Search for an EU deal
Tony Blair's last few days in office will be dominated by the search for an EU deal which the rest of Europe will buy and which British voters can stomach without demanding a referendum. He, like so many prime ministers before him, risks angering both the pro-Europeans and the Eurosceptics at the same time.
Just look at what he or his ministers have said and done in the long long run up to this week's EU summit.
At first his ministers called the EU constitution merely "a tidying up" exercise - thus infuriating the Eurosceptics. Now, he insists that the constitution is dead even though he actually signed it - thus infuriating the pro-Europeans.
At first, his ministers said that the had no more legal status than - angering the Eurosceptics. Now, he says the charter is unacceptable to Britain as it would override British law - angering... ok, you're there now.
At first he said there was no need for a referendum. Then there was a need. Now there isn't, providing, of course, that it's not really a constitution in disguise.
Not perhaps the ideal communications strategy.
I'm 
Comments
The arrogance of these EU politicians has been breathtaking and I am not at all surprised that the unwieldy EU constitution has not found favour in some countries.
If some of these EU politicians did'nt have a pathological hatred of the USA, they would accept that the Founding Fathers put together some simple documents that have been the bedrock upon which the most successful country on the planet has been built, and consequently would say that the US Constitution would'nt be a bad starting point for an EU constitution.
But no, it has to be 'invented here', so we remain a few hundred years behind the USA.
Even if we are lucky enough to be given the opportunity of a vote, following votes in Ireland, Denmark, France and Holland, in anything to with the EU it is clear:
a) You are not allowed to vote No.
b) If you vote No you are ignorant and don’t understand the arguments involved.
c) People who vote No (as opposed to people who vote Yes) are voting for a number of other issues not against the (this is not now a constitution) treaty.
I expect nothing less then complete capitulation from these spineless, self-serving parasites with their snouts in the trough.
Says it all really!
Access the main ±«Óătv News web-site NOW as I have just now done and not one single mention of this growing constitutional crisis. Shame upon the ±«Óătv once again.
Get real Nick. Tony Blair won't be searching for "an EU deal which the rest of Europe will buy and which British voters will stomach"
He will be searching for a means to wrap and label a "constitutional treaty" as an "amending treaty" and to con the British Parliament and voters into accepting it. Who needs the promised referendum ?
Bit like Iraq. Packaged and labelled as "WMD" not "Regime change." Who needs a second UN resolution.
The proposed European constitution wasn't a bad document. It had a lot in it that I’d previously thought should be in there. I would agree that it did seem like a top heavy document but was equally unimpressed by the foot dragging. Move too fast? People scream. Move too slow? The whole show falls apart. Tricky.
From a government to man on the street level, British law tends to favour the stronger, whether it’s the possessor, wealthier, or more privileged. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, or correctness, but mere desire. There is a bullying and contrary element to the British psyche. No wonder there are issues.
As with anything, I think, developing a proper order and balance isn't easy. Britain has its own constitutional mess and, quite frankly, too many shrill and unrepresentative voices. If the government can demonstrate good governance by sorting out law and institutions, I suspect, things will start getting easier.
Tolerance, patience, calm, and serenity seem useful.
Blair promised that under his government we would have a real say in the direction of Europe, no more shouting from the sidelines etc. But looking back over the ten years what he has actually achieved is no say in what happens in Europe and normally large scale if well spun capitulation.
So as always we get the normal trumped up story about him going into battle for Britain against those evil Europeans and how he will be masterminding a glorious compromise and yet everybody knows what his and his party's aims are: Britain to have the same legal framework as the rest of Europe i.e instead of you are free to do anything the state doesn't forbid, He wants a framework which says you are not allowed to do anything unless the state (i.e he/Brown etc) says so (which nicely fits in with the whole i am a martyr for you/welcome to the nanny state belief system they are so fond of)
We are increasingly faced with Government versus the people rather than governance on behalf of the people. I see this at all levels. Europe is trying to get power over nations, Nationally we are being forced to accept policies we don't want such as road pricing and more locally issues such as less frequent refuse collection are being imposed with no mandate whatsoever.
The phrase that tells you everything you need to know about the autocratic mindsets at work which was used by Blair when faced with wide criticism of refuse collection and road pricing was recently was " Its Governments job to lead" . The whole context and way it was said clearly implied that its thus the taxpayers job to follow whether they like it or not.
Well I'm sorry most of us are not of the sheep mentality. If we don't like what we are being offered for our money then its you job to come up with alternatives. The whole reason for suspicion on Europe is that we already have far too many things we don't want imposed on us and are seemingly being left with less and less say over what our money is used for. What we are getting isn't just European Federalism its a return to a kind of Fuedalism too with the Eurocrats replacing the robber Barons of the past.
Like a typical ±«Óătv interview, eve the questions are wrong. The overriding questions of crucial importance aren't asked probably because what answers exist are completely unsatisfactory. The first real question should be; what is the purpose of the EU? It was sold originally as a trading bloc but it has become far more than that without any acquiescence on the part of Britain's population or for that matter that of any other members' populations. Most in fact never gave their citizens the right to vote even on the consititution including Britain and among those who did, two rejected it including France. So is it intended to evolve into a superstate, a United States of Europe? If it is, how would such a country be run? What would it be like? Then there is the question of whether or not it would have much hope fulfill its ultimate objectives once that is agreed upon. And then once that is answered, the ultimate question of whether or not it would be in Britain's best interest to be part of it or get out while it still can, a decision so momentous it should be put to a plebecite. Instead, the EU evolves insidiously in fits and starts towards some unknown goal which is either ill defined or if it is known, is kept secret. Each time a new law or rule is enacted, it represents one more erosion of the sovereignty of its members, one more imposition of new rules not conceived by those it affects directly. Already, Britain's borders have become open to an unplanned number of legal economic migrants. Billions are collected and expended for some vague large political purpose such as developing the poorer members whether the individual contributor countries feel that the utilization or expropriation of that money is in their own best interest or not. At least Britain has not given up its currency yet. That would be a major step in conforming to the dictates of the superstate.
From this perspective across the Atlantic, the EU looks to be the ultimate European monument, a useless unworkable clumsy construct deceptively co-opted for a secret grand scheme and most likely a resounding failure, so top heavy, secretive, and controlled by such Byzantine anti-democratic politics that it will not only grind to a halt but bring all of its ill fitting components crashing down. If immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, you'd better know how the original was built, why it works, and have a good idea how to construct a close duplicate BEFORE you try to make an improved model. In this case, as with so many others, those in charge of the construction don't have a clue. One look at their constitution and America's shows how laughably wrong they've got it.
I reckon you are being a bit too polite when you say that the muddled position concerning the EU 'treaty' is not an ideal communications strategy. It does, in fact, represent everything that has gone wrong with New Labour. You can't actually believe anything they say. At one time it can be 'this', then 'that', then 'something else' - it all depends on what they want it to be and the spin will be rolled out accordingly, regardless of the truth of the matter. Pretty sad really.
In my view, there is one fundamental issue, which is whether we agree in principle to give up our right to make our own laws. The gradualist approach of ever-closer union is an attempt to decide the issue by implied consent and encroachments, like Lear's loss of retinue. Of course there should be a referendum, but it needs to be about an open-eyed acceptance or rejection of the proposed loss of sovereignty.
Even at the end of his political career he is stirring trouble. Old habits die hard. He could have continued as Prime Minister until 2010. He chose to go. Then, he should go and let the new Prime Minister make the important decisions.
As far as we Scots are concerned his powers of communication deserted him a long time ago.And his manners leave a lot to be desired too.
Is there anything in the rumour that he is about to become El Presidente of Europe?
Heaven preserve us from that!
Nick, I think you'll find the strategy has more to it than you might think - It's called "": Spin the voters as often as possible until they get so dizzy they won't notice as we swap their rights for taxes and their freedoms for directives.
The last time we saw something like this on a big scale was when he said he would never give up the rebate before he gave up the rebate of 12 Billion pounds..
This is an EU constitution there can be no doubt about it. Even the timing is perfect With Germany demanding as much of the original constitution as possible and Blair about to leave.. He can at the minimum give them the base to build it up to a fully fledged constitution.. Before leaving office and reappearing in time as perhaps the new EU president Once again ruling the UK Only this time with the power of the EU nations behind him.. Well even if that doesn't happen and it well might..
WE HAVE AN EU Constitution coming our way Courtesy of a departing Blair..
Forget the ducking and diving Nick.
We know what's going one and won't be fooled.
Any further integration and the British people will deserve a referendum.
The one thing which is absolutely ridiculous in all this is that potentially we are talking about the greatest change to UK sovereignty ever, and it would be done by the back door.
It really is about time that the British public were treated like adults.
If the case for Europe is really that strong, then why in heaven's name can't the case be made?
The idea of a set of amendments to the current treaties, which would focus on practical improvements to the current EU system, is surely a good one.
