Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

A proud country will not tolerate being lectured, in condescending tones, by the likes of the leader of Luxembourg.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

by DoDo on Thu Jun 15th, 2006 at 05:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I found M. Juncker's reported remark unhelpful. If I did, I guarantee that many others would take deeper offence.

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.

by Gary J on Thu Jun 15th, 2006 at 08:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]