Thou bleak December wind

From what we can see the dry leaves to be blown from the tree this Decenmber will be the sheaves of papers produced by Mr Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso. You can see from this joint interview that they have what might be called differing opinions as to what will happen at the next European Council meeting in reference to states voting rights,

First van Rompuy makes it clear that he is not going to be providing detail on the German plans,
The questioner points out that in the Council Conclusions plans to strip are not "any more envisaged".

The European Council will revert to this matter at its December meeting with a view to taking the final decision both on the outline of a crisis mechanism and on a limited treaty amendment so that any change can be ratified at the latest by mid-2013.

The President of the European Council intends to subsequently examine in consultation with the Member States the issue of the right of euro area members to participate in decision making in EMU-related procedures in the case of a permanent threat to the stability of the euro area as a whole.

Van Rompy says that the above makes it clear that December is not the time to sort this out. Note 'subsequently', ie it is something on the table.
He says

"The text is very clear, I have a mandate to examine the problem and I will report to the European council but it will not be in December".

Barosso however thinks differently,

"There will be no suspension of voting rights, that's been ruled out, that certainly wont be part of this limited amendment"

So which is it? Will the German requirement for a Treaty change to deal with the fact that the current system for the Euro is hamstrung by its own rules as so effectively described here in the FT,

In terms of substance, the aim must be to overcome the big logical inconsistency of three principles underpinning the euro: “No bail-out, no exit, no default”. The first two are firmly enshrined in the European law. Default is legally possible, but politically unacceptable, at least for now. The EU is simply not in a position to handle the repercussions of a sovereign default.

The incompatibility of those goals lies at the heart of the eurozone’s governance crisis. At least one of those principles will have to be sacrificed.

The “no exit” clause will survive. This leaves bail-out and default. But would a regime that combines bail-out and default satisfy the German constitutional court? While Article 48.6 is part of the treaty the court approved, the court will nevertheless scrutinise whether the new arrangements constitute a power shift, and whether this reduces the Bundestag’s influence.

What seems to be increasingly clear is that Germany's Constitutional Court will rule that the EU is acting illegally. Thus Merkle has to have change, that will satisfy the jurists of Karlsrurh, but to do so will cause consternation amongst the smaller EU countries and trigger referenda in Ireland at the very least, and probably in the UK as well.

Or the EU continues acting illegally, no referenda but Merkle in an impossible position.

Interesting times.

Apropos of nothing. Isn't there something a little 1984ish about the concept of a Permanent Crisis Mechanism?

A Good Day to Bury Bad News?

In the autumn, Britain will have to re-ratify the Lisbon Treaty. Over in Brussels things are afoot and the first major Foriegn Policy act of a new PM will be to go to Brussels to rubber stamp a treaty amendment.

On Election Day the European Parliament will vote to confirm an IGC (Intergovernmental Conference) which will take place on June the 17th and 18th in Brussels.

18 extra MEPs. Parliament will decide whether to allow treaty changes increasing the size of the European Parliament to take place without a full Convention (debate Wednesday, vote Thursday).

In this they are supported by the European Commission,

the Commission recommends opening an Intergovernmental Conference as soon as
possible, remaining strictly limited to discussion of the Spanish proposal for a protocol amending Protocol No 36 on Transitional Provisions

That IGC will amend the Lisbon Treaty (Protocol 36). This will require that the Lisbon Treaty be re-ratified by all 27 nations of the European Union.

Once the IGC is over, the new version of the protocol as adopted will have to be ratified by the 27 national parliaments.

That means that a new Prime Minister will have to ram a new Lisbon Treaty through both Houses of Parliament.

Seeing as no national newspaper or media outlet seems prepared to ask the question, we must. Will any of the pretenders to Number 10 answer?

Will they take this opportunity to give us the referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that they promised?

If not, why not?

Update
Bruno Waterfield goes into somewhat more depth

Milliband stoops to stoop

Milliband's comments today in Foreig questions were illustrative of exactly what is wrong with this government, and sadly how weak Her Majesty's Opposition are,

"The future of this country depends on whole-heartedengagement in the EU, making Britain's case and ensuring that we arepart of a mainstream majority. This Government is proud to be alongside 27 governments, 26 opposition parties in saying that now is the time to put the Lisbon Treasty into practice and to ensure that it benefits all the citizens in Europe."

Of course the one thing that this devalued Goverment would never dream of doing is 'to be alongside' the wishes of its people, no it couldn't do that, but it sides with the political elites across Europe against their people.

"It is a great pity that the party opposite is stuck in the past."

But of course it is the elite that are stuck in their centrist sclerotic past.

However the Tories were hamstrung with Hague trying but failing to put his new EP Group behind him.

The best he could come up with uis that is was a"great pity" that the Government had broken an election manifesto promise to hold a referendum on EU reform.

A great pity!

I wonder why he was as weak as that? Is it because he knows that his own party will not be able to offer his much vaunted referendum, because he knows that it will be a fait accompli and he and his cohorts haven't the stomache or the bottom to take up the cudgels required for our freedom.

Milliband is offered an easy target, no matter how disegeous he is, because the Tories have nothing to say, nothing to add.

"We stand ready to have questions on Europe, of which there are none, and debates about Europe, which you are refusing to have."

The bugger is that Millband has a point. The Tories will do anything rather than have a debate about Europe.

So what will the Tories do about the Irish vote? A prediction

Nothing.

It is all very interesting what happens with the Lisbon Treaty vote. That is if you are a Tory supporter.

If they vote 'Yes' as is most likely, then the Tories are left carrying on much the same as they have for the past year, "not letting it rest there". However the Germans, have now ratified the Treaty. The Poles are unlikely to stick it out much longer - we are told it will happen before Christmas. Which leaves the Czechs. Even they, despite the indomitable Vaclav Klaus have made it pretty clear that they will have ratified "up to 6 months". The problem for the Tories with a 'Yes' vote is that the circumstances will have changed if the General Election is indeed on May 6th as is believed to be the case. For the Tories to offer us the referendum so promised would be that they would threaten to wreck their relationship with the EU, something Dave has sworn time and again not to do. Thus, he will say, with a heavy heart, that we have to honour our Treaty obligations. No referendum. Britain stuck in the EU.

But, "Don't worry", will say Dave, "Don't worry. We have made a manifesto commitment that any further Treaty that may erode our sovereignty will be put to a public vote. No further will be our message to Brussels". Sounds good doesn't it. Apart from the fact ios that it is meaningless twaddle. The 'ratchet clause' (Article 48(7)) in the Lisbon Treaty will see to that. You see, after the Lisbon Treaty has bee ratified the fact that it becomes self amending means that no new Treaties are needed, except for enlargement Treaties, and they are not constitutional.

So what happens if the Irish have the brass neck to vote 'No' again? Simples. Britain will not need a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty because it will become moribund. Remember what happened to our referendum on the Constitution. We didn't have it. Why? Because the French and the Dutch had voted 'No' so, as it was dead there was no need to revisit the corpse.

Dave would say, "Look Guys, referenda are very expensive things, we have to concentrate resources, there is no need to flog the dead horse of the Lisbon Treaty. Don't worry; we will keep an eye on Brussels. You can go back to sleep now".

But of course Brussels never sleeps. It will take a few more years but almost everything in the Treaty will come to pass, piecemeal. Spread over a number of years.

You want proof?

Look at the new EU diplomatic Corps. The External Action Service. It has no legal base, it is indeed illegal under the current Treaties, But trust me it exists. Go here for evidence.

Britain will not have a referendum on Europe. That is unless people vote for a party like UKIP that means what it says. If enough do then our political elite will have to act.

Circumstances always change

But belief systems should be strog enough to absorb those changes. Not Dave's at least, not his much vaunted belief in the primacy of our law, tradition and what have you. Well not if the comments he made to LBC are anything to go by. "Now, if those circumstances change, if the Germans ratify, if the Poles ratify, if the Czechs ratify, if the Irish vote Yes to the treaty, then a new set of circumstances [apply], and I will address those at the time." The Witterer puts it quite well

"Not only does he want the UK to remain a member of the EU, but he will not consider a move that could lead to Britain leaving the EU - something which is
sure to please his Eurosceptic members! Neither does this latest statement address the problem of why, if we are a trading nation, that we should be co-operating with our allies and friends in Europe....of course we should"

Look mate, what is astonishing is that Dave is prepared to lead his party into
General Election without giving the slightest indication of how he
will handle the European Union. The European Union which even official
sources now accept creates at largest 70% of out laws.

Why bother to vote for a party that hasn't an opinion on the vast majority of legislation, or if it does have an opinion, isn't prepared to let the British public know what it is for fear they may react.

