| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| No 10 admits EU treaty is finished |
| 2008-06-15 |
| Gordon Brown is privately ready to sacrifice the Lisbon treaty rather than allow the Irish no vote to create a two-tier Europe. Despite the Irish referendum, France, Germany and senior Brussels officials have insisted there should be no delay in implementing the European Union blueprint. But No 10 sources say the prime minister would rather see the entire constitutional treaty collapse than allow individual member states to be left trailing in a two-speed Europe. The collapse of the Lisbon treaty would take the heat off Brown as he faces down renewed calls for Britain to have its own referendum. If Europe presses ahead without Ireland, it would set a precedent for a two-speed club, with Britain likely to be stuck in the second tier. A Downing Street source said: “The legal position on this is very clear: the treaty cannot come into force until all 27 countries have ratified it.” One senior government official said anyone who thought the Irish vote could be ignored was “living in cloud-cuckoo-land”. The leaders of the EU’s 27 members states will meet this week in Brussels, but yesterday the Irish government ruled out forcing through a second referendum. William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said European leaders had to heed the no vote or risk looking “remote, out of touch and more undemocratic than ever”. However, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president who will take over the rotating EU presidency next month, dismissed the Irish vote as a “hiccup” that should “not become a political crisis”. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Germany’s foreign minister, went further, stating that the Lisbon treaty provisions, which include the creation of a permanent EU president and the widespread abolition of national vetoes, could be implemented without Ireland. “Ireland for a period of time could leave the way free for the integration of the other 26 member states,” he said. In public, British ministers are insisting that a solution to the impasse can still be found. Jim Murphy, the Europe minister, yesterday told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Only those who previously wished to dance on the grave of this treaty, even before the Irish referendum, are declaring it dead.” In private, the mood among senior Whitehall officials is more pessimistic. “No one wants to come out publicly now and say ‘the treaty is dead’,” said one. “But by the end of the week, after the Brussels summit, that could well be the case.” Rest at link |
| Posted by:ed |
| #18 It's ok, JosephM. Barbara Skolaut has charge of the industrial sized popcorn machine in the O-Club, and she's been stocking up on popcorn kernels, butter and salt. She's a clever woman, is our Barbara -- she'll make sure we win the war. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-06-15 21:18 |
| #17 Is Aris allowed back today for his EU expertise, or did somebody here request a punching bag for a Father's Day gift? Three cheers for the Irish! If the Eurocrats can't propose something acceptable to their constituency, then the Eurocrats have no valid reason to exist. First it was the "constitution' and then it was Lisbon treaty. It appears that the "blueprint" is for a house of cards. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-06-15 20:12 |
| #16 And Vlad Putin's desired "MULTIPOLAR WORLD " loses again!? Again IMO, OSAMA, etc. + IRAN + RADICAL ISLAM > SAVING THE JIHAD VV PAN-ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION + STRATWEAPNZ > IN LT, "TWO" IS BETTER THAN PUTIN's = RUSSIA's "MANY", i.e. US-ALLIES/WEST versus NUCLEARIZED ISLAMIST CENTRAL ASIA = FUTURE NUCLEARIZED ISLAMIST ASIA [and beyond]. *2008 -2012 POTUS Period > MSM-NET = the post-Dubya USA needs to refocus PRIMARY attention on VARIOUS GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, NOT ON FIGHTING ISLAMISM IN IRAQ + AFGHANISTAN, etc. [read - POST-DUBYA US BIG GOVT NEEDS TO EXPAND ET PERPETUO = AD INFINITUM AMAP ASAP]. BIGGER AND BIGGER AND ...., FOREVER AND FOREVER AND... OSAMA + RADICAL ISLAM > LATENTLY DESIRE TO TEMPOR SUPLANT/REPLACE THE USSR + COMMIE BLOC IN A QUASI-COLD WAR [detente'?, mutual-coexistence?' IN SUPPORT OF PAN-ISLAMIST [Proto-]NUCLEARIZATION + STRATWEAPNZ. MORE ACCURATELY > PRO-DETERRENCE "NUCLEAR/ STRATEGIC SUFFICIENCY". * 2008-2012 POTUS Period >= CRITICAL PERIOD FOR THE DESIRED FUTURE NUCLEAR JIHAD, etc. SUB-IOW, among other valid or realistic premises, 'tis prob safe to presume that Osama = Radical Islam are also getting the FUTURE NUCLEAR JIHAD-TERR READY FOR THEIR PRO-JIHAD ORGANZ SUCCESSORS = SONNY BOYS [e.g. ASSAD III, etal.]??? D *** NG IT, AMERICA = AMERIKA IS STILL LOW ON POPCORN AND POPCORN BUTTER! HOW CAN WE WIN THE WAR WIDOUT POPCORN AND BUTTER! |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-06-15 20:08 |
| #15 Not sure you understand how treaties work. Treaties between nations are generally considered binding under international law -- except of course when they have exit clauses. Contrary to this assertion, it is a hotly disputed issue WRT international agreements as to whether any such agreement can be said to prevent sovereign nations from withdrawing from it. Historically it was agreed that they would not; more recently, some have tried to change that precedent and understanding in order to bind states to give up increasing amounts of sovereign power to transnational and often unelected officials and mechanisms. The question then becomes whether the existing EU treaties in fact abrogate national sovereignty. The fervid dreams of some notwithstanding, it's not at all clear that they do which is why there is such pressure brought to bear by those parties to lock Brussels' powers into a firmer legal basis. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-06-15 19:04 |
| #14 You continue to talk nonsense. I think pride would be the main emotion at leaving the EUSSR. We'd probably not wait long to be joined by others. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-06-15 18:51 |
| #13 Bright Pebbles, I keep being at awe at how little interest in facts there's in this place. "Parliament would no longer be sovereign after the Lisbon treaty"?? That's cute. Utterly meaningless but very very cute. "Before the Lisbon treaty all that would be needed was a vote in Parliament to leave the EU." Not sure you understand how treaties work. Treaties between nations are generally considered binding under international law -- except of course when they have exit clauses. Previous EU and EC treaties didn't have exit clauses. Treaty of Lisbon does have an exit clause. Not that anyone would prevent UK from leaving right now if she wanted to -- after all the EU has neither the wish nor the capacity to stop the UK from leaving. It's just that *everyone* would know that UK would be violating its obligations under the existing treaties by so leaving. I'm sure UK could live with that shame. |
| Posted by: Aris 2008-06-15 18:20 |
| #12 Aris is wrong. Parliament would no longer be sovereign after the Lisbon treaty therefore a way to leave would have to be made available. Before the Lisbon treaty all that would be needed was a vote in Parliament to leave the EU. Thank god the peoples of Europe avoided this disaster of a con-stitution. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2008-06-15 18:05 |
| #11 Some people always have to start with a snotty remark. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-15 16:31 |
| #10 "I presume it's a one-way ratification process - once a country approves it it cannot un-approve it later" Glenmore, why presume anything, when you could have looked it up in two secs in Wikipedia? Actually it's the other way around. The *previous* treaties allowed no possibility to leaving the European Union. The Treaty of Lisbon on the other hand (same as the European Constitution it replaced) explicitly allows secession of the European Union. So basically it was all the previous treaties that didn't allow "unapproving" them later, and it's this one that does. So basically Ireland and UK are legally stuck in the European Union until they actually decide to ratify a treaty that actually allows them to legally leave it. |
| Posted by: Aris 2008-06-15 15:54 |
| #9 Sir the Peasants are Revolting! You Said it, They Stink on Ice! |
| Posted by: Huperenter Platypus9297 2008-06-15 09:18 |
| #8 once a country approves it it cannot un-approve it later Exactly like islam. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-15 09:17 |
| #7 Eventually Ireland will give in. Unless they actively pursue a NAFTA in their own future. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-06-15 08:49 |
| #6 I presume it's a one-way ratification process - once a country approves it it cannot un-approve it later (sort of like the womens rights amendment, or the US Constitution). Eventually Ireland will give in. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2008-06-15 08:21 |
| #5 This is a propaganda effort by Murdock to kill the treaty. Brown will find out who is really running EUrope next week. If he tries to pull something like this the dictators in Brussels will start to work the contract on him. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-06-15 08:00 |
| #4 I'll believe it is dead when the rest of the nations break away from the EU and only France and Belgium are part of it. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-06-15 08:00 |
| #3 Unfortunately, like a cheap vampire movie, the EU treaty / constitution will keep coming back Until it's found to be inconsistent with Sharia? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-06-15 05:41 |
| #2 Unfortunately, like a cheap vampire movie, the EU treaty / constitution will keep coming back. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2008-06-15 00:41 |
| #1 The serfs are rebeling, my Lords! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-06-15 00:26 |