The Lisbon Treaty is expected to take a key step towards becoming law across the European Union this week when Germany's highest court rules that it is broadly compatible with the country's constitution. The much-anticipated judgment will mean that only three out of the EU's 27 member states will still have to complete formal ratification of the treaty - Poland, the Czech Republic and Ireland. The former two countries merely need their presidents' signatures on the legislation to finalise the process. Ireland, where voters rejected the Treaty last year, will stage a new referendum in October - with the government increasingly confident of a "Yes" vote this time round after the EU assured Ireland of its independence over taxation, security, defence, abortion, and workers' rights. Politicians across Europe are now looking forward to a day when the controversial treaty gives the EU more streamlined institutions - with greater central power and, for the first time, a new "President of Europe" to represent all the member states around the world.
The much-anticipated judgment will mean that only three out of the EU's 27 member states will still have to complete formal ratification of the treaty - Poland, the Czech Republic and Ireland.
The former two countries merely need their presidents' signatures on the legislation to finalise the process. Ireland, where voters rejected the Treaty last year, will stage a new referendum in October - with the government increasingly confident of a "Yes" vote this time round after the EU assured Ireland of its independence over taxation, security, defence, abortion, and workers' rights. Politicians across Europe are now looking forward to a day when the controversial treaty gives the EU more streamlined institutions - with greater central power and, for the first time, a new "President of Europe" to represent all the member states around the world.
Leaders of one of Europe's most unlikely separatist movements are celebrating each step towards the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. The notion that breaking up a country as insignificant as Belgium could lead to anything more appealing in its place may seem far-fetched beyond its shores. But to many of the six million who live in the Dutch-speaking Flanders region, the growing strength of the EU makes it an increasingly attractive option."Belgium is too heterogeneous. There is too much diversity and too many different views," said Jeroen Overmeer, spokesman for Flanders' Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliante party, separatists who made big gains in this month's nationwide Belgian elections.
The notion that breaking up a country as insignificant as Belgium could lead to anything more appealing in its place may seem far-fetched beyond its shores. But to many of the six million who live in the Dutch-speaking Flanders region, the growing strength of the EU makes it an increasingly attractive option.
"Belgium is too heterogeneous. There is too much diversity and too many different views," said Jeroen Overmeer, spokesman for Flanders' Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliante party, separatists who made big gains in this month's nationwide Belgian elections.
A growing number of Catalans want independence for their prosperous region, spurred on by the possibility of separate nationhood within the European Union. "We are Catalans first and Europeans second, but don't call us Spanish!" say many in Spain's independent minded northeastern region, when asked to define their national identity.Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, is home to seven million of Spain's 44 million inhabitants - and over the past four years the proportion wanting complete independence from Madrid has risen by half, from 14 per cent to 21 per cent, according to the regional government's figures. Some 35 per cent also back creation of an almost entirely independent Catalonia within a federal Spain.
"We are Catalans first and Europeans second, but don't call us Spanish!" say many in Spain's independent minded northeastern region, when asked to define their national identity.
Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, is home to seven million of Spain's 44 million inhabitants - and over the past four years the proportion wanting complete independence from Madrid has risen by half, from 14 per cent to 21 per cent, according to the regional government's figures. Some 35 per cent also back creation of an almost entirely independent Catalonia within a federal Spain.
Here's the headline and photo of that article:
The text of the article itself is sober, informative, and fair. But the big letters at the top speak of "flames of dissent". The pictorial example shows burning flags. The casual reader glacing through may assume that the European continent is up in arms against Lisbon. Then the small-text caption says this concerns Catalan regionalists, so presumably the flames of dissent are coming from regionalists. From lower down the article:
European Union's Lisbon Treaty fuels flames of dissent across continent - Telegraph
leaders of some of Europe's separatist movements are celebrating the progress of the treaty towards full ratification. They are convinced that the more powerful the EU's own institutions become, the weaker the nation state - and the stronger the case for granting breakaway regions their independence.
So regionalists are for Lisbon, not igniting "flames of dissent".
The brainless duplicity of this kind of manipulation is staggering. And we wonder afterwards why the majority of the British are Eurosceptic/phobic.
thus the Telegraph's readers feel no dissonance because that lede is exactly what they'd expect to hear about Europe. keep to the Fen Causeway
And others (Sven, for example) will tell us the whole business is about selling advertising space. So here we have the editor doing advertising for what is not in the article, so the readership figures stay up (as far as possible) and the newspaper can get advertising income.
These two explanations can be seen as concordant. But I don't think it's that simple, because it doesn't take into account the role of the media in dynamising and augmenting an existing tendency in public opinion. How many Brits were Eurosceptic/phobic in the 1970s compared to now? How many are more so than they were then? Whatever the failings of Brussels (and they are many), how much and how often have British newspapers played on the Thatcher theme of nothing good ever coming out of continental Europe? In other words, how responsible are those newspapers for creating and sustaining an appetite for Europhobic red meat in their readership, and not (for example, and I would not wish them to do this) for anti-American red meat? Or anti-something else?
And why, if newspapers are gradually failing businesses that time and technology will sweep away, are wealthy businessmen interested in owning them? Not for the profits they can pull out of them. But also not because newspapers are without influence. No doubt their capacity to spread propaganda still offers a good bang for the buck.