Well Dave, it just won't wash, the people of our country deserve to be told what is happening and not to have the elite, new or old withhold information from them. It is apparent that he has learnt nothing from the scandals of the past year. People are fed up with that old style, 'the elite know best' attitude.

Is Hoon frit?

I haven't written about the I Want a Referendum campaign as of yet. An oversight on my part. Good luck to them.

What is very wierd is what has happened to their planned poll in the Labour seat of Aberconwy. Here is their press release of yesterday,

The Welsh I Want A Referendum campaign has today made the decision not to hold its referendum in the constituency of Aberconwy on the advice of the Labour Party Chief Whip who has informed the campaign that local MP Betty Williams has been very poorly.

I Want A Referendum UK Chairman Derek Scott said: “On the advice of the Chief Whip, we have decided not to hold the referendum in the Aberconwy constituency because Betty Williams has been very poorly, and are now looking at an alternative constituency in Wales where we hope to run the campaign through February. We wish Mrs Williams a very speedy recovery.”

The referendum on the revised EU Constitution is being staged in constituencies across the UK to give voters the chance to have their say on this key issue of democracy and the handing over of greater powers to Europe.

A deecn thing to do, but a significant hit on their resources. The money has already been spent on advertising and organisation. But fair enough. But what is this?
Betty Williams isn't ill at all. According to PA,

Her most recent bout of serious illness came when spinal surgery necessitated a spell in a wheelchair in 1998.
"But that was 10 years ago," she said.
"I'm perfectly healthy.

Seems a little like Labour black ops here.

Then we have the Hoon's treatment of the four Labour supporters of the campaign. Having giving a tongue lashing at a Labour backbench meeting, it appears that the four, Frank Field, Kate Hoey, Graham Stringer and Gisela Stuart are also to be carpetted by what a bunch of senior MPs called the PLP Committee. It looks as if they are to be Mr Brown's own 'whipless wonders'.

Bertolt Sarkozy

After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Mr Sarkozy was in Strasbourg today, preaching to the world and Mr Brown in particular.

"When the people say "no", we cannot say the people are wrong. We must ask why they said "no".

he said, in the public forum of the plenary chamber.

But when he spoke in private to the Conference of Presidents he spoke rather differently. The Conference of Presidents is a gathering of the most powerful figures in the European Parliament, federasts almost to a man or woman, so he felt he was amongst friends. His message here was in stark contrast to his public pronouncements.
"the French ”No” to the Constitution was a catastrophe", he said. But he made it clear that he felt that pro Europeans could not guarantee a yes vote in any European country.

"It (a no vote) can happen in all member states if they have a referendum - there is a cleavage between people and the governments in the member states. A referendum now would bring danger to the EU - there will be no Treaty at all if we had a referendum in France. A referendum which would followed by one in Britain.

To that end he said that the French ratification would take place in "the first few weeks of 2008".
As a coda he nailed any hope that the Parliament would leave Strasbourg.

This is a shocking disgrace. He has just told a crowd of the Euro political elite that he will forge ahead in an utterly undemocratic fashion against the express wishes of his people, and demands that everybody follow his frankly dictatorial lead.

Update
His main speach will upset Mr Brown, who told us that this treaty would be the last for ten years,

"It would a mistake to think that with the simplified Treaty we have sorted everything, we can sleep easy and that no other issues a re pending. Now we have
got to resolve the political issues and to broach them without fear. We have got to debate them without taboos. Budgetary policy, trade policy, monetary policy,
industrial policy, taxation, all policies, any policies... What does our European commitment mean for each of us if we are incapable of debating the creation of a European defence?"

Graham Watson, absentee landlord

Shambling into the stocks on the Parish Referendum issue comes Graham Watson, the expensively coiffured leader of the European Liberal Group, the ALDE - Motto "Cheap Opinions piled high" and Lib Dem MEP for the South West.

Not known for his activities in his constituency, neither his blog, (and if that is a blog then I am a Dutchman) nor his forward diary suggest any hands on local activity - just a mention that he went to Somerset for a weekend after the holidays, he has weighed into the Parish Referendum affair with a classic press release,

CARP in UKIP Clothing: MEP demands informed debate on Europe
2.09.00pm BST (GMT +0100) Wed 26th Sep 2007
Commenting on results this week from a poll in East Stoke, Dorset on whether Gordon Brown should call a referendum on the EU's Reform Treaty, local MEP Graham Watson has said:

"Let's have some debate about this", argues Graham Watson MEP
"I think it's a shame that a parish referendum in East Stoke has been hijacked by UKIP and its close affiliates, CARP (Campaign Alliance for Referendums in Parishes). I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, but what this needs is informed public debate, not populist publicity stunts such as this. I very much doubt that this referendum was based on the wording of the Reform Treaty. So let's have some debate about this. Fifteen further parishes across the South West have requested a parish referendum on the issue; I would welcome the opportunity of talking to them about this."

Where to start?
"Results this week" No Graham, if you read the papers or took and interest in your constituency you would realise that the vote took place last week.

"I think it's a shame that a parish referendum in East Stoke has been hijacked by UKIP and its close affiliates, CARP" Errr, how can the organisers of the poll be accused of hijacking it. That is akin to suggesting that a baker is hijacking the bread in his own bakery. CARP organised the poll, it did not hijack it.

"I understand the strength of feeling on this issue" But, despite being aware that the vast majority of the people of the South Western Counties are in favour of a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty, you set your face against it.

"what this needs is informed public debate", the normal weasel words that translate not as debate, but monologue, only supporters are informed.

"I very much doubt that this referendum was based on the wording of the Reform Treaty", it would be easy to pick up the phone and ask the organisers of the poll if they have read the proposed treaty. You know what, I have, and surprise sup rise, they have read the proposals. What is more the poll does not ask for the treaty to be rejected, what it asks is for the Treaty to be voted upon by the British public. During the period leading up to a referendum I would expect, just like in Holland and France before hand there would be massive public debate on the relative merits of the Treaty. So Graham, don't shoot straw dogs.

"let's have some debate about this", Eh? Debate about what Graham, about whether people should have a direct say in the governance of their country?

"Fifteen further parishes across the South West have requested a parish referendum on the issue" Suggesting does it not, that there is a groundswell of public opinion wishing to be allowed to have a say?

"I would welcome the opportunity of talking to them about this", Great stuff, why not go along to the next parish that holds a poll and on the night before hold a debate about whether people should be allowed a referendum. I understand that an invitation is on its way. I think it is going to be down in the pointy bit of Cornwall. They are hospitable people down there and I am certain they will make you welcome.

Rather wonderfully in the light of his opposition to a referendum on the Treaty his previous press release is this,
"The Case for Global Democracy: Cross Party Coalition of MEPs calls for a UN Parliamentary Assembly"

So for Graham it appears that having laws made by the likes of Mugabe is a good thing, but having laws made by his own country is a bad one. Truly, you couldn't make it up.

Aside,
The photo is from the European Research Forum at London Metropolitan University. It is titled, "Lord Graham Watson MEP, Leader of the Liberal Group Brendan Donnelly, Director of the Federal Trust Professor Stephen Haseler, Director of the ERF" Watson being on the left.
It seems that the ERF needs to get its own research in order, I am pretty sure that Mr Watson has not been raised to the ermine.

Some cracks

It appears that there a few small cracks in the dam of the Govermnet's position in view of a referendum. The Telegraph is reporting that a few hardy souls on their own benches are agitating for a referendum. (though their estmate of up to 40 rebels are, according to my information, wildly optimistic)
The most important is Gisela Stuart, though honourable mentions should go to both Kate Hoey amnd Ian Davidson. Gisela Stuart is one person who really does know her onions on the the whole Constitution as she was one of the sixteen members of the Constitutional Convention's Preasidium that drew up the Constitution back in 2004.
Her horror about how this was done came to light when she published a paper through the Fabian Society about how dictatorial the process was.

"The Convention brought together a self-selected group of the European political
elite, many of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level, which is
dependent on more and more integration and who see national governments and
national parliaments as an obstacle. Not once in the sixteen months I spent on
the Convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what
the people of Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it
provides the best basis for a sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The
debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level. None
of the existing policies were questioned."

So its not out of the Question then

According to the Economist's Charlemagne column,

"European officials have discussed among themselves what might happen in the (admittedly unlikely) event that domestic politics forces Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, to hold a referendum on the new treaty. If Britain were to vote no to a treaty that is already a painful compromise, Europe would enter uncharted waters. And keeping the EU moving at a single pace might then become Brussels's latest lost cause".

Well put it this way, shifts from unlikely to accepted wisdom happen all the time.