Why so secretive?
To be clear about this treaty, there is a very strong movement to prevent an open debate about the effects of the treaty before it is ratified by the British parliament.
The consolidated text will not be published until after Brown has signed the treaty so there can be no real debate in parliament.
But by signing the treaty Brown is also undertaking to use his utmost power to ensure that it is ratified in our parliament, which will mean a three line whip.
The only body which has any power in this matter is the European Scrutiny Committee they have just issued a report raising several issues about the treaty and have also placed the matter under scrutiny. This means that they have said this treaty cannot be signed before it is debated on the floor of the house.
If Brown now goes ahead and signs the treaty he will be doing so without any mandate from our parliament and against the clear wishes of the European Scrutiny Committee.
On the EU foreign affairs and diplomatic service Guenter Burghardt, a former EU ambassador to the US, warned that
“we have to make sure that there are no discussions taking place in the open air”before the UK parliament has ratified the reform treaty and Ireland has held its treaty referendum early next summer, with both London and Dublin sensitive about foreign policy issues.
Why so secretive?
What is so problematic about this treaty that neither the voters or even our own representatives in our parliament may know what is going on behind closed doors, is this really any way to prepare and present a treaty of such importance to the nation state.
The European Scrutiny Committee said;
“We again recall that as recently as June of this year the European Council not only emphasised the “crucial importance of reinforcing communications with the European citizens … and involving them in permanent dialogue” but also stated that this would be “particularly important during the upcoming IGC and ratification processes”.
Such statements now ring hollow, and we reiterate our earlier comment that the process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate, until it has become too late for such debate to have any effect on the agreements which have been reached.”
