Skip to main content

The Treaty of Lisbon ratified

"Gentlemen, you are trying to negotiate something you will never be able to negotiate. If negotiated, it will not be ratified. and if ratified, it will not work"

Thus spoke the British civil servant, Russell Bretherton, who had been sent to represent Britain at the Messina conference in 1955. The other six countries represented at that conference: Belgium, France, (West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands had sent their foreign ministers. The UK sent this relatively minor civil servant who essentially boycotted the discussions. It was the beginning of a continuously fraught relationship between Britain and the rest of the European Union.

In the same way that the UK tried to ignore the reality of the early moves for European co-operation, so it has tried to ignore the reality of the treaty of Lisbon. At the signing ceremony, 26 European leaders celebrated with a formal signing ceremony followed by a formal dinner. One- Gordon Brown- arrived deliberately late and did not want to be photographed with the other leaders. In the face of the substantial reorganisation of the European Union that the treaty will now require neither Labour, nor -especially- the Conservatives have had the slightest positive thing to say. Indeed the majority of Conservatives profoundly oppose the very basis of the treaty. David Cameron demanded a referendum and publicly urged President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic to veto the treaty, irrespective of the Czech constitution, which was frankly outrageous.

Now the treaty has come into force and the -pretty unedifying- jockeying for position in the new set up will begin. Nevertheless, the time has come for the United Kingdom to grow up about our relations with the rest of the EU. This organisation, for all its faults, is being developed to allow the relatively smaller states of Europe to work together to avoid being pressured by the larger global states such as China, India, the United States, Russia, and increasingly even Brazil. It makes sense strategically and economically for relatively small powers- of which the UK is clearly one- to work closely with our neighbours and major economic partners to promote our common interests. Of course the great diversity of European societies especially with so many languages, ensures that there is a clear limit to the level of integration that can be achieved.

Nevertheless the benefits have been palpable and significant.

All of the European Union members have recognised that membership of the organisation has benefited their own national interests significantly. Britain, pretty much alone, continues to regard membership as a challenge to its national interest and even a threat to its identity. We lost an Empire and then found that the denominations of our money- L.s.d- our measurements system- Imperial and even the idea of the Pound Sterling itself, were hindrances to our economy. We have still not yet found a role and have become passive in the face of own decline.

Yet there is a role waiting for our country. It was after all Winston Churchill himself who first mooted the idea of a United States of Europe. Britain has been in the forefront of a far more fundamental integration: the integration of European defence forces both within and beyond NATO- and is recognised as a leader in this sphere because of this. By failing to lead Europe in other fields and be clinging to an increasingly one sided unilateral alliance with the United States, our country has forfited the respect of our allies, even including the US.

Lisbon, with all its faults, is ratified. This should not be seen as a threat to the United Kingdom, but now an opportunity. In the same way that British leadership, in the shape of the Cockfield plan, created the single market, so we should now take the opportunity to shape the European Union in a way that emphasises the value of free and open markets- including the financial markets.

The history of the British relationship with the EU is a litany of misunderstanding and failures by the British to recognise the values but also the agenda of our fellow members. The time has come for the British to reappraise their whole relationship with the EU: and to "reset" it as the current jargon has it.

If that requires a referendum to confirm our membership, then so be it. I am confident that people like Dan Hannan, whose world view so resembles that of Russell Bretherton, can be taken on and defeated.

Comments

Newmania said…
One- Gordon Brown- arrived deliberately late and did not want to be photographed with the other leaders.

While the bold Liberal party who proclaimed their support for re-heated constitution by abstaining in the Commons cooking up a laughable excuse to avoid the odium and then ditching that logic by quietly supporting it in the Lords.
The economic and political aims you claim could all be easily achieved without the clear attempt to create a super state and consign Nations to history , how can you be so naïve? You think Britain is feeling a bit raw about its post war demotion , how about Germany , how about France , you seriously think this vast movement is to do with trade ? That was the Common market , that was what we wanted , that is not what we have . We have a President a Foreign Secretary , we have a quasi country we do not want one, we were not asked , we have been lied to .
Winston Churchill .NATO … the US only Loves us when we do as we are told by The Germans , all the old songs are here aren`t they CS , makes me quite nostalgic.


Now you want an in or out referendum do you ? Funny I was just dealing with that

http://iznewmania.blogspot.com/2009/11/unhand-me-sir.html
In the same way that the UK tried to ignore the reality of the early moves for European co-operation, so it has tried to ignore the reality of the treaty of Lisbon.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo