eurealist.co.uk

According to MEP Richard Corbett, the Socialist’s constitution spokesperson, EU leaders meeting at the end of the week are most likely to agree that a period of reflection is needed in the ratification process.

But to avoid this becoming an “indefinite postponement” there should be “a public and pluralist forum, possibly a new convention … for a serious and wide-ranging debate”, he says in a paper drawn up after discussions with his group.

This convention, which would be similar to the convention convened three years ago with governmental, parliamentary and civil society representation.

The very last thing we need is another centrally controlled convention on the future of Europe run by the intergrationalist to further their aims.

The constitutional treaty is “a dead document,”
Vaclav Klaus president of the Czech Republic said France and Holland’s no votes to the European Constitutional Treaty are evidence to the triumph of freedom and democracy in the EU.
To push for further ratification is pointless, he said, since the thumbs down in two EU founding countries has shown ordinary Europeans do not think just like their policymakers.
The constitutional treaty is “a dead document,”
“both yes and no votes were of equal value and legitimacy. People in these countries made their choice, so this is obviously not a failure of the referendum, though it is of course a failure for those for whom yes was the only possible answer.”

Perhaps Blogs are having an effect, EU Referendum has made the point several times that the Budget row is a get up to direct the pundits away fro the real issues. Today the Telegraph picks up on the story “So dazzled are commentators by President Chirac’s outrageous demands that they have taken their eyes off what he is doing, so to speak, with his other hand. We do not intend to repeat their mistake. The case for Britain’s budget rebate is as strong today as when it was negotiated. In 1984, Britain was the second largest net contributor to EU funds. In 2004, even with the rebate, it was still the second largest net contributor.”

The Telegraph points out that “Britain does worse out of the EU’s budgetary arrangements than any state except Germany. Far from increasing the UK’s contribution to an even more iniquitous level, the EU should be seeking to cut its costs, so that everyone, not just the British, can “get their money back”. End of story.”

But notes that the leaders of the EU are raising the argument over the budget as a smoke screen to hide the fact that they are ignoring the No vote in France and Holland and just going ahead as if things were normal.
“The most striking thing is that the EU institutions are pushing ahead as though the No votes had not happened. The leaders of the Commission, the Parliament and the Council have called for ratification to proceed as planned. Luxembourg is voting as scheduled.

Meanwhile, the European Parliament has voted through several Bills that cite the constitution as the source of their authority. Last week, for example, MEPs proposed a unified EU seat on the UN Security Council. They quoted as their legal basis “the European Constitutional Treaty, which creates a legal personality for the Union and a European Minister for Foreign Affairs”. The man whom the constitution envisaged for this post, Javier Solana, is comporting himself as though in office.”
“What we have to do is continue,” said the silky Spaniard last week. “The worst that could happen would be for the EU to enter into a psychological paralysis.”

“With almost Marxist historiography, Eurocrats dismiss the French and Dutch results as the product of “false consciousness”. The peoples of those two countries plainly misunderstood the issue. They were really voting against Turkey, or against Raffarin, or against Anglo-Saxon liberalism - against anything, in short, except the proposition actually on the ballot paper.”

“They plainly need to be better informed, re-educated, brought to see their true interests. To our masters in Brussels, the goal of a united Europe is not simply desirable but inevitable. Public opposition to that goal is thus an obstacle to be overcome, not a reason for changing direction. We may find their attitude laughable. But, when the laughing stops, they will still have their constitution.”

Reminding us that during the recent referendums Yes campaigners argued that a No vote would be a rejection, not simply of the constitution, but of the entire European project. Let them now stand by their own logic.