...the text of the Reform Treaty is completely unintelligible unless it is read alongside the existing Treaties. Furthermore, the full impact of many of the amendments to the Treaties set out in the draft Reform Treaty needs further explanation. Finally, there has been much public discussion of whether or not the draft Reform Treaty is essentially identical to the EU's Constitutional Treaty of 2004. In order to further public understanding of and debate upon the draft Reform Treaty, the following Statewatch analyses make the text of the draft Treaty comprehensible, by setting out the entire texts of the existing TEU and TEC and showing precisely how those texts would be amended by the draft Treaty. There are explanatory notes on the impact of each substantive amendment to the Treaties, and each analysis includes general comments, giving an overview of the changes and pointing out exactly which provisions of the draft Reform Treaty were taken from the Constitutional Treaty, and which provisions are different from the Constitutional Treaty
In order to further public understanding of and debate upon the draft Reform Treaty, the following Statewatch analyses make the text of the draft Treaty comprehensible, by setting out the entire texts of the existing TEU and TEC and showing precisely how those texts would be amended by the draft Treaty. There are explanatory notes on the impact of each substantive amendment to the Treaties, and each analysis includes general comments, giving an overview of the changes and pointing out exactly which provisions of the draft Reform Treaty were taken from the Constitutional Treaty, and which provisions are different from the Constitutional Treaty
There is a non-trivial issue of legitimacy if indeed "more than 90% of the constitution has been carried over into the Reform Treaty". If there was an explicit rejection by referendum of the constitutional treaty, how legitimate (and how democratic) is it, to bring it back in disguise? The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
So it's still the EU clanking about rather than being carried by a grand political ambition. In that sense, it pleases the euroskeptics, I suppose. Business as usual.
Although, of course, they know that the EU has a life of its own, and the added powers for the Parliament and a few other changes may have major political impacts in the medium term. We'll see. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
No-one can work out why the government here is opting out of some of the justice measures, except that the UK is. The government failed to give any examples of possible problems in a recent debate on the topic.
Didn't hear much about them. I thought it was Italy that had the last objections.
All in all this is better than nothing and is a step forward. We can't have the real Europe we want from one day to the other. Maybe when our generation gets to power it'll get easier. Vencit omnia veritas.
1. The UK leaving the EU, but - perhaps - staying inside the trade area.
or
2. The EU becoming the new British Empire, with the UK firmly in charge, telling all those greasy foreigners how to behave in a civilised way.
The EU's problem is that it's easier for Poland and the UK to run spoiler campaigns when no one seems sure what the EU is supposed to be. Is it aiming for federalism? Neo-liberal business growth? An original vision of cooperation between countries?
The Treaty hasn't solved that problem. This agreement has been running on momentum created the meme that the EU is somehow A Good Thing, but if you ask people why, they're going to have a hard time coming up with convincing reasons.
It's not that the reasons don't exist, it's more that instead of bimbling around with not-a-constitution, the EU could have done itself a big favour by articulating those reasons clearly, and giving everyone a reason to care.
It keeps the Germans from invading France, limits separtism and at the same time increases trade and cooperation. What's not to like?
OK, the madmen in Brussels trying to deregulate things they don't understand, but still it comes out positive on the whole. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Is it aiming for federalism? Neo-liberal business growth? An original vision of cooperation between countries?
I think the Treaty answers those questions:
. No it is not Federalism we are talking about, but the Treaty should strengthen the Confederal framework.
. Yes to neo-liberal business growth, about 80% of the EU citizens have been voting for Liberal politics, that won't change. That's not the aim of the Treaty anyway.
. Yes it is an original vision of cooperation between countries. The EU has been that since the very beginning, this Treaty is just one step further from loose cooperation to an institutional framework, that has only one place to go: a Federation. Vencit omnia veritas.
