eurealist.co.uk

With Fond Memories of Stephen

When we talk to others or write about the EU and our thoughts do people understand the basics do we loose them when we start to mention MEP, ECJ, CAP, CFP, and any number of acronyms the EU has wrought. Do we need a different language to get our message through do we fall at the first fence if so how can we change the way we talk about the EU.

All this is brought on by a question on a political forum, I had posted what I thought was a reasonable clear discussion point about Members of the European Parliament selling the European Union Constitution. The questioner asked…

“Ken, i’m sorry.. but i just.. i.. i just don’t get it! What is the MEP? And this constitution whassap with that? A vote? Whats going on i’m a member of the EU and i don’t get a word of what you are talking about geez could you point me to some page so i could educate myself”

Now given English was not the gentleman’s first language and he did an awfully better job of his English than I could have managed in Swedish, it was clear that I had failed to make myself clear and therefore people would simply turn of from the message I was trying to impart.

I then remembered that last year on the FCO.gov.uk Forum I did for a time trade insults with a Europhile whose language was so thick I had to deconstruct it to find the meaning before I could formulate a reply this would sometimes take an hour or so eventually I gave because I felt that if the gentleman had wanted to write clearly it was obviously within his capabilities to do so and if he wished to convince anyone of the greatness of the EU he would have made himself clear.

This really is not going anywhere else, but I have attached just a short bit from my FCO friend for you enjoyment.

Here he is writing about the Tories 10 point plan. If you get to the end please let me know what he is saying, I’ve lost the knack and already have a headache.

And is not the Tory’s pseudo “red card” system to require an European law to be repealed ‘if five or more national parliaments objected to it’ a case of populistic will-enforcement on the rest of EU nationstate-sovereignty? Surely undemocratically-induced de-integration “to which all must even ipso facto subscribe”? [All right, what that means is the Tory-proposition to '... require a European law to be repealed if five or more national parliaments objected to it, ...' - surely it would result in collusion by EU-sceptic movements within the EU member-states to abrogate to themselves an absolute power, hugely greater than that alleged to be "additionally transferred" to the European Commission by 'Constitutional Treaty'. So please inform us whether such an enforcement of pseudo-democratic short-term power is going to be mandatory under EU absolute law, or at least subject to QMV decision-making in the EU Council of Heads-of-State. At least the EU's own acceptance of citizen-referenda power-play in the new "Constitutional Accord", if any, is going to be limited to be consultative-only, although still probably overloading the governing-work of all EU Institutions and nationstate parliaments at libertarian whim].

Then we get the rather unthought-through addition: ‘… and pledge to put any new European treaty that transferred significant powers to Brussels to a referendum.’ - surely that is covered vis-a-vis the EU by veto-powers retained by EU member-nationstates. And there might be lengthy argumentations about what would be considered as “significant powers”, possibly going eventually to an extra-empowered EU Constitutional Court (instead of being dealt with in a cooperative European Council). If, on the other hand, you moot it would be considered by ‘The Queen in Parliament’, then Amen - but surely then we come back to “the Referendum” methodology: to accept “non-significant powers” or to leave the EU ipso facto in due course. I suggest that there is more democratic opportunity to remain at the heart of the EU