Europe's path forward now lies with Britain's House of Lords

I have been reading the EU Reform Treaty Impact Assessment published by the House of Lords which may be browsed from this link. The report makes clear that Britain's senior legislative chamber is not about to lightly cast aside its centuries old responsibilities for the sound governance of our nation. (Unlike the House of Commons, one is inevitably unable to resist adding right here!). Yesterday on the Radio 4 Today programme, Lord Strathclyde, Leader of the Conservative Party in the Lords, made clear that the House of Lords would take its responsibilities very seriously and the reverse impact of the so-called Salisbury considerations on manifesto commitments would be a factor on the referendum question. Constitutional experts and researchers are already preparing arguments on the critical question of whether or not their Lordships might perhaps be even bound by precedent to enforce the manifesto promise of a referendum by the three main political parties elected to the House of Commons at the last election. I will post what I may of these arguments on this blog when they become available. Critical to the vote of individual peers on a referendum amendment will surely be their own view, if no common agreed position is achievable, on whether or not the Lisbon Treaty is effectively the same beast as the Constitutional Treaty earlier rejected by the voters in both France and Holland. Obstruction by the EU itself makes arriving at that decision much harder as an official consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty is being withheld until after ratification. Read the excellent opinion in English of Finnish Lawyer Ralf Grahn on this situation from here. English Consolidated versions of the Lisbon Treaty do exist, I heard Europe Minister Jim Murphy refer to such in the Commons during the Treaty debates although I cannot find the Hansard reference. They are, however, not official and I believe their Lordships as a first step, before the second reading begins on 1st April, should demand an official EU approved consolidated version of the Lisbon Treaty which can publicly be laid alongside the former Constitution Treaty so that the clear distortion they are not very, very, very, very, substantially the same document can be nailed once and for all. In the interim we at least have the side by side comparison of the two treaties by Open Europe, linked here. Are there other considerations which could guide these noble Lords and Ladies in arriving at a decision on the thorny issue of a British referendum. I believe there are several which I list in order of their importance as I consider them: 1. The possible illegality of the "non-negotiated" mandate of the June 2008 Council replacing if not effectively binding the legally required IGC. {I put this item at the head of my list as in my view it should be an equal concern across the entire EU and thus clearly understandable to other nation's electorates whom themselves feel a sense of betrayal over this Treaty but lack all of Britain's particular concerns}. (Briefly why I believe this is a major problem - the EU leaders met under the EU Treaties which require amending treaties be drawn up by an IGC. The mandate overruled this which is possible as has been proved by 27 separate Heads of Government forcing it through, BUT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE when meeting within the structures of the EU and most decidedly not within the spirit of the EU as it has PREVIOUSLY been sold to the EU electorates. The end result we are told is a mandate agreed within 48 hours and negotiated at a chance meeting of 27 leaders!) 2. The lies by Foreign Office Ministers to the European Scrutiny Committee both ahead of and following the imposition of the mandate. 3. The transfer of Prime Ministerial and Foreign Secretarial responsibilities during the period in question depriving the Lower House of holding those responsible to Parliamentary account and proper scrutiny. I blogged on this danger throughout June 2007, especially before the meeting where Merkel's mandate was issued by decree, read "Strictly limited scope for an IGC" 1st June, "Queen must dissolve Parliament immediately" 2nd June, and by the end of that month "Blair's secret EU side deal" 30th June, from which I quote the penultimate paragraph as worth full consideration by the House of Lords before deciding whether the British people deserve a say on this crucial treaty: But one of the 27 is no longer national leader (nor shamefully even a member of the parliamentary chamber he has so disgracefully sold out). Although I argued long and hard on this blog for Brown to represent Britain at the 21 - 23rd June European Council, so that the negotiator could answer to Parliament - the fact that he did not, could as the Portuguese seem about to realise - provide Britain with the way out. 4. The present public perception of both the members of the House of Commons and the European Parliament and their near contempt for the institutions of the EU. 5. The present world economic turmoil. My view is presently drifting towards a solution where more than one referendum question be posed, not on withdrawal as opted for by the Lib/Dems, but perhaps an option for Britain to reject Lisbon but authorise pursuit of a democratic model possibly along the lines of the multi-lingual Swiss Confederation model but with Common Law legislation only available to the EU's replacement in the sphere of the Single Market, all other competences being returned to the Sovereign States, only on such a basis can Britain really justify continuing involvement given the now blinding contradictions with our own forms of governance and society perhaps leading to open dissent.

The German Iron Cross

Straws blowing in the wind bring this report from today's Independent - Bid to restore Iron Cross divides Germany- linked here. Why now one must wonder? For me it is clear, with the Lisbon Treaty further advanced after this week's House of Commons vote the German's must now believe nothing stands in their way for the future domination of Europe and the sensibilities of their formerly brutalised and occupid neighbours can now be safely ignored. I quote this passage from the article: "Adolf Hitler claimed it was the happiest day of his life when he received the familiar black and silver cross and, although banned as a medal for the past 63 years, any Second World War film would be unthinkable without the decoration appearing on the tunic of some jackbooted general. "Ernst-Reinhard Beck, who is a conservative MP in Chancellor Angela Merkel's government, an army reserve colonel and president of the Army Reservists' Association, said reintroducing the cross was justified because of Germany's new military role abroad. He conceded that "terror and fear" had been inflicted on nations under the sign of the Iron Cross during the Second World War.........................." 63 years indeed, my age exactly AND as I pointed out here, time enough for a lifetime of betraying the principles and traditions for which our forefathers fought and strived to maintain. The last hope is for the contemporaries of our now silver haired generation in the House of Lords to show some guts and sense for the first time in their long lives and pass a referendum amendment. My post below on the spineless Lib/Dems clearly shows such hopes are unlikely to be realised!

Passerelles to Perdition

I watched the committee stage debate on the passerelle clauses of the Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty yesterday evening and a harrowing experience it was. While first rate contributions were made by the usual few stalwarts on the Conservative side, I think the broader concerns of the European public at large were best described by this contribution from a Labour MP: Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab): I listened carefully to the points made by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), some of which I agreed with. Amendment No. 286, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends, addresses similar issues.

I begin with the crisis that seems to be pervading the whole of Europe. It exists between the popular classes—the people of our country and elsewhere—and the political élite. There is clearly a wide-ranging problem, and my amendment attempts to address it. There is a feeling among the electorate that the country is changing somehow, that Parliament does not seem to be able to get a grip on those changes and that the changes are not always favourable to the way in which we live. There is a strong feeling that the House of Commons exists to regulate the affairs of the country and to protect the provisions built up by the people of this country over many years. That belief is to some extent negated, however, by a suspicion that the European Union is, in part at least, contributing to changes that many people feel are unpalatable. I suspect that that point of view is not inaccurate.

As I have remarked in previous debates, two kinds of Europe are struggling to emerge, one of which will impact directly on the kind of country that we inhabit in years to come. I would like to see the kind of country in which social provisions are strong, and where the market may have its place but the conditions of life are safety-netted so that the inequitable consequences of free markets do not damage the social fabric. We see such social provisions at work across a range of public services, such as post offices, the health service, council housing and the other areas mentioned in my amendment. Those social provisions, however, for a reason that remains mysterious to many including myself, have been eroded by European Union developments.

It is the latter Europe—the Europe of free competition, open markets and inequity, with its sweeping cold winds of competition and market-driven change—that is gaining greater momentum in the EU. It is eating away at the social provisions that exist, but no one seems to understand exactly how that came about. We have had a glimpse in the past few weeks of how those processes have developed, and how the market-driven model of Europe has come 4 Mar 2008 : Column 1627 about. My amendment would ensure that even if we do not control the neo-liberal European Union as it develops, people would at least understand how that process is taking place, why it is taking place and which institutions are responsible for the changes.

My quoted passage comes from Hansard, linked here, for those with time and a sense of history I recommend reading large sections and noting the scornful arrogance with which the Minister for Europe disregarded so many fully justified fears.