The reaction of politicians across Europe to Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty smacks of astounding arrogance. Take Andrew Duff MEP, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Europe:

“We cannot accept this result.”

Yes, and why not Mr. Duff? Never mind that, in a democratic vote with a relatively high turnout, the only population given a direct say in the Treaty told the government to take said Treaty and insert it in an orifice. Never mind that whole democracy thing. After all, the Treaty is all about shifting power from elected to unelected bodies, so we shouldn’t be surprised…

Perhaps our own dear Foreign Secretary was in the mood for a little respect:

“I believe it is right that we continue with our process.”

So, that’s a no, then. Everywhere you look, you get the same reaction from pro-Treaty politicians: “Oh, come on, you can’t be serious can you? Those fucking peasants owe us. We lifted those ungrateful little shits out of the bogs, and we expect a return of service. All we’re asking for is for their permission to snatch yet more power from national legislatures and hand it to unelected committees. Just because they’ve actually got something to do with the freedom we helped them achieve doesn’t mean they should use it…”

The Irish reaction to the Lisbon Treaty is clear: the country that’s benefited most from Europe doesn’t want it. The commissioners in Brussles need to learn from that. In the only country where the government allowed the people a say, that people rejected the Treaty. These people are some of the most pro-EU in Western Europe; even the opposition leaflets carried the slogan “Ireland’s Place is in Europe.” When that happens, EU leaders should look around, question how welcome their proposals will be in less europhilic parts of the world - and quietly drop them.

And yet we see them squeal. Monumental buttocks continue to flap even as I write. Can’t they see how this damages the very idea of European unity that they love so much? They haven’t accepted defeat - but simply propose to move on regardless. The public don’t want an EU in the form the Lisbon Treaty sets out. That its authors reject this clear rejection adds fuel to the fires of discontent and the arguments of those who call the new EU undemocratic. Their behaviour is undemocratic - and so the whole institution becomes tainted with that poisonous charge. They become the bloated Eurocrats of stereotype, and the public begin to hate them.

You cannot impose a nation - or a supra-nation - from above. As Vamp points out here, only a public belief in international unity will make an imagined community real. That belief does not exist at present. Arrogant attempts to force it into life through words on paper won’t create that. They might even halt it.

The Irish Rejection of the Lisbon Treaty didn’t represent a rejection of the EU. All it demonstrated was their resistance to the imposition of an as yet unpopular form and idea from above. If the Eurocrats press on regardless, that might well change - into an active rejection of Europe itself. And they’d only have themselves to blame.

Miliband seems to think it is worthwhile ratifying the Lisbon treaty despite it having been vetoed by Ireland.  Why?

1. The EU bigwigs have demanded 26 ratifications.
If everyone else signs up, it is easier to see the Ireland vote as a hiccough rather than a final breath.  They will likely ignore the fact that 100% of the countries given the chance to decide to sign up decided to reject it.

2. It keeps the Tories in a sticky spot.
Cameron clearly opposed the Treaty, and gambled that the country would reject it in a referendum.  He was denied the opportunity by the Labour and LibDem promise-breaking, so Ireland’s decision seemed like a gift.  Labour hope to milk this for what it’s worth, though.  Cameron avoided ripping his party up over Europe again, but he will soon find that sweeping difficult issues under the carpet is no alternative for tackling rebels.  The damage this does Labour is nothing to the damage it does the Tories - at least Labour have an (almost) consistent policy on Europe, referenda aside.

What should Miliband do?  If he won’t do as I suggested earlier, he should at least accept that the decision to break his referendum promise was wrong.

One of the main beneficiaries of the EU over the last few decades has, it seems, rejected the Lisbon Treaty.  The only country given the chance to vote on the rehash constitution (after France and the Netherlands blew the original out of the water) has sent a fairly clear message.  Three of the most typically pro-European countries in the Union have rejected the bureaucracy’s advances.  The message must be learned.

1. Europeans citizens do not want a mega-country.
The economic and political benefits of a union of European nations are undeniable.  We have to co-operate as a continent, and a union body is the best possible way to achieve it.  But most people in Europe rather like being national citizens, not international ones.  They like national elections, not international ones.  They like the closeness and accountability of national decision-making, not the faceless international superbody of the EU.  The Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, or whatever you want to call it was an attempt to formalise this continuing development into a superstate and those countries which would most benefit have rejected it.

2. The EU is governed by the bureaucracy, not politicians.
The EU is constructed to channel power to the bureaucracy, not not the pseudo-politicians elected to the Parliament.  The recent Tory MEP expenses farce demonstrates how MEPs are encouraged to exploit the system to their advantage while sitting back from decision-making.  Little legislation is crafted in the European Parliament, but is rather dreamed up by the bureaucrats and waved through with little consideration in the Parliament.  There is next to no accountability for MEPs, with party lists promoting those who would not otherwise be elected and no public knowledge of what MEPs are doing with their time in the Parliament.  It is telling that the media do not cover debates or votes in Europe, and we know nothing of our MEPs - if their work is unimportant, it should stop, and if it is important, it should be made far more accountable than it currently is.  The Constitution was pushed by the bureaucracy, not the politicians, and the dirty tricks employed to replace it with the Lisbon Treaty were the work of deceptive cynics with no belief in accountable politics whatsoever.

3. If this is how the bureaucracy works, we should resist its advances.
The EU is designed to make nations insignificant.  It functions as if it knows best, but lacks the courage to test its convictions in the minds of the people of Europe.  We should resist the whole EU mentality.  We should seek a European Union which promotes economic and political co-operation in a way similar to the UN, which stops far short of trying to dominate nations.  We should defend national self-determination, not allow nations to be subsumed by the giant machine of Brussels.  We ought to reform the EU into a United Nations of Europe, functioning on very different lines to those it currently does.  In short, the failings of the EU should prompt a desire to reform it, not to walk further in - we will only encourage them.

The EU has no respect for nations - indeed tries to promote itself as one.  The longer we take to seek reform, the harder it will become.  There need not be any showdown or hostility, just a new focus in halting the EU’s growth while we reassess its direction.  I hope that Ireland’s rejection of the Constitution / Lisbon Treaty gives the opportunity for this to take place.

I don’t like writing posts like this, as they feel lazy. That, and most that was said today was very predictable. Nonetheless, a few comments do stand out:

It (a 2003 newspaper article in which Nick Clegg said not holding a referendum would show “that we do not have the cojones” to take the argument to the people) may be an explanation of why the Liberal Democrat leadership protests over the course of these debates have become ever more shrill…. At some point in recent months they have become separated from their cojones. These unfortunate objects are to be found impaled on a distant fence. - William Hague

I don’t like to give Hague any real credit, as he irritates me. Here, though his much vaunted wit is at its best - it raised a laugh with me, at least. More importantly, I suspect it sums up perfectly what the public perception of the Lib Dems will become now. They’ll appear cowardly middle-roaders whose inability to chose sides has cost them their credibility.

The Tories will spin that for all its worth, certainly. They’ve no desire to lose any votes to Clegg’s declared economic liberalism, and will happily destroy them.  If they don’t do it themselves.

I’m likely to be voting with you [Mr Miliband] tonight but I’m not sure I’m going to be able to agree with any of the arguments you are using in favour of that proposition… Will you stop all this nonsense about it being different from the constitution, because it is plainly the same in substance, and explain why it is better not to have a referendum but have it decided in parliament. You are getting into trouble because of the deviousness and, at times, ridiculousness, of the arguments you are using. - Ken Clarke

This is one of the most dangerous attacks on Labour. Coming from one of the strongest Europhiles in the Tory party, it yet roundly condemns Labour for this. Even if what Clarke was saying was completely false, it would still do damage. A supporter says it’s the constitution, people see this and say, “Look, a supporter says it’s the constitution,” and from thence on opponents have carte blanche to call it the Constitution. Labour suffer.

I suspect Clarke had that all thought out fairly carefully.

 The Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a repackaging of the old Constitution. I don’t oppose the principle of a constitution. But I oppose this particular one (and the treaty which reproduces it) because EU citizens deserve better. While the Treaty of Lisbon includes some positive measures, in my view these are outweighed by negative ones - the further militarisation of the EU, for example, as well as measures to promote greater economic liberalisation and privatisation. - Caroline Lucas, Green Party Co-Principal Speaker

Not to mention the damage to accountability and the democratic structuresof the EU…

Nonetheless, isn’t it really very depressing that the Greens have the most accurate view of the Treaty (rather than the referendum) itself? None of the mainstream parties have openly picked up on the fact that, while an EU Constitution is possibly desirable, this one’s really a poor deal.

And finally, another example of where Clegg went wrong:

The prime minister once said that he would build a wider pro-European movement in Britain. How does he think he’s going to achieve that? By colluding with the anti-European Conservatives to block the in-out-referendum that the British people really want?

Let’s get this straight: the government is, in fact, colluding with the opposition to deny the public the opportunity of buying into Clegg’s currently niche policy. That’s quite the conspiracy theory he has there. Never mind the fact that they were at each others’ throats today - that’s clearly a disguise for their anti-democratic denial of the Lib Dems. Devious of them don’t you see?

Either he’s very deluded, or very bad at picking his scripts.  Possibly both.

The sun is setting on a bad day for British politics.  The three major parties promised a referendum on the EU Constitution (its text, not it’s name) and two of those waved away the opportunity to fulfil their manifesto pledge today.  The impact of this is far-reaching.

This is further proof that manifestos are worthless documents.  The Labour party was elected with a majority of seats on their 2005 manifesto.  The party’s leader has changed, and government policy has shifted, despite the mandate being given from the 2005 manifesto.  Where Gordon Brown’s entire authority in Downing Street comes directly from the 2005 manifesto, it is an absolute disgrace for him to so flagrantly contradict it.  Nobody elected him as a party leader, so every last ounce of legitimacy in office is drawn from the manifesto he is contradicting.  That is not democracy.

The House of Lords remains a vital body.  Largely non-party political, you can trust the Lords not to knock down something that was clearly stated in the largest party’s manifesto (fox hunting being the exception to the rule).  This time, they are due to vote on an amendment that supports the Commons manifestoes of all three major parties, so there should be absolutely no doubt that they should pass the amendment.

The Liberal Democrat position is pitiable.  So keen to enforce their naive view of Europe on the rest of the nation, they have issued three line whip instructions to abstain.  Party discipline is enforced if a LibDem MP makes a decision on the issue.  Pathetic.  The “in-or-out” red herring has distracted attention away from the debate that is taking place in Europe over this Constitution.  The LibDems are fighting a stupid policy at the direct cost of actually doing something worthwhile.

The Labour argument that Britain would have to “renegotiate the terms of its membership of the EU”, should the Constitution not be ratified, is ludicrous.  Labour are effectively saying that Britain has no choice but to sign up to this document, but also says that this will make the EU a better organisation.  Moreover, if this document is of no constitutional value, why would our membership need to be renegotiated?  Any organisation that imposes an unimportant document upon its members in such a way as they are unable to negotiate the terms of the documents is not the kind of organisation I want to be a member of.  That is not how the EU works, thus showing that this Labour fallacy is particularly circular and self-contradictory.

Labour and the LibDems are trying to define the nature of the document.  They say “this is not a Constitution”.  Never mind that the bloke who wrote it says it is, or that any casual observer will recognise the way in which it aims to create a superstate along exactly the same lines as the Constitution.  This is disgustingly arrogant, pronouncing by some Stalinist edict that black is actually a pleasant shade of grey.  If politicians ever wonder why normal people find them intolerably loathsome, it is because of their belief that they have the right to define the confines of debate.  The single most rehearsed lie that has been peddled throughout this debate is that the so-called Lisbon Treaty is not the Constitution.  Those who support the treaty support it because they wanted the Constitution.  Those who oppose it see it for what it is and opposed the Constitution.

We have parliamentary democracy in this country.  I am inherently wary of referenda - they allow governments to claim legitimacy where none exits, outside the confines of a General Election.  I regret that the three parties promised referenda on the Constitution, hoping instead that they opposed the Constitution outright in a Commons vote.  But, having made a promise, they ought to keep it.  Labour MPs who now moan about the dangers of referenda (a dictator’s favourite electoral tool) were quite happy to campaign on a manifesto containing a pledge just three short years ago.  Parliamentary democracy dictates that an MP should seek to vote according with their promises at election time, being trusted to make decisions based on the lines of their manifesto.  All three parties were explicit in their demand for a referendum.  It is a disgrace that parliamentary democracy can be dealt such a blow with a flagrant breach of trust.

At PMQs today, Brown said that he thought the pro-European case needed to be made to the British public.  Why, then, has he U-turned on his policy of a public debate and national vote on the issue?  Why force the Constitution through Parliament by the back door, falsely claiming that it is something that it isn’t, refusing coherent public discussion on the issue, let alone a nationwide debate?  Surely the only answer is that he flunked another national vote because he thought he would lose.  As Cameron said today, how can the people trust Labour when Labour cannot trust the people?

This terrifies me. There seems to be no end to what the government wants - ostensibly to fight terrorism.

They cannot reasonably claim this is necessary. Measure after measure comes designed to curb terrorism, usually at the cost of one of other civil freedom. Does anything good appear to come of it? No. The government gets a fistful of data, and is surprisingly quiet about the terrorists. One would almost think that they hadn’t caught any.

I’m not going to make the claim that anyone is trying to create some sort of fascistic super-state. That would be to misjudge their motives, I suspect. But how anyone can see this sort of proposal and not shudder at the potential for abuse, I don’t know. Just look at it:

The scheme would work through national agencies collecting and processing the passenger data and then sharing it with other EU states. Britain also wants to be able to exchange the information with third parties outside the EU.

Officials in Brussels and in European capitals admit the proposed system represents a massive intrusion into European civil liberties, but insist it is a necessary part of a battery of new electronic surveillance measures being mooted in the interests of European security. These include proposals unveiled in Brussels last week for fingerprinting and collecting biometric information of all non-EU nationals entering or leaving the union.

All airlines would provide government agencies with 19 pieces of information on every passenger, including mobile phone number and credit card details. