Britain and the EU - and the "Lisbon Treaty" non-referendum

The UK was promised a referendum on the now-defunct "EU Constitutional Treaty" at the 2005 General Election by all the major UK political parties. Since then the "EU Constitutional Treaty" has been rejected by both France and the Netherlands in referenda and superseded by the "Lisbon Treaty" which is said by its fervent supporters to be something very different from the rejected constitutional treaty, but by everyone else is said to be almost the same and to copy more or less verbatim much of its text.

I remain, despite everything, a strong supporter of the UK remaining an active participant in the EU, but at the same time it sticks in my craw, in a major way, that the British people have been denied any say in whether we should have ratified the Lisbon Treaty or not. Today the 27th country, the Czech Republic, finally ratified the treaty so it will become law effective 1 December 2009. End of ... (as they say)

Tomorrow it is expected that David Cameron, Conservative leader, will announce what will be the formal reaction of his Party to this fait accompli by our sad excuse for a Government, the Labour Party and its Leader and our current Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In advance of this the Shadow Foreign Minister, William Hague, has said that with the Czech ratification and entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty that the campaign to have a referendum on the matter is no longer possible or relevant and that the Conservative wish to hold a referendum ended today:

"What has happened today means that it is no longer possible to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. "We have campaigned for that referendum for many years, we believe passionately that there should have been a referendum so that the British people could be consulted. "But now that the treaty is going to become European law and is going to enter into force, that means that a referendum can no longer prevent the creation of the President of the European Council, the loss of British national veto. "These things will already have happened and a referendum cannot unwind them or prevent them - and that means that our campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty therefore comes to an end today. We think that is a bad day for democracy. "Gordon Brown and the Labour Party promised people a referendum at the last election and people have never been consulted in a referendum or a general election."

The actual Foreign Sectretary, David Milliband, is quoted as saying:

"So much for David Cameron's cast-iron guarantee to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. "But he is still not being honest with people. The fact is you can't simply opt out of treaty obligations because to do so you need the agreement of the 26 other member states. "David Cameron's position on Europe is false and dangerous. He is willing to risk Britain's standing and the rights of British people because he is still not prepared to stand up to the right of his own party."

That's the "fait accompli" I referred to earlier.

We must wait to see what David Cameron comes up with tomorrow (in the "we won't let the matter lie there" strand), but meanwhile I have a few questions of my own.

Granted that this country generally observes the terms of commitments it enters into, unlike many of our fellow EU-members (who seem often to 'nuance' their legal commitments to suit their own convenience) what can realistically be done? I have a suggestion. A new Conservative government, assuming one is elected next year (as seems highly-probable), should simply declare it is withdrawing our ratification of the Lisbon Treaty pending a referendum of the British people. What, in practice, is the EU going to do about it? I would submit - nothing! Naturally, there would be a great deal of huffing and puffing, but beyond that very little. Are they going to send an army across the Channel to thwart the will of a newly-elected British government? I very much doubt it! And in any case, no country in Europe (other than the British or perhaps the French) would be capable of mounting an operation, and I don't think the French (who are nothing if not pragmatic), if push came to shove, would even consider participating in such an operation. I reiterate, I am basically strongly pro-EU (I am in no way a 'euro-sceptic'), but I just don't believe that if the British people decide they don't want to be, and won't be, bound by a treaty over which they have had no say, that anyone is going to take any practical measures to stop them/us. And I remind any sceptics that this country is one of the major net-contributors to the EU budget. In practical terms threats against us are just so much bluff. This country stood up, alone, against much stronger odds in 1940 so I do not see how or why anyone should be overly-concerned with what a bunch of pampered Brussels bureaucrats in 2009/2010 might come up with. Bring it on, I say!

I will observe with interest what my namesake David Cameron has to say tomorrow. I hope he will demonstrate the resolve and courage the situation requires.

Scottish Parliament rejects Salmond's SNP budget

The Scottish Parliament (SP) today rejected the Scottish Executive's (aka 'Scottish Government's') budget proposals. The vote was 64 on both sides and the Presiding Officer (aka 'Speaker') cast his vote to defeat it, citing precedent that casting votes should not change the status quo, which accepting the budget proposals would have done. Apparently the Green Party withdrew its support shortly before the vote and the the support of the Conservatives was not quite enough to swing it Alex's way.

It seems First Minister Salmond wants MSPs to forego the first week of their February holiday (why a February holiday, by the by?) so he can bring the budget before the SP again. I heard him speak on the radio at 8pm during the news bulletin implying that if he couldn't get his budget through it might necessitate 'going to the people'. No doubt a lot of hard political bargaining will be happening in the next few days amongst all the Parties. Which amongst the two principal Parties might lose/gain most from an early election? Whilst the SNP looks and is feeble, and its hold on power is precarious, the Labour lot are hardly more popular, with the toxicity of Brown's 'leadership' down in London unlikely to help their cause, even in their Scottish heartlands.

And we are only pretty near the beginning of this downturn/recession/depression, call it what you will. I haven't seen a great deal of discussion in blogs (those in the UK at any rate) so far about the unrest and violence which has occurred in recent weeks in a number of countries across Europe (Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria - can Estonia and Hungary be far behind?) with a general strike planned in France tomorrow. How quickly is it likely, if at all, that this unrest will spread to our little island? Who knows, but I suspect that before this thing is through we're going to see much more of this kind of thing and perhaps much worse - today's little difficulty in the SP might then come to seem merely a quaint reminder of what may then seem like better times.

OK, OK Cassandra will shut up ...

A judicious debunking of so-called 'ethical food'

This week's Economist has one of the best and most succinct 'debunkings' of ethical food I have ever read. The article in question is here (available only to subscribers to the print edition), but a brief summary of what it says is roughly as follows:

Organic Food
Organic food may be produced without man-made pesticides and fertilisers, but conventional agriculture requires much more land to produce a given quantity of food and has been the driving force, throughout history, for deforestation. The harsh reality is that not all of the world's population could be fed adequately using organic farming methods. The eco-lobby is silent on this important aspect.

Fairtrade
Farmers get paid more because such products are sold at a higher price, but because these commodities are often wildly in surplus the prevailing market price tends to be low. By propping up the price, Fairtrade encourages farmers to grow more, rather than diversifying in other crops, so depressing prices further. Fairtrade tends to achieve in the medium- and long-term exactly the opposite of what was intended. On the other hand it gives rich consumers the smug impression their generosity is helping to give farmers a better life, when what it usually does is tie these farmers into the production of low-value commodities.

Locally-produced Food
Sounds logical, when first looked at. However, more people live closer to a supermarket than a farmer's market and almost half of all 'food miles' involve cars going to/from the shops. When, in addition, the energy used in production as well as transport is calculated, local food may in fact be even less 'green' than most people imagine. Producing lamb in Britain is far more energy-intensive than producing the same meat in New Zealand, apparently and the aims of the 'local produce' movement in any case contradict the whole notion of Fairtrade, because it discourages us from buying produce from poor countries. In fact the 'local produce' market looks suspiciously like protectionism masquerading as concern for the environment.

Summing up, the Economist article suggests that concerned consumers in the rich world need to use the power of their votes to force action by their governments by introducing a global carbon tax and reform (genuine reform, that is) of the world trading system and by abolishing farm subsidies to allow poor-country farmers to compete on a level playing-field. Free trade in other words.