Those politicians in other countries, who do wish to get rid of Britain as a member state, should use exactly the approach of Prime Minister Juncker. A proud country will not tolerate being lectured, in condescending tones, by the likes of the leader of Luxembourg.
This may appear an insignificant matter, but Juncker is playing with fire. If his remarks became widely known and were taken seriously in Britain, a lot of people here would be delighted to reply "very well, alone". It would play directly into the English national myth of ourselves on our islands, standing alone against all the world.
Neither of the people who are most likely to be the British Prime Minister in the next few years are as pro-European as John Major or Tony Blair were when they came to power.
Gordon Brown has not got a strongly pro-European image.
David Cameron does not appear to have any affinity even for the centre-right European politicians who are his obvious natural allies. It has been suggested that his wish to pull the Conservatives out of the European Peoples Party is just a tactic to keep the euro-sceptics quiet. On the contrary it seems to be the one policy he is actually sincere about. If it was just a tactic he would have ditched it by now.
I think it is telling that Cameron has not attended the two gatherings of EU centre-right leaders since he became Conservative leader. A pro-European Tory leader would not behave in that way.
*
I think the crisis in the European Union is more fundamental than Jean-Claude Juncker seems to believe. It is not just a difficulty with Britain.
If Juncker does not see that the existing constitution is stone cold dead, then he is delusional. Rebranding the constitutional treaty simply as a treaty will not make it more acceptable.
Trying to smuggle the provisions of the constitution in piece by piece may work up to a point, but the British euro-sceptics want any changes to be subject to a referendum. I presume those opposed in France and the Netherlands would also not be happy for their countries to agree in stages what the people had rejected as a whole.
It is old news - it was first published on ET four months ago. "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
it was Juncker's task (who'll become president of the commission after Barroso)
Here is one of my stories which made first (took me 35 minutes) Der Spiegel, Stern, then: German TV Channels, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, Agence France Press, NYT, WaPo, and the following day 135 regional news papers in Germany (it gave us a 0,4 percent boost at the last General Elections) :
http://service.spiegel.de/digas/servlet/find/ON=spiegel-3733Merkel schrieb bei Reagan ab
Tolle Haare, tolle Rhetorik. Kann es ein Zufall sein, dass dies auf beide Politiker zutrifft?
Ja, das Schluss-Statement von Unions-Kanzlerkanidatin Angela Merkel beim TV-Duell mit Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder war an eine Rede des früheren US-Präsidenten Ronald Reagan angelehnt.
Die CDU räumt ein, was fleißige Journalisten herausgefunden hatten. (That was me.)
Ein Sprecher der Partei erklärt: "Sie hat sich sicherlich davon inspirieren lassen." Und er windet sich: Aber die abschließenden Äußerungen seien letztlich die gewesen, die die Union im Wahlkampf auch vertrete.
Reagan hatte sich vor 25 Jahren als Präsidentschaftskandidat zum Schluss eines TV-Duells mit dem damaligen Präsidenten Jimmy Carter mit einem Plädoyer an die Bürger gewandt, das Merkel fast wörtlich wiederholte:
Merkel bat zu vergleichen, ob es dem Land heute besser als vor Rot-Grün gehe. "Wenn Sie nicht wollen, dass es einfach so weitergeht, dann haben Sie die Wahl mit CDU und CSU", sagte die CDU-Politikerin. "Wenn Sie nicht denken, dass dieser Kurs auch der ist, auf dem Sie uns für die nächsten vier Jahre sehen wollen, kann ich eine andere Wahloption vorschlagen", hatte Reagan damals gesagt.
Merkel am 4. September 2005: "Liebe Wählerinnen und Wähler, in zwei Wochen werden Sie Ihre Entscheidung über die Wahl fällen und vielleicht hilft Ihnen die Beantwortung einiger Fragen bei Ihrer Entscheidung: Geht es unserem Land heute besser als vor sieben Jahren, als Rot-Grün antrat? Ist das Wachstum höher? Ist die Arbeitslosigkeit niedriger? Und haben wir weniger Bürokratie? Sind unsere Rente, Pflege und Gesundheit sicherer? Wenn Sie alle diese Fragen mit Ja beantworten, dann haben Sie Ihre Wahlentscheidung wahrscheinlich gefällt. Aber wenn Sie Zweifel haben, wenn Sie nicht wollen, dass es einfach so weitergeht, dann haben Sie die Wahl mit CDU und CSU. "
Ronald Reagan am 28. Oktober 1980 im Fernsehduell mit Jimmy Carter: "Am nächsten Dienstag ist Wahltag. Am nächsten Dienstag werden Sie alle wählen gehen, werden im Wahllokal stehen und eine Entscheidung treffen. Ich denke, wenn Sie diese Entscheidung treffen, wäre es gut, wenn Sie sich fragen: Geht es Ihnen besser als vor vier Jahren? Ist es leichter für Sie, in den Laden zu gehen und Sachen zu kaufen, als es das vor vier Jahren war? Ist die Arbeitslosigkeit im Land höher oder niedriger als vor vier Jahren? Genießt Amerika so viel Respekt in der Welt wie vorher? Haben Sie das Gefühl, dass unsere Sicherheit so groß ist, dass wir so stark sind wie vor vier Jahren? Und wenn Sie all diese Fragen mit Ja beantworten, dann denke ich, dass Ihre Wahlentscheidung sehr klar ist. Wenn Sie nicht zustimmen, wenn Sie nicht denken, dass dieser Kurs, auf dem wir uns die letzten vier Jahre befunden haben auch der ist, auf dem Sie uns für die nächsten vier Jahre sehen wollen, dann kann ich eine andere Wahloption vorschlagen, die Sie haben..."
Activism, it needs actvism... "The USA appears destined by fate to plague America with misery in the name of liberty." Simon Bolivar, Caracas, 1819
Well, being EU members, that is a problem... but I must ask you too: what did you read as lecturing in Juncker's quip? That a no to the Constitution is a way out of the EU was clear on the outset, what is new (and I agree this is playing with fire, but that's not lecturing) was declaring who is and isn't essential for the EU.
This, unfortunately, is the British EU conudrum. Whatever the percentage of Europhile Britons, 60% or 6% (and depending on the question it can be either today), the political leadership seems set to change from neoliberal to Eurosceptic of some sort. Juncker's talk can mean two things IMO: either analysing public opinion as politically irrelevant on Europe and giving up on Britain to save the EU, or a warning towards British Europhile and this-is-too-risky-for-me politicians that Core Europe is not dead, they should do something about Cameron and Brown or there are problems. (I also suspect that Juncker is probably speaking out what collagues in bigger countries think but won't say in public.) At any rate risky business and surely deeply dishearthening for pro-federalis Britons like you, but it my be that events have a momentum of their own...
Probably not for the exact same reasons, but I agree. Juncker brought up Britain in one question as example, but for another question, he didn't want to narrow it down, and his explicit talk of Core Europe implies too that he thinks the problem is more than Britain -- however, the problems are even more fundamental than Denmark and Poland. It's the democratic deficit at both the EU and national levels, and the unsincere talk of politicians on the EU even in core countries like Germany.
Hm, the above pragraph contains a few things to criticise. First, it wasn't Juncker who proposed re-naming the Constitution as treaty or accepting only parts, it was the German government. Second, those advocating the re-issuing of only part don't want it accepted "piece by piece", they want to drop other pieces (whihc the "Non" voters wanted too) -- this piece-by-piece sounds like an Eurosceptic spin to my ears. Similarly when you call a treaty "smuggling", I don't think a treaty between states can be characterised that. But with all that said, I'd prefer keeping only the institutional changes as a treaty and then a real bottom-up process for Constitution. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I was perhaps being a little patronising myself about the representative of a sovereign state. Luxembourg is as free as any other member state to put forward its views about the future of the EU. No doubt M. Juncker was expressing views held privately by leaders of other larger member states.
It is not clear that voting no on the constitution is a way of leaving the EU. The question of what would happen if most of the members accepted the constitutional treaty but a small number did not was left undecided. As I recall the existing treaty requires unanimous ratification.
In any event it is not Britain that has, so far, rejected the constitutional text. The question of a possible British rejection will not arise unless the French and Dutch no's are reversed.
Under the existing arrangements all the members have equal status. If a group of them want to do something new, then that does not automatically affect the existing treaties.
I do not disagree that events may have a momentum of their own. The people in public life in the UK, particularly in the Conservative Party, who are prominent pro-Europeans tend to be from the previous generation. There is no obvious young champion of the European ideal. Even the Liberal Democrats seem to have decided that talking about Europe is too much of a vote loser to be risked.
There is no consistent pro-European message reaching the British public at all. Neither the idealistic case for Europe, nor the practical benefits are often mentioned. Euro-sceptic propaganda goes unanswered.
Few people are interested in European issues, except the passionate euro-sceptics who care very deeply.
Whatever coded warnings may be sent I am not sure anyone in Britain is listening or would care if they were.
The original six (if that is more or less what you mean by Core Europe) may be over-estimating the degree to which their own populations support what the governments may want to do. Is there any evidence that the French and Dutch voters would like deeper integration within the core group any better than what was on offer in the larger EU?
On the other hand the smaller the group of nations to be considered the easier it should be to reach agreement on something.
