Winky and Dave both potentially in the mire over EU treaty.
Discussion
A new EU treaty? I see trouble ahead
Indeed trouble ahead... ooops!!
So, Angela Merkel says a new European Union bailout fund would require changes to existing EU treaties.
Now, I might be getting a bit excitable here, but I think this could be cause serious headaches for both Labour and Conservatives alike.
Start with the technical stuff. The reason Mrs Merkel is talking about treaty change is that the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht, to you and me) both allows the creation of a single European currency, and forbids one member-state bailing out another. So if the EU is create its own European Monetary Fund to save Greece (and whichever member goes bad after Greece) then the treaty must change. So far, so good.
But hang on: when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by the UK (yes, without a referendum), the Prime Minister promised that there would be no more institutional changes in Europe for up to a decade.
He made the pledge several times, including in the Commons.
For instance, Gordon Brown told MPs:
I can confirm that, not just for this Parliament but also for the next, it is the position of the Government to oppose any further institutional change in the relationship between the EU and its member states. [Hansard, 22 October 2007]
So, if there is to be a proposed change to the Maastricht rules (meaning a new “amending treaty”), will the Prime Minister stick to that line and oppose it? Or is he prepared to accept “further institutional change”? As I write this, I don’t know, because Downing Street doesn’t seem to know the answer. I’ll update this as soon as I get some clarity.
(For the sake of completeness, I should report that, asked about the UK position on an EMF, the PM’s spokesman said: “I don’t think the Government has a position on that.”)
And what about the Conservatives? Well, they’ve given an almost categorical promise that any new treaty would automatically mean a referendum.
A Conservative Government would change the law so that never again would a government be able to agree to a Treaty that hands over areas of power from Britain to the EU without a referendum. [CCHQ website]
Now, a lot of people (including, I suspect, many who read this) would heartily welcome any EU referendum in the UK.
But Europe isn’t part of the Tory election grid. Being seen to make dire threats of referenda is not part of the image CCHQ wants to construct. So on this side of the election at least, Mrs Merkel’s talk of a new treaty could cause some Conservative discomfort too.:Takes large wooden spoon off wall and tries to decide which pot to stir first:
Indeed trouble ahead... ooops!!
article by James Kirkup said:
So, Angela Merkel says a new European Union bailout fund would require changes to existing EU treaties.
Now, I might be getting a bit excitable here, but I think this could be cause serious headaches for both Labour and Conservatives alike.
Start with the technical stuff. The reason Mrs Merkel is talking about treaty change is that the Treaty on the European Union (Maastricht, to you and me) both allows the creation of a single European currency, and forbids one member-state bailing out another. So if the EU is create its own European Monetary Fund to save Greece (and whichever member goes bad after Greece) then the treaty must change. So far, so good.
But hang on: when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by the UK (yes, without a referendum), the Prime Minister promised that there would be no more institutional changes in Europe for up to a decade.
He made the pledge several times, including in the Commons.
For instance, Gordon Brown told MPs:
I can confirm that, not just for this Parliament but also for the next, it is the position of the Government to oppose any further institutional change in the relationship between the EU and its member states. [Hansard, 22 October 2007]
So, if there is to be a proposed change to the Maastricht rules (meaning a new “amending treaty”), will the Prime Minister stick to that line and oppose it? Or is he prepared to accept “further institutional change”? As I write this, I don’t know, because Downing Street doesn’t seem to know the answer. I’ll update this as soon as I get some clarity.
(For the sake of completeness, I should report that, asked about the UK position on an EMF, the PM’s spokesman said: “I don’t think the Government has a position on that.”)
And what about the Conservatives? Well, they’ve given an almost categorical promise that any new treaty would automatically mean a referendum.
A Conservative Government would change the law so that never again would a government be able to agree to a Treaty that hands over areas of power from Britain to the EU without a referendum. [CCHQ website]
Now, a lot of people (including, I suspect, many who read this) would heartily welcome any EU referendum in the UK.
But Europe isn’t part of the Tory election grid. Being seen to make dire threats of referenda is not part of the image CCHQ wants to construct. So on this side of the election at least, Mrs Merkel’s talk of a new treaty could cause some Conservative discomfort too.
What'll happen of course is that they will seek to change the treaties already signed so that they can bail out Greece. We say 'enough', some or all of the PIGGS go down the toilet as a result and we get a good kicking for not being european (was going to use a capital E but didn't bother).
France, Germany et al are off the financial hook without having to lift a finger.
Alternatively of course our esteemed leaders (i.e. whoever is in Downing Street) say that of course we must help our fellow europeans (read: fellow politicians) and sign up as usual.
France, Germany et al are off the financial hook without having to lift a finger.
Alternatively of course our esteemed leaders (i.e. whoever is in Downing Street) say that of course we must help our fellow europeans (read: fellow politicians) and sign up as usual.
we wont be thinking about this, their mask it with some crappy humanly impossible entertainment story like they do....kid has 16 kids with girl aged 26 all living on benefits....
distract them with something entertaining while you steal something of theirs as in their rights and freedoms, government is not our friend....
distract them with something entertaining while you steal something of theirs as in their rights and freedoms, government is not our friend....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff