Apart from the 'minor event' [irony alert] across the Atlantic today, with the inauguration of a new President (the 45th, President Trump) in the United States of America, there have been some major developments here too, in relation to the United Kingdom (UK) and its forthcoming exit from the European Union (EU), in the past few months. In October 2016 the Prime Minister Mrs May announced that she would 'trigger' Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty no later than 31st March 2017 - you can read more about this here. Much more recently, on 17th January 2017 she delivered a major speech in which she set out 12 key areas in her plans for implementing our departure, one of which specially pleases me, that we will no longer be a part of the 'Single Market' (aka the 'protectionist cartel' of the EU) - you can read more about this here and here.
The 12 key areas referred to above include:
- 1. Certainty;
- 2. Control of our own laws;
- 3. Strengthen the union (referring to the four nations which together comprise the UK);
- 4. Maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland;
- 5. Control of immigration;
- 6. Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU;
- 7. Protect workers' rights;
- 8. Free trade with European markets;
- 9. New trade agreements with other countries;
- 10. The best place for science and innovation;
- 11. Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism;
- 12. A smooth, orderly Brexit.).
Naturally there has been considerable reaction to her speeches, not only within the UK itself (and of course from our 'illustrious' [another irony alert] First Minister in Scotland), but perhaps more relevantly from some leading figures within the EU itself; I don't plan to detail that here, except to observe that most of the 'spluttering' responses from EU functionaries and leaders from other countries has been uniformly negative and frankly intransigent. Perhaps not entirely unexpected, but given the shambles which the EU has got itself into, with its badly thought out policies, is still somewhat remarkable, when subjected to critical analysis. Specially of course the Eurozone of the 'single currency', the Euro, but the general protectionist reality of what is purported to be a 'free market' (aka the 'single market'), but of course is nothing of the kind - it is basically a protectionist cartel, specially in anything relating to food, for the benefit of a few members, but certainly not of the UK.
The high unemployment levels, in particular amongst younger citizens, in certain member-states of the EU, mainly amongst southern countries, appears not to concern the Brussels bureaucracy or the leaders of the few Eurozone member countries which benefit directly from the monetary union represented by the Euro. I find this particularly reprehensible. This is indeed probably the major reason that changed me from being a fervent Europhile to someone convinced we as a country had to get oursleves out of this bizarre mess, which is anything but 'democratic'.
Blogging from the Highlands of Scotland
'From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step' - Diderot
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European Union. Show all posts
Friday, 20 January 2017
Sunday, 11 December 2016
EU Citizenship, Verhofstadt and actual EU law - or does this no longer matter?
I was startled to learn of the somewhat left-field proposal by Guy Verhofstadt (widely quoted in the media, but I include this BBC link here). Guy Verhofstadt, in case you have just crawled from out of some subterranean cavern, is actually an MEP from Belgium and is leader of one of the [minor] groupings in the European Parliament called "Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe", see his page here.
Mr Verhofstadt seems to be implying that a modification of "EU Law" can somehow be "fast-tracked" to allow "EU Citizenship" to be retained on an individual basis by UK citizens, when the UK leaves the EU, as seems to be likely a few years from now.
Now I do not doubt that that this may be a theoretical possibillity, but I think the likelihood of this or any other 'ad hoc' modification of EU Law being "fast tracked" is, ahem, illusory - it might happen after MANY years of tedious negotiation, but the idea such a change could be fast-tracked is just so much hot air, in my view.
To bring this whole nonsense proposal back down to some semblance of reality, here is what the official EU website says about the status of EU citizenship here:
This seems to imply that the status of 'EU citizen' is entirely dependent on being a citizen of an EU member state. Whether it follows that if one is a citizen of a member state of the EU which ceases to be a member state of the EU that such a citizen might retain the status of EU citizen, is not at all clear, whatever Mr Verhofstadt may care to assert.
Frankly, though, I'd never heard of the "Treaty on the Functioning of the EU" before - as this is stated in the official website of the EU one must suppose it is a real thing and not just wishful thinking; have you heard of this before? By the way, if you want to 'blow your mind', you could always read this document and try to understand it - here. This is just a minor example of the "Alice in Wonderland" fantasy-land that the decision of the UK to leave the EU seeks to consign to unlamented history! My best reading of this fantasy is that it is a part, or apparently subsidiary to, the 'Lisbon Treaty'
I think what this whole [probably minor and best forgotten little nugget of an] episode reveals is just how much of a wake-up call the UK has delivered to the schlerotic EU and just how desperate it is to try and defuse this 'crisis' - that is to say, the decision of the UK electorate to leave this cosy (suffocating?) little club.
Natrually it is no surprise to learn that the UK political party, or the remnants of its following after recent elections, in both the UK and the EU, which participates in this frankly minor and inconsequential grouping, is the "Liberal Democrats" - as a true 'Liberal' and a true 'Democrat' I do not wish of course to try and and silence these people, rather do I celebrate the welcome diversity of views which they represent.
However, I would love to know the legal basis under which the so-called "associate citizenship" of Mr Verhosfstadt's fantasy-thinking might be conferred. It is either a naive declaration with little consensual acclaim (from the rest of the EU, or at least its two or three most influential members), or it is a sign of the increasing desperation of the EU hierarchy to try and respond, perforce feebly, to the existential crisis that the imminent departure of the UK from the EU represents. If EU citizenship does not depend on being a citizen of an EU member-state, on what does it depend? Is it proposed that any existing 'EU citizen' holds that status independently of a similar citizenship status of a member state of the EU? If this new status is to be conferred upon UK citizens, presumably it must apply also to citizens of all EU member states. If accepted as a valid EU treaty amendment (fast- or slow-tracked) it seems to imply that EU citizenship may be granted completely independently of any partuclar citizenship status of an EU member state. Is the EU, in Mr Verfofstadt's thinking, to abrogate to itself the power of granting citizenship of the EU to anyone, independently of whatever status they may or may not hold in any member (or former member) atate if the EU?
It strikes me that whilst the UK occasionally arrives at a pragmatic interpretation when responding to contemporary events, it would be highly unusual for an entity so hidebound by its own self-image as the EU to do likewise. Please wake me up when the dysfunctional EU actually bucks it historic reputation and shows it is capable of genuine change, not the kind of desperate gesture politics that Mr. Verhofstadt seems to be peddling.
Mr Verhofstadt seems to be implying that a modification of "EU Law" can somehow be "fast-tracked" to allow "EU Citizenship" to be retained on an individual basis by UK citizens, when the UK leaves the EU, as seems to be likely a few years from now.
Now I do not doubt that that this may be a theoretical possibillity, but I think the likelihood of this or any other 'ad hoc' modification of EU Law being "fast tracked" is, ahem, illusory - it might happen after MANY years of tedious negotiation, but the idea such a change could be fast-tracked is just so much hot air, in my view.
To bring this whole nonsense proposal back down to some semblance of reality, here is what the official EU website says about the status of EU citizenship here:
What is EU citizenship? - Any person who holds the nationality of an EU country is automatically also an EU citizen. EU citizenship is additional to and does not replace national citizenship. It is for each EU country to lay down the conditions for the acquisition and loss of nationality of that country. - Citizenship of the Union is conferred directly on every EU citizen by the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. |
Frankly, though, I'd never heard of the "Treaty on the Functioning of the EU" before - as this is stated in the official website of the EU one must suppose it is a real thing and not just wishful thinking; have you heard of this before? By the way, if you want to 'blow your mind', you could always read this document and try to understand it - here. This is just a minor example of the "Alice in Wonderland" fantasy-land that the decision of the UK to leave the EU seeks to consign to unlamented history! My best reading of this fantasy is that it is a part, or apparently subsidiary to, the 'Lisbon Treaty'
I think what this whole [probably minor and best forgotten little nugget of an] episode reveals is just how much of a wake-up call the UK has delivered to the schlerotic EU and just how desperate it is to try and defuse this 'crisis' - that is to say, the decision of the UK electorate to leave this cosy (suffocating?) little club.
Natrually it is no surprise to learn that the UK political party, or the remnants of its following after recent elections, in both the UK and the EU, which participates in this frankly minor and inconsequential grouping, is the "Liberal Democrats" - as a true 'Liberal' and a true 'Democrat' I do not wish of course to try and and silence these people, rather do I celebrate the welcome diversity of views which they represent.
However, I would love to know the legal basis under which the so-called "associate citizenship" of Mr Verhosfstadt's fantasy-thinking might be conferred. It is either a naive declaration with little consensual acclaim (from the rest of the EU, or at least its two or three most influential members), or it is a sign of the increasing desperation of the EU hierarchy to try and respond, perforce feebly, to the existential crisis that the imminent departure of the UK from the EU represents. If EU citizenship does not depend on being a citizen of an EU member-state, on what does it depend? Is it proposed that any existing 'EU citizen' holds that status independently of a similar citizenship status of a member state of the EU? If this new status is to be conferred upon UK citizens, presumably it must apply also to citizens of all EU member states. If accepted as a valid EU treaty amendment (fast- or slow-tracked) it seems to imply that EU citizenship may be granted completely independently of any partuclar citizenship status of an EU member state. Is the EU, in Mr Verfofstadt's thinking, to abrogate to itself the power of granting citizenship of the EU to anyone, independently of whatever status they may or may not hold in any member (or former member) atate if the EU?
It strikes me that whilst the UK occasionally arrives at a pragmatic interpretation when responding to contemporary events, it would be highly unusual for an entity so hidebound by its own self-image as the EU to do likewise. Please wake me up when the dysfunctional EU actually bucks it historic reputation and shows it is capable of genuine change, not the kind of desperate gesture politics that Mr. Verhofstadt seems to be peddling.
Saturday, 3 September 2016
Further thoughts on the EU, "Brexit" and related matters
As we are now at the beginning of September, and the end of the main summer holiday period when many politicians, civil servants and citizens generally will have been on holiday, it is I think now appropriate to write the kind of article I am now writing. As has often been the case in earlier years the month of August has, apart from being an hiatus in 'business as usual' for politics, also been a time when eccentric stories become newsworthy for broadcasters searching for things to write about during the dog days of summer.
For most, probably all, of my adult life I have been strongly supportive of the EEC (later the EU) and of the UK joining it and remaining a part of it. Personal circumstances meant I was not able to vote in the 1975 referendum, two years after the UK joined the EEC, to decide whether the country should remain or leave - I lived then in a place called Djibouti (wedged between Ethiopia/Eritrea and Somalia) in the north-east of Africa, and at that time people living outside the UK could not vote in UK elections, except in very special circumstances. But had I been in a position to vote, I would certainly have voted to remain in the EEC.
Broadly speaking, with perhaps just a few qualms, I supported most of what was done later, where it affected the UK. The Schengen Treaty (from 1985 to 1995 until 1997 when it was incorporated into EU law by the Amsterdam Treaty), did not and does not affect the UK, or as it so happens Ireland (that last bit is really irrelevant to me, of course, because even though it might otherwise affect Northern Ireland, there has been a common travel area between the UK and Ireland for a long time, unaffected by the independence of Ireland from the UK). The fact that the UK is an island nation meant, in my view, that it was practical, if not in the view of some I suppose entirely desirable, not to adopt Schengen. I doubt if it would have been easily do-able if we had land borders other than with Ireland. It is probably no accident either that our decision to remain outside Schengen coincided with plans to build the Channel Tunnel link between the UK and France (constructed between 1988 and 1994) - the value of that decision has perhaps only become more sharply defined by the events of very recent years.
The Single European Act, whose main purpose was to enhance 'free trade', ultimately came into force in 1987, having been delayed in its implementation by actions in Denmark, Greece, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly, it is probably the only piece of EU legislation largely championed from inception to conclusion by the UK. Because the UK has, for decades and indeed centuries, been all about 'free trade'. It did extend QMV ('Qualified Majority Voting') though, as part of the price paid [by the UK] for certain other countries (basically France and a few others) to allow this legislation to pass. The subsequent Treates (Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice), whilst ratcheting the EU's control a little tighter with each step, seemed to me 'acceptable' in the greater scheme of things.
What really began to make me rethink my view of the fundamental wisdom of the UK being a member of the EU were the referendums on the now-defunct European Constitution held in 2005 in both the Netherlands and France, in which both rejected its proposals (others had already had referendums to ratify it), which effectively halted that particular process, and specifically what followed a few years later; the UK government had earlier promised a referendum, but the rejections by others made that pointless. Having read the draft European Constitution in great detail myself, in anticipation of a referendum being held in the UK, I too would have voted against it had I had the opportunity.
What followed a few years later was the Lisbon Treaty, effectively the European Constitution rewritten, pushed through in spite of being initially rejected in a referendum in Ireland in 2007, later shoved through in that country in 2009 in the face of the economic crisis facing that country after the 'crash' of 2007/2008; but let's face it, no one really cares what Ireland thinks (certainly not most of the other members of the EU, other than the UK), so they were 'prevailed upon' to allow it to pass. The reality is that the UK independently bailed out Ireland during this crucial period, not because of any undue sentimentality (that is not the British way), but simply in a recognition of the historic intertwining links between the British and much smaller Irish economies, although perhaps influenced also by the social and familial links between the two countries. The harsh reality, though, is that without UK support, Ireland would have been 'sunk', as otherwise Ireland would have been consigned to the same 'hell'/purgatory currently occupied by Greece. As for the semi-clandestine ratification by the UK of that Treaty by our then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, I would prefer to remain silent; the level of contempt I have for that man is infinite and only a modicum of concern about the libel laws of this country will restrain me from writing what I really think about that excuse for a man; as I am also Scottish (and 1/4 quarter Irish as it so happens, with reference to earlier comments) I don't think accusations of 'racism' apply, although I am quite happy to acknowledge that it is my firm belief that the "socialism" that Gordon Brown and those who think like him profess to believe in, is one of the greatest evils that existed when I was born and unfortunately continues, luckily in much reduced form, to this day, I have grown weary of glossing over this basic reality in recent years, so this is the first time, apart from brief allusions to it in Twitter from time to time, that I have really 'let rip' on this issue. Unfortunately there is not a great deal to choose between the destructive effects of the "socialism" offered by Labour ('new', and the 'old' back-to-the-future kind which current leader Corbyn represents) and that offered by the SNP.
On Friday 2nd September our sad excuse for a First Minister in Scotland, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, gave up on her 'day job' of actually running Scotland in accordance with the Scotland Act (as amended), in favour of a pointless resurrection of the obsessive and obsessed SNP policy of wanting to rip Scotland out of the UK, despite very recent opinion polls demonstrating that the people of Scotland, apart from adherents of the 'SNP cult' which Ms Sturgeon leads, have little or no desire for this to happen, and far less desire for the holding of another referendum to try and change the result of the referendum held on the matter as recently as September 2014.
Despite the febrile predictions of those who campaigned vociferously for the UK to remain a member of the EU, the economy continues to be robust and the exchange rate of our currency, the Pound, although somewhat lower than before the EU Referendum (but arguably now at a more sensible level to meet both the needs of exporters and holidaymakers requiring to purchase a foregin currency to help fund their annual vacation abroad), has certainly never been in danger of 'collapse' and indeed in recent weeks has been strengthening somewhat from its low point after the EU Referendum - fine, so long as it does not become too strong and begin to adversely affect exports. As with everything else in life, the level at which the exchange rate hovers is a balance of complex and sometimes conflicting interests.
Now that summer is almost over, and more or less normal business has resumed, one imagines (and hopes) that the government will begin seriously to put in place the process of the UK leaving the EU. I am not one of those people that wants precipitate action, but I do want to see some concrete moves in this direction fairly soon, to give voice to the results of the referendum in June. The attempt in the past few days at a tax grab by the European Commission (EC), against the wishes of EU member state Ireland for whose benefit the EC purports to be acting, is just the latest example of the malign anti-competitive instincts of some EU member states and the bureaucrats of the EC and only reinforces the need for us in the UK to get out of the economic and political dead-end that the EU represents.
For most, probably all, of my adult life I have been strongly supportive of the EEC (later the EU) and of the UK joining it and remaining a part of it. Personal circumstances meant I was not able to vote in the 1975 referendum, two years after the UK joined the EEC, to decide whether the country should remain or leave - I lived then in a place called Djibouti (wedged between Ethiopia/Eritrea and Somalia) in the north-east of Africa, and at that time people living outside the UK could not vote in UK elections, except in very special circumstances. But had I been in a position to vote, I would certainly have voted to remain in the EEC.
Broadly speaking, with perhaps just a few qualms, I supported most of what was done later, where it affected the UK. The Schengen Treaty (from 1985 to 1995 until 1997 when it was incorporated into EU law by the Amsterdam Treaty), did not and does not affect the UK, or as it so happens Ireland (that last bit is really irrelevant to me, of course, because even though it might otherwise affect Northern Ireland, there has been a common travel area between the UK and Ireland for a long time, unaffected by the independence of Ireland from the UK). The fact that the UK is an island nation meant, in my view, that it was practical, if not in the view of some I suppose entirely desirable, not to adopt Schengen. I doubt if it would have been easily do-able if we had land borders other than with Ireland. It is probably no accident either that our decision to remain outside Schengen coincided with plans to build the Channel Tunnel link between the UK and France (constructed between 1988 and 1994) - the value of that decision has perhaps only become more sharply defined by the events of very recent years.
The Single European Act, whose main purpose was to enhance 'free trade', ultimately came into force in 1987, having been delayed in its implementation by actions in Denmark, Greece, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly, it is probably the only piece of EU legislation largely championed from inception to conclusion by the UK. Because the UK has, for decades and indeed centuries, been all about 'free trade'. It did extend QMV ('Qualified Majority Voting') though, as part of the price paid [by the UK] for certain other countries (basically France and a few others) to allow this legislation to pass. The subsequent Treates (Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice), whilst ratcheting the EU's control a little tighter with each step, seemed to me 'acceptable' in the greater scheme of things.
What really began to make me rethink my view of the fundamental wisdom of the UK being a member of the EU were the referendums on the now-defunct European Constitution held in 2005 in both the Netherlands and France, in which both rejected its proposals (others had already had referendums to ratify it), which effectively halted that particular process, and specifically what followed a few years later; the UK government had earlier promised a referendum, but the rejections by others made that pointless. Having read the draft European Constitution in great detail myself, in anticipation of a referendum being held in the UK, I too would have voted against it had I had the opportunity.
What followed a few years later was the Lisbon Treaty, effectively the European Constitution rewritten, pushed through in spite of being initially rejected in a referendum in Ireland in 2007, later shoved through in that country in 2009 in the face of the economic crisis facing that country after the 'crash' of 2007/2008; but let's face it, no one really cares what Ireland thinks (certainly not most of the other members of the EU, other than the UK), so they were 'prevailed upon' to allow it to pass. The reality is that the UK independently bailed out Ireland during this crucial period, not because of any undue sentimentality (that is not the British way), but simply in a recognition of the historic intertwining links between the British and much smaller Irish economies, although perhaps influenced also by the social and familial links between the two countries. The harsh reality, though, is that without UK support, Ireland would have been 'sunk', as otherwise Ireland would have been consigned to the same 'hell'/purgatory currently occupied by Greece. As for the semi-clandestine ratification by the UK of that Treaty by our then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, I would prefer to remain silent; the level of contempt I have for that man is infinite and only a modicum of concern about the libel laws of this country will restrain me from writing what I really think about that excuse for a man; as I am also Scottish (and 1/4 quarter Irish as it so happens, with reference to earlier comments) I don't think accusations of 'racism' apply, although I am quite happy to acknowledge that it is my firm belief that the "socialism" that Gordon Brown and those who think like him profess to believe in, is one of the greatest evils that existed when I was born and unfortunately continues, luckily in much reduced form, to this day, I have grown weary of glossing over this basic reality in recent years, so this is the first time, apart from brief allusions to it in Twitter from time to time, that I have really 'let rip' on this issue. Unfortunately there is not a great deal to choose between the destructive effects of the "socialism" offered by Labour ('new', and the 'old' back-to-the-future kind which current leader Corbyn represents) and that offered by the SNP.
On Friday 2nd September our sad excuse for a First Minister in Scotland, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, gave up on her 'day job' of actually running Scotland in accordance with the Scotland Act (as amended), in favour of a pointless resurrection of the obsessive and obsessed SNP policy of wanting to rip Scotland out of the UK, despite very recent opinion polls demonstrating that the people of Scotland, apart from adherents of the 'SNP cult' which Ms Sturgeon leads, have little or no desire for this to happen, and far less desire for the holding of another referendum to try and change the result of the referendum held on the matter as recently as September 2014.
Despite the febrile predictions of those who campaigned vociferously for the UK to remain a member of the EU, the economy continues to be robust and the exchange rate of our currency, the Pound, although somewhat lower than before the EU Referendum (but arguably now at a more sensible level to meet both the needs of exporters and holidaymakers requiring to purchase a foregin currency to help fund their annual vacation abroad), has certainly never been in danger of 'collapse' and indeed in recent weeks has been strengthening somewhat from its low point after the EU Referendum - fine, so long as it does not become too strong and begin to adversely affect exports. As with everything else in life, the level at which the exchange rate hovers is a balance of complex and sometimes conflicting interests.
Now that summer is almost over, and more or less normal business has resumed, one imagines (and hopes) that the government will begin seriously to put in place the process of the UK leaving the EU. I am not one of those people that wants precipitate action, but I do want to see some concrete moves in this direction fairly soon, to give voice to the results of the referendum in June. The attempt in the past few days at a tax grab by the European Commission (EC), against the wishes of EU member state Ireland for whose benefit the EC purports to be acting, is just the latest example of the malign anti-competitive instincts of some EU member states and the bureaucrats of the EC and only reinforces the need for us in the UK to get out of the economic and political dead-end that the EU represents.
Labels:
Brexit,
EU,
EU Referendum,
European Union,
Scotland,
SNP,
UK
Thursday, 1 July 2010
Belgium assumes EU Presidency today for the next six months
Belgium has taken over the role of presidency of the EU today for the coming six months, replacing Spain in the role. Despite the fact that Belgium does not currently have a government, the country's caretaker Prime Minister Yves Leterme 'has dismissed any concern about Belgium's commitment to the EU presidency program, which he said enjoyed wide cross-party support' and is quoted as saying that his 'country's role as EU chair would be "more limited than in the past" anyway'. Make of this what you will.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso is quoted as saying: "I am absolutely convinced that Belgium, which has always been at the centre of the European Union, will remain there." and "Even after the Presidency period, I am fully confident that Belgium has strong European belief."
A clue to Belgium's likely role is given in this quotation from Peter Becker, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), speaking to Deutsche Welle (whose article is linked to above): "It will be a very pro-European presidency."
The website of the Belgian EU Presidency is here (English language version - the website exists also in French, Dutch/Flemish and German). The Belgian presidency will be succeeded by that of Hungary (see also here), for the followinng six months after which Poland will hold the role for the second half of 2011.
However the Lisbon Treaty has changed many things - there is now the role of President of the European Council (currently held by Mr Herman Van Rompuy), held for a maximum of 5 years (in 2 two and a half year segments) - there is an 'explanatory' document here (in .pdf format), which you can find, if you know where to look, in the EU website here.
My views about the EU have been changing in recent times; I was formerly a committed 'Europhile' and still am to a large degree, but I have become considerably more sceptical about the long-term direction that is being charted. Whilst the Lisbon Treaty has changed many things, it has not changed the desire of individual nations to feel like they 'rule the roost', hence the continuance of the 6-month rotating 'Presidency', although with a reduced mandate. It strikes me that the whole institution of the EU is becoming increasingly unwieldy and difficult to understand for most ordinary citizens. One might be forgiven for believing that this last is precisely the aim of the EU bureaucrats who control it in practice; to baffle the 'peasants' with complexity.
Anyway, for good or ill, Belgium has the role of Presidency of the EU for the next six months.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso is quoted as saying: "I am absolutely convinced that Belgium, which has always been at the centre of the European Union, will remain there." and "Even after the Presidency period, I am fully confident that Belgium has strong European belief."
A clue to Belgium's likely role is given in this quotation from Peter Becker, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), speaking to Deutsche Welle (whose article is linked to above): "It will be a very pro-European presidency."
The website of the Belgian EU Presidency is here (English language version - the website exists also in French, Dutch/Flemish and German). The Belgian presidency will be succeeded by that of Hungary (see also here), for the followinng six months after which Poland will hold the role for the second half of 2011.
However the Lisbon Treaty has changed many things - there is now the role of President of the European Council (currently held by Mr Herman Van Rompuy), held for a maximum of 5 years (in 2 two and a half year segments) - there is an 'explanatory' document here (in .pdf format), which you can find, if you know where to look, in the EU website here.
My views about the EU have been changing in recent times; I was formerly a committed 'Europhile' and still am to a large degree, but I have become considerably more sceptical about the long-term direction that is being charted. Whilst the Lisbon Treaty has changed many things, it has not changed the desire of individual nations to feel like they 'rule the roost', hence the continuance of the 6-month rotating 'Presidency', although with a reduced mandate. It strikes me that the whole institution of the EU is becoming increasingly unwieldy and difficult to understand for most ordinary citizens. One might be forgiven for believing that this last is precisely the aim of the EU bureaucrats who control it in practice; to baffle the 'peasants' with complexity.
Anyway, for good or ill, Belgium has the role of Presidency of the EU for the next six months.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Blair for EU Council President? Give us a break!
Look, no-one who has read much of my blog-musings can be in any doubt that my views on our former Prime Minister are overwhelmingly negative. So it will come as no surprise that my first reaction, when I first heard that Tony Blair might become the first President of the Council of the EU, was to check my calendar - could it really be the 1st of April already? Or as Victor Meldrew (amusingly, the decidedly 'socialist' Richard Wilson) might have said: "You cannot be serious?!".
So the heavy "State Propaganda" from the Labour government apparatus over the past week that it was almost 'inevitable' that Blair was a shoo-in for this job did make me wonder if I was dreaming (a bad dream, not a good one). Naturally the pretty crude propaganda from David Milliband and from Gordon Brown was supported by various of the leftish-dominated media, from the extensive air-time given this 'spin' by the BBC to various leftie-journalists writing about the idea favourably. They seemed to be nonplussed a couple of days ago when it became clear that neither Angela Merkel (German Chancellor) nor Nicolas Sarkozy (French President) seemed to be similarly in favour - not surprising really when you consider that neither has a 'socialist' bone in their bodies - thanks goodness!
The spectacle of Gordon Brown 'prostituting' himself for his old adversary at an EU-summmit yesterday was really weird. Just how out of touch is this man? His transparently political and malign aim is to 'stick it' to a probable future Conservative government in the UK by lumbering them with the second-worst British Prime Minister of recent times (after Gordon Brown himself, who is in my view unchallengeable as the biggest disaster to occupy 10 Downing Street in my adult memory) as the quasi-'President of Europe', a post created by the not-yet-ratified Lisbon Treaty, about which the British people have been denied the referendum they were promised by Labour (and other political parties) at the 2005 General Election by none other than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
In his usual hard-hitting fashion Guido 'nails' the whole fantastic idea for the nonsense it is, finally scuppered by the 'Jonah effect' of Mr Gordon Brown. Laughable!
So the heavy "State Propaganda" from the Labour government apparatus over the past week that it was almost 'inevitable' that Blair was a shoo-in for this job did make me wonder if I was dreaming (a bad dream, not a good one). Naturally the pretty crude propaganda from David Milliband and from Gordon Brown was supported by various of the leftish-dominated media, from the extensive air-time given this 'spin' by the BBC to various leftie-journalists writing about the idea favourably. They seemed to be nonplussed a couple of days ago when it became clear that neither Angela Merkel (German Chancellor) nor Nicolas Sarkozy (French President) seemed to be similarly in favour - not surprising really when you consider that neither has a 'socialist' bone in their bodies - thanks goodness!
The spectacle of Gordon Brown 'prostituting' himself for his old adversary at an EU-summmit yesterday was really weird. Just how out of touch is this man? His transparently political and malign aim is to 'stick it' to a probable future Conservative government in the UK by lumbering them with the second-worst British Prime Minister of recent times (after Gordon Brown himself, who is in my view unchallengeable as the biggest disaster to occupy 10 Downing Street in my adult memory) as the quasi-'President of Europe', a post created by the not-yet-ratified Lisbon Treaty, about which the British people have been denied the referendum they were promised by Labour (and other political parties) at the 2005 General Election by none other than Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
In his usual hard-hitting fashion Guido 'nails' the whole fantastic idea for the nonsense it is, finally scuppered by the 'Jonah effect' of Mr Gordon Brown. Laughable!
Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Austria and Belgium not completely irrelevant ... ?
Of course none of the 27 members of the European Union is 'irrelevant', just as all 370 million or so of we citizens of these EU countries has, or should have, some significance, even Austria and Belgium. However, the political reality is that there are at most six countries within the EU which have real importance because of the size of their populations and their economic importance; amongst those I'd nominate Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands - the fifth because of its relatively large population and the sixth because of its relative economic importance; the first four because of a combination of both their economic importance and their significant populations.
However, whilst I as a loyal citizen of the United Kingdom can see the importance to us of having one of 'our own' as President of the European Union, I'd be less than honest if I didn't ackmowledge that having [Saint] Tony Blair amongst those considered as potential occupants of that role fills me with something akin to horror, bordering on revulsion, not to mention incredulity. Possibly Mr Blair is an absolutely wonderful human being, but I have to say that I saw little evidence of that during his time as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or in the time since he stepped down from this position, when he took up the role of something called 'Middle East Envoy', a sort of non-job seemingly created specially to keep him occupied - I hesitate to say 'gainfully employed', except that I have no doubt he may personally have gained from that role, although I doubt that anyone else on the planet, other than his immediate family, has profited from his more recent, or earlier, efforts.
Long-time readers of this blog will know that I am not one of Tony Blair's fervent fans, but I would like to hear from anyone who can explain to me just what he has been doing, or has achieved, in the 2+ years since he ceased to be our Prime Minister. Indeed I'd like to have someone explain to me what he achieved during his time as Prime Minister of the UK, other than to delay the accession to that role of its current [unillustrious] occupant, Mr Gordon Brown. I mean it. Really (TM - Margaret and Helen).
However, whilst I as a loyal citizen of the United Kingdom can see the importance to us of having one of 'our own' as President of the European Union, I'd be less than honest if I didn't ackmowledge that having [Saint] Tony Blair amongst those considered as potential occupants of that role fills me with something akin to horror, bordering on revulsion, not to mention incredulity. Possibly Mr Blair is an absolutely wonderful human being, but I have to say that I saw little evidence of that during his time as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or in the time since he stepped down from this position, when he took up the role of something called 'Middle East Envoy', a sort of non-job seemingly created specially to keep him occupied - I hesitate to say 'gainfully employed', except that I have no doubt he may personally have gained from that role, although I doubt that anyone else on the planet, other than his immediate family, has profited from his more recent, or earlier, efforts.
Long-time readers of this blog will know that I am not one of Tony Blair's fervent fans, but I would like to hear from anyone who can explain to me just what he has been doing, or has achieved, in the 2+ years since he ceased to be our Prime Minister. Indeed I'd like to have someone explain to me what he achieved during his time as Prime Minister of the UK, other than to delay the accession to that role of its current [unillustrious] occupant, Mr Gordon Brown. I mean it. Really (TM - Margaret and Helen).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)