecart. Yah, that is what I think goes on in the head of Guardian editorial staff, WTF?"

I don't think that's the case at all, it comes across as a tad conspiracy theorist. But that argument's not going to lead anywhere really is it?

I'd hope (and I'm not saying that they're doing this) they were waiting 'til they had something worth saying about it. I read the Sun and Mirror "leaders", both hugely predictable. Sun: "We've lost over 40 vetos, Britain should not give away 1000s of years of blah blah blah" Mirror: "Blair has scored as a good deal that makes sense, he hasn't given in on any of the areas that are important blah blah blah." I'm not sure how much more the broadsheets (from what's posted here) say about it. The deal came late last night and already it's written off/proclaimed as a good compromise, great for all. If that's the quality of argument we can expect over the coming months, I'm not looking forward to the coverage it's going to get.

On a side note, I'm not sure what you're trying to do with the Orwell quote... I've seen you post the essay before and I'm not entirely unsure that you're either trying to mis-appropriate what he is saying or perform some sleight of hand and giving the impression of saying something whilst being able to hold your hands up and say you weren't saying that at all.... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though

PS I didn't mean to come across as derisory in my first reply with the WTF comment.

 

[Che]

I hope the whole EU thing fails (not that it's easy). Common people don't want it (look at the elections) and the only persons happy about it are some big wealthy corporate pigs who profit more and more by it. Only Euro raised product prices from 20-100%. Plus the laws are becoming more and more favorable to the big corporations and less democratic. I think the whole EU project is turning Europe to what Europe hates the most: USA.

 

[sprsk]

should be renamed to the holy roman empire. that'd be kewl.

 

[iapetus]

It's good to know you can read the vast majority of peoples minds iap. Their lack of knowledge must be a bane

So you're claiming that the majority of people are well informed on the social and economic effects of the EU? I admire your respect for the average Briton, but I think it's misplaced.

Have you read anything from columnists such as Matthew Parry or Peter Riddell on the matter?

Doesn't make the overall tone of the paper and the incredibly slanted news reporting on the subject any less apparent.

It isn't the reporting but op-ed pieces I was concerned about. Fair and balanced is impossible, period. It is fair and balanced only when a person agrees with the assessment, that person is a political animal and so is never going to be "fair and balanced" according to someone of a different outlook.

You are wrong.

What you say may hold true for the perception that people have of a paper, but it is possible to hold yourself to standards regarding deliberately twisting the reporting, and to attempt to have a representative set of views among the staff of the paper.

Further it's perfectly possible to hold a set of views and acknowledge that a news source that's highly biased towards those views isn't fair and balanced.

It is dishonest because the Guardian would rather shirk the responsibility of giving its view on an "historic agreement" to talk about the Greens. WTF? The Guardian is doing what I'd expect of a "political establishment" paper to do. The decision has been made by your betters over in Brussels, why should we comment on this since the proles are subjects of these champagne socialists and it is better to say nothing at all than upset the applecart. Yah, that is what I think goes on in the head of Guardian editorial staff, WTF?

It's good to know you can read the Guardian's editorial staff's minds cja. Their lack of political honesty must be a bane

 

[Smiles and Cries]

World War III, soon?

 

[MrPing1000]

World War III, soon?

everyone vs the usa

Canadian invasion!