If the new amending treaty focuses on measures such as changing the term of office of the Council Presidency from 6 months to 30 months, extending majority voting in areas where this is acceptable to member states, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, merging the positions of the Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative for External Relations, clarifying that the Charter of Rights has no implications for purely domestic legislation, and cutting the size of the Commission and the European Parliament, then it would also be difficult to justify having a referendum on such changes. Britain has never ever ratified an international treaty by means of a referendum. Indeed, it has never had a nation-wide referendum on any political issue, however important or controversial, except for once in 1975. Why on earth we should have one on changing the term of office of the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions from six months to 30 months is beyond me!
Nick, of course there should be a referendum on this so-called
"mini-treaty". And there should also be referendums whenever the EU proposes any law change, directives, or regulations that significantly affect the UK & its people - eg the recent directive banning the UK's long-established practice of landfilling waste, & requiring it to be replaced with the Continent's practice of CO2-creating waste incineration.
Why is there a need for referendums on EU matters generally? Because Parliament currently is not adequately analyzing EU-inspired laws & regulations. Why is this?
Because there are so many of these regulations to review, that MPS & Parlimentary time would be overwhelmed if the MPs really got down to reviewing everything. In
addition, the queries raised by Parliament's Special European Scrutiny Committee (which despite being specially set up to scrutinize EU directives & their effect on
the UK astonishingly only operates in secrecy), are routinely over-ruled by the government & its civil service! So, if the UK people's elected government & representatives can't manage to scrutinize & control the EU's actions towards the UK, then the UK's people better do it for them instead!
I think the important thing will be
How they "spin" this final one.
It is pointless for Blair to go to this EU meeting. He is only PM for 5 more days after it, & it will be Gordon Brown's full responsibility from then on. Either Gordon should go instead, or Margaret Beckett (who will probably be there anyway) should say that because of this Blair/Brown interregnum, Britain can only remind the other EU members of its objections to whatever is proposed (including Britain's view that member countries should be able to later change their minds & repudiate what they had earlier agreed to if the results of their earlier agreement later proved to be unwelcome), but cannot make any decisions.
Aside from inconsistancies and a proclivity for vacillating back and forth on Britain's role in (or out) of the greater EU community, Tony Blair's legacy will not be very positive. Mr. Blair squandered his legacy by being the "poodle" for George W. Bush, probably one of the most inept political leaders in Amerika's history. A lot of British soldiers died in needless warfare in Iraq-nam, a nation where the real enemy was never properly engaged or even pursued... because the real enemy wasn't there!
Just look what a mess Iraq-nam has become! And Afghanistan too! Blair must share that mess with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and other loony neocon Amerikans, people who lack presceience and common sense, people who have no skills for statesmanship and dialogue. This is Tony's legacy.
Dear Nick
The Sooner Blair is gone the better, he is a nasty bit of kit.The same as Thatcher, who wrecked Briatin, between them they have condemnd Britain to an uncertain future, where even Pensions are NOT guaranteed.There is going to be a cost to their politics and the British people are not going to sit back and accept it, that is a truth, that so far is seen as ignored by politicians, the ramifications are huge, and it will become nationalistic.
In the words of the Lou Reed song - believe none of what you hear and half of what you see!
Wouldn't it be nice if...
The real implications and purported benefits where outlined
If there was open, honest and frank debate about it.
A referendum was held anyway - as a means of ensuring 'buy-in' from the people.
He must be desperate to get this through so he can have a job in the EU.He has all those mortgages to pay and he needs to keep his ego boosted.I wonder if Broon will have a referendum on this so he can distance himself from Blair and show himself to be different.
Sounds like it's a good job he's going, if he's that sure about what he has signed and what it means.
Hope he read and understands his mortgage.
Hope the new chap has a better idea of what is going on, but I doubt it.
Tony Blair's legacy looks like it is going to be signing up to the Euro Constitution without anyone else getting a word in edgeways.
The EU is a bureaucratic nightmare which is accountable to no one.
No doubt the UK will lose this and that, but TB will say that they were necessary concessions.
God help us.
Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence about the outcome, does it..?
Who was it who was called the"Most Dangerous Man in Britain"?
He is trying to do as much damage as possible in his farewell spree.
Personally I never did see the need in a referendum. We govern through a parliamentary system in this country, not one where we lurch from one misunderstood idea to another completely misunderstood idea, voted on a whim by 30% of the country who vote only how they are told to by their party or newspaper.
