I further note that Valery Giscard d'Estaing, pretty much said the same thing yesterday:
"Why not have a single text?" he asked. "The only reason is that this would look too much like the constitutional treaty," he said, with French and Dutch voters rejecting the constitution in 2005 referendums. "Making cosmetic changes would make the text more easy to swallow."
"Making cosmetic changes would make the text more easy to swallow."
What they're complaining about is that the new treaty does not merge all the existing treaties into a single document. Which means that what people are complaining about is that this is not a big omnibus treaty.
What makes me angry is that one of the arguments of the anti-treaty crowd last time was that the treaty was too fucking long precisely because it rolled the other treaties in.
Which means that a lot of the anti-treaty people here will get one of their wishes.
I'm afraid this diary seems to have bought the Open Europe spin on the matter.
So it cuts both ways.
Anyway, like I said, when the draft treaty comes out we can pick it apart line by line. We know where the existing consilidated treaty is, and what it means (mostly). Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
So I tend not to pay a lot of attention when he says "they're not doing what I wanted". Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
