New Treaty or No Treaty?
Today I had fun. I decided to focus the blog on the new EU Reform treaty (former EU Constitution), and especially all the polemic about it in the UK.
Perhaps I was inspired by the Today-programme on Radio 4. I was on it this morning. There is nothing like being interviewed by the legendary John Humphrys. Gets you in a journalistic mood.
I thus decided to do a little videoclip on the new treaty. The EU-web TV (see below) will give you a flavour of what 16 MEPs think about it all.
Video: lataa Flash-soitin videon katselemiseksi.
A wanna-be John Humphrys in action...
Ok, ok, I admit that my attempt at impartial journalism is be a bit questionable. You might have noticed that I am a fan of the new Treaty, and less so of a referendum.
I follow the UK debate closely. When you have a British wife and children with dual nationality (Finnish and British) you are kind of oblidged to keep an eye on what's cooking on the other side of the channel.
I often feel that the EU debate in the UK is completely detached from reality. The tabloids hijacked the debate a long time ago, and unfortunately most politicians dancing to the tune of the likes of the Sun and the Daily Mail.
The stories you read about the EU in the British tabloids are often out of this world. Facts are distorted and the debate is simplified into some grand battle between the nation states and a European super state.
Sad, really. The UK is, after all, a civilised country...despite its Victorian plumbing system.
My point is simple: the EU (and the UK) would be much better off with a strong UK in the heart of Europe. We need an economically liberal big state to fight some of the more protectionist tendencies.
Opposing the whole European project is a bit like opposing internet. I really do not understand those Brits who are even contemplating a UK future without the EU. I mean what do you want to do? Close the doors to the outside world?
Fortunately UK rhetoric and reality are often different. The rhetoric might be anti-European, but the reality is often pro-European. Example: opening borders for Central and Eastern European workers. The UK was one of only three member states that had the courage to do it in 2004.
The debate about a referendum on the New treaty seems to be following the old path. Those who do not like the EU, want a referendum. Those who like it, do not want one.
I think the UK will should organise a more fundamental referendum in the coming years: should the UK be a meber of the European Union or not? My answer is clear: YES!
17 kommenttia
There has never been a time where countries have been immune to the realities of international relations. Therefore for small countries like Finland the EU means a possibility to influence that reality, not to mention the possibilities gained by prosperity through free movement.
Put it this way. Was Finland more independent during the Cold War bowing towards Moscow? Maybe de jure, but de facto obviously not!
Hi Everyone,
I got this message from my friend and colleague, Esko Seppänen.
"The people in Finland want a referendum about the new EU Constitution! The opinion poll was bought by our political group GUE/NGL from the TNS Gallup Oy, which is the most respected gallup company in Finland. The sample was 1000 and the result is representative about the opinions of all 15 years old Finns. 65 % of the Finns are for the referendum and only 30 % against. Let us combine our forces for democracy and legitimacy: www.x09.eu"
Thought it might be of interest for our debate.
Alex
Esko Seppänen
MEP, Finland
Excellent video Alex! Very informative, although I would have wanted to hear more opinions on why the new treaty should not be signed. I hope to see more good vids later on! And thanks for taking the time to blog almost every day - I, as an european voter, appreciate it a lot.
Just some provoking thoughts:
A comment on the semantics of our debate. When Finland joined the EU and thus transferred some decision-making powers to the EU over some matters, the question isn't of independence, but sovereignty. With sovereignty I mean the supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign state. Further, this isn't the first time it has happened either. We all seem to forget that by joining the UN Finland agreed to transfer its sovereignty over matters of use of force, with the exception of self-defence. However still, this does not in any way affect the independence of a State as one must remember that all these decisions have been undertaken by the free will of the State. In fact, one could see that joining the UN and the EU are in fact manifestations of Finland's independence, evidence that it has the power to decide for itself, as opposed to e.g. Georgia not too long ago.
Further, when we think of the alternative to being a member of the EU, i.e. having to take care of matters that fall under the competencies of the EU through bilateral agreements with other States, would you not think that Finland would have even less of a choice, and therefore as according to Mr. Paatainen's view on independence (and I apologise if this is a misrepresentation of your views), have even less independence?
Summa summarum, could one not infact see Finland joining the EU, and thus increasing its political bargaining-power internationally, as an act which has increased Finland's independence vis-a-vis matters that fall under the competencies of the EU?
Paavo Kotiaho
I think these polls about how many people want a referendum on the reform treaty are irrelevant. It's like doing a poll with the question: "do you want to make the decisions?"
I'd like to see a poll about what people think warrants a referendum and then see if the reform treaty lives up to those criterias.
In my opinion the Finnish membership in the EU is a great possibility, not necessarily a threat. The question about our independence seems to be a matter in our minds - concerning me as well.
I hope that our politicians have enough courage to decide themselves, whether the European constitution is good for us or not. The ordinary people does not always have relevant information about big issues and their opinions are therefore based on their intuition. What are the MPs for?
Ruso and Paavo
Yes, I agree that during the Cold War and also because of our membership in the UN we are not fully independent or never really have been. What I disagree with you about tho, is that I would never use these things as arguments to justify our futher loss of independence. After the Cold War ended, we for once had the chance to govern for ourselves, without any major foreign powers trying to interviene. And what did we do, we run into the arms of EU.
Don't take this wrong, I do not argue against our membership in the UN. But I do not think that it is a relevant argument to justify our selling of our homeland to Europe. And for the Cold War era, don't think that today many Finns are proud or happy about that time, and I believe that in the future when the EU has been dissolved, we feel the same way.
Anton
I excuse my english but I did not get the the meaning of your post. Did you mean that we should first see if the Finns would accept the new constitution and then decide if we let everyone vote for it. If this is your opinion, and if the other debators share your view, I am really scared about the state of democracy in our country and in Europe.
Already the whole process of drafting a new constitution has been a spectacular effort against democracy which shows that our new "EU elite" will follow no rules in order to shape a Europe they want to see. Or don't you agree that drafting a new constitution, almost exactly the same as before just to get over the two "No" votes in France and Netherlands is a huge joke against democracy?
Dear Paavo, I'd like to thank you for your thorough and well-balanced definitions concerning the two basic criterias of a State as a subject of international law, i.e. sovereignty and independence. In my humble opinion you got to the point in such a manner that there should no more be any need to continue the discussion about lost independence. Nevertheless, this is solely my opinion.
The only matter I'd like to add is that discussing about independence in a largely interdependent world is more or less academic. Naturally, we may independently make our own decisions but if we want to make successful decisions we'd better consider the possible reactions of other parties before we make those decisions. Therefore we are more and more dependent on others, at least if we want to survive.
Regarding referendums, I'd guess that quite a few people would like to have a referendum in a huge amount of matters especially if they thereby could be part of the decisive power. The result would be that people would be using lots of their time either speaking for their cause or for voting. Who would then have time to work in order to effectuate the decisions? That's why we have MPs.
There is no need for referendum concerning the Reform Treaty and there would not have been any need for referendum concerning the
Constitutional Agreement as neither of them could be a decisive document in establishing a European Federation. Please, folks do not allow the titles of agreements mislead you. The Constitutional Agreement was not a constitution, it merely had such a glamorous (or maybe horrible to some one) name.
No treaty!
I vote for EU, now I would vote against!
Great video Alex! Have been a fan of yours for quite a while and was impressed by the video.
I was unsure of the Treaty to begin with, and my reservations over its lack of idealism and vision for the future do remain. However, I am convinced of the need to reform a decision-making system of 27, which was originally conceived for only 15.
Great work!
"Anton
I excuse my english but I did not get the the meaning of your post. Did you mean that we should first see if the Finns would accept the new constitution and then decide if we let everyone vote for it. If this is your opinion, and if the other debators share your view, I am really scared about the state of democracy in our country and in Europe.
Already the whole process of drafting a new constitution has been a spectacular effort against democracy which shows that our new "EU elite" will follow no rules in order to shape a Europe they want to see. Or don't you agree that drafting a new constitution, almost exactly the same as before just to get over the two "No" votes in France and Netherlands is a huge joke against democracy?"
------------
I mean it's a leading question and it has no relevance, who's not going to want to express their opinion about a heated topic? Might as well have a poll to asking "Do you want to be the boss" "Do you want world peace"
What would give a much more truthful answer is asking people what sort of circumstances warrants a referendum to be held, then comparing these answers to the Reform Treaty, is it a treaty that needs to be ratified through referendum. My guess is that majority would say that referendums should be held about fundamental matters, yes or no questions that profoundly change the course of a country.
Demanding a referendum only when it suits your own political agenda in the name of "democracy" is akin to hypocrisy.
PS. More people voted FOR the now defunct constitutional treaty than voted against it in all the referendums held. Sarkozy ran for president promising to ratify the treaty through parliament. 66% of European support the idea of a "constitution". And now 500 million people are being held up by a very small but very loud minority called "eurosceptics", that's a slap in the face to democracy.
Hi, Alex. Nice to see you again after losing the contact we had when you were in the Commission's policy advice team and I was Prodi's speechwriter. (Seems ages ago!)
Interesting video, not least because I can now put faces to the names of some MEPs. I personally agree that we need a new Treaty to simplify the way the EU works, and in particular we need the kind of changes that were in the Constitution. But it is difficult to answer the (UK) eurosceptics' criticism that we are trying to introduce things that were rejected by the French and Dutch referenda in 2005, hence we are anti-democratic.
Anyway, thanks for stimulating debate about it on your blog. I try to do the same via Margot Wallström's speeches, which I write nowadays. I shall follow you blog discussions with interest and draw on them for speech inspiration.
Best wishes,
David
David - nice to hear from you too. I really enjoyed my time at the Commission. I think we had a great team with Vero, Vera, Sylvie, Pieter, Mario, Pam, Andre and the rest of the gang. Nostalgia. Hope to see you soon.
Jonathan - thanks a million! Positive feedback is a great source of energy.
Kunto - kiitos kommentista. Olisi mielenkiintoista kuulla miksi äänestäisit tänä päivänä EU:ta vastaan? Et ole muuten ainoa. Eli mikä EU:ssa eniten pännii?
"My point is simple: the EU (and the UK) would be much better off with a strong UK in the heart of Europe. We need an economically liberal big state to fight some of the more protectionist tendencies."
Let me get this straight. The reason for the UK to be in the EU is so that we can save you from the bad (ie protectionist) policies advocated by others in the EU? That is, that the UK must adopt bad policies itself? To help you?
Why not simply not have an EU and not be protectionists?
"Opposing the whole European project is a bit like opposing internet."
Really? the EU is like telecoms technology? You know, that stuff that gets cheaper each and every day and works 99.999% of the time? Can't say I see the EU in that, no.
"I really do not understand those Brits who are even contemplating a UK future without the EU. I mean what do you want to do? Close the doors to the outside world?"
No actually, we want to open them. You know, not hide behind a protectionist barrier, go out and trade with the world without some idiot insisting that carrots be defined as fruit, or arguing over the duty rate on vegetable sauces of 15% solid as opposed to 25% solids. You know, that great liberal idea, free trade?
Dear Christian
"Finally a question to Mikko Paatainen; please give a few practical samples on how and where Finland has lost its independency being part of EU"
While being in the European Union, Finland has lost the power to decide for its own laws. Is it not true, that the laws of EU are now more powerful than the laws of Finland? Is it not so, that if there is a conflict between a law of Finland and the law of EU, the law of Finland has to be changed to suit the European Union law?
I don't know about you, but to me the power to make ones own laws is one of the most important and central powers of an independent country. By loosing this power Finland has lost its independence.
By drafting the new treaty, the so called constitution, Finland has lost the last power to block a law that we wish to avoid. After the new treaty takes effect, it is possible for a law to be passed that strongly goes against the good of Finland and we cannot do anything the avoid it, and needless to say, we are bound to follow it.
So, Christian, or someone else, please answer me, do you not believe that this takes away our independence and the right to decide for our own things?
Sincerely Yours
Mikko