I know Blair probably won't achieve much, but at least he tries rather than fuddles around on the edges like the witless José Manuel Barroso who wouldn't dare insult the powerful who have his ear.
On a completely separate matter, Mr. Robinson, what think you of Lord Ahmed who on News 24 sort of leant his support to Pakistan by saying that he doesn't think Salman Rushdie, or anyone else who insults a religion, should receive an honour?
Does that mean that Lord Ahmed objects to Michael Palin's CBE?
In Addition Lord Ahmed pointed out that Rushdie was not even born in the UK, but in India. Erm, Lord Ahmed himself was born in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan.
But, more to the point, when a foreign power meddles in our affairs by demanding the withdrawal of a Knighthood, how does a member of our government stand by allying himself with the foreign power rather than to the parliament to which he is sworn?
Toodle pip!
Nobody
How European to try to avoid facing up to an important decision and putting it off for some future unspecified date which never arrives instead of meeting it head on by trusting in the democratic vote of the population, and let the chips fall where they may. What is the issue? The real one, the basic one is, should Britain be in or out of the EU given what it has become and likely to become. It's a decision the government doesn't trust the voters to make because it already knows what the outcome will be and doesn't like it. So in an issue of vital national interest and importance, the people be damned, the leaders of the parties will decide and everyone will just have to live with it. Britain's definition of democracy and mine are not the same. Mine doesn't include an elite upper class which knows better than everyone else how to run the government.
Nick,
If proposals by M Sarkozy for Blair to become President of Europe are true, might this be a question of “Sovereignty for Honours”?
I trust Tony Blair implicitly to come back from Brussells with everything he's promised....
Oh, nurse - surely its not already time for another injection...
The sooner this disastrous, destructive and vainglorious man leaves office the better. I could not care less about his machinations or prissy posturing. When this country ruled a quarter of the globe, politicians left office at the drop of a hat, and without trying to emulate Edith Piaf. His tawdry swansong and nonsensical talk about a "legacy" - as if that was something he could control - turns my stomach. Bizarre too, that this junior league Pol Pot with no sense of history either for himself or his country is so concerned with how he may feature in the history books.
Martin wrote: "Access the main ±«Óătv News web-site NOW as I have just now done and not one single mention of this growing constitutional crisis. Shame upon the ±«Óătv once again."
What do you expect when the ±«Óătv has no correspondent based in Berlin and Europe rarely makes the TV news?
I see it's the same old NuLab spin on the Presidency - last time, Tony followed Dubya into illegal war to get this. The yanks were expected to deliver eastern Europe, while Tony cosied up to Berlusconi and tried to sell Gib to the Spanish. It failed that time and will do so again.
Thanks to poster #1 for this gem:
"The arrogance of these EU politicians has been breathtakin ... [the USA is] the most successful country on the planet"
Who says Americans have no sense of irony!
To adopt as a model the US constitution is to accept government by constipation where nothing can ever change - this is precicely what we should NOT want! We have enough pointy heads in ouur own country without aping the banana republic that is the USA.
"The US Constitution wouldn't be a bad starting point..." John Constable
True, it would be a TERRIBLE starting point. The EU has completely different structures, goals and power relationships to the US and quite rightly so. They have an outdated document written as a temporary solution to the problems faced by fifteen tiny states with no international role. It bears no relation to how US politics actually functions. Our starting point should be the treaties which set up the various EC institutions and areas of cooperation. It makes much more sense to use something "invented here" than something invented somewhere completely different!
Judging by Blair's abject surrender of the British rebate without getting anything in return, Blairs negotiating technique is to enter the chamber armed with a white flag ... and intending to use his weapon!
Oh to live in a country where the most flagrant abuses of power are some vague proposals for charging people to use a scarce resource (roads), and a reduction in the frequency of bin collections! I do wonder whether some people - as my granny used to say - know they're born.
I think it's remarkable that of the three major political parties in Britain, not one will run on the platform that if elected, their first order of business will be to put the entire question of membership in the EU to a public vote so that the issue can be decided one way or the other and put in the past. What does that say about the health of democracy in Britain when not one party will confront one of the most important issues facing the nation head on? Some representative government, some democracy.
I think it's remarkable that of the three major political parties in Britain, not one will run on the platform that if elected, their first order of business will be to put the entire question of membership in the EU to a public vote so that the issue can be decided one way or the other and put in the past. What does that say about the health of democracy in Britain when not one party will confront one of the most important issues facing the nation head on? Some representative government, some democracy.