Lisbon lassitude

 

Drooling

Parliament today buried itself in a pit of self-indulgent futility.

 

So many of the Lords lined up to shout down the well, they started their session two hours early. They needed ten hours for the list of speakers could add their dollop to the great pyramid of words that is being constructed today. As a sensible rational institution, the Lords  prepared a careful sane analysis of the Treaty that will infuriate the Euro-sceptics.

 

Weeks of tedious debate in the Commons has induced revulsion by MPs at the mention of the Treaty. Amazingly the Lords are buzzing. Two left a meeting with a new ambassador early to get more of their fix of Euro-drooling. Why? Everything has been said in the Commons, and then re-said, again and again. The result here was dozens of votes with majorities between 150 and 200. If the Lords cut up rough, the Commons will vote the same again. All utterly predictable. The future is tedious and trying.

 

Arrows

Two constituents from were denied their planned tour of the Upper House because of the early start. They enjoyed their Commons visit. As a consolation I took them for a bite of food. The bonus was that this is the first day when it was possible to eat in the warm sunshine on the Terrace.

 

It got better as large numbers of people began to crowd Westminster Bridge and the Terrace at one o’clock. The Red Arrows flow over to make the RAF anniversary. More than adequate compensation for missing the Lords.

 

 

'Soft on terror'

The Commons Chamber tried to match the Lords in a debating nothing.

 

Out of duty I witnessed a tortured explanation from Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on why she was insisting of a change in the law that will probably affect no-one. It was all just in case a series of highly unlikely circumstances occur.

 

To achieve this, she is risking a bad defeat which will depress the Government’s friends and cheer up their enemies. A sensible judgement is that the 42 days detention will further deepen the sense of double standards and unfairness that simmers among British Muslims.

 

When the proposal was for 90 days, I had a significant phone call from a constituent. He stressed that it would not be white Christian men who were likely to be interned unfairly. Have we not learned from Northern Ireland I pass on my constituent’s comment to Tony Blair last time. He was bent on embarrassing the Tories by positioning them ‘on the side of terrorists.’ It partly worked.

 

The mood has now changed. The government cannot win this one. There is no excuse in playing political games with the most explosive threat to our peace.

Comments

[greg]

Hello Paul

I think the real issue is not whether Parliament votes for or against any European treaty, but why citizens of the UK are being denied a vote on what appears to be a rehashed European constitution in all but name - you know, the one that Tony Blair promised a referendum on?

It seems deeply contemptuous of the European people that, having had Mk. I rejected because of the pesky French and Danish electorates, governments seem to be proceeding with Mk. II without anything as inconvenient as voter participation!

As someone born in 1971 and emigrating in 2005 I never had a chance to vote on EU membership, nor any of the treaties that transferred powers from national to supra-national bodies, nor the huge net UK contributions to the EU.

http://www.global-vision.net/facts/fact15_2.asp

For all the many faults of the UK government, it is at least accountable (eventually); the surrender of control over huge swathes of national sovereignty to an essentially unaccountable (or indirectly accountable at best) body deserves at the very least, the consent of the people Parliament is supposed to represent.

Regards

Greg

[paul Flynn]

It's a question of whether there will be a change in Parliament's decision. There will not be. That is the reality.

If we are to embark on Government by referendum, that will be a profound change in our constitution. We need a definition on what subjects that have votes. We have had four past treaties with no votes.

[greg]

Hello Paul

From what I can recall, the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament came into being by referendum; it's fair to question why devolution got the vote, but a Federal Europe didn't. A cynic might argue that governments only lets people vote when it thinks it can win!

To put it another way, the 1973 and 1975 votes were for entry and membership to a 'Common Market'; there has obviously been a transformation of the EU since and wholesale transfer of powers from London to Brussels, for good or ill.

You Gov seems to show that 57% of the British people would appreciate a vote on the matter, probably because there is a perception that on Europe at least, there has been democratic deficit between what politicians vote for, and what the electorate wants for a long time:

http://www.yougov.com/uk/archives/pdf/DT%20Europe%20301007.pdf

Regards

Greg

[Paul Flynn]

Federal Europe? When is that happenning?

[Chris]

'You Gov seems to show that 57% of the British people would appreciate a vote on the matter'

Yes but most of them get their news from the euro obsessed serial liars in the right wing media and when they are not taking all that in are watching reality TV and dancing on ice.

[greg]

Chris - are you suggesting that only people that read certain newspapers should be allowed to vote? Democracy is a good thing as long as the right sort of people vote?

Paul - you've lost the veto on anything apart from war and foreign policy I believe, so a majority of countries are more than capable of pushing agendas through even if not necessarily in the best interest of the UK. There's an 'elected' EC president , foreign minister and 'common defence is foreseen'. I also believe that the EU would be able to sign treaties as a legal entity. It's hardly a trivial and implies pooling of sovereignty at the very least.

If you define 'federal' as a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units, that's pretty much Lisbon, wouldn't you agree?

If Mk I was good to go to referendum, why not Mk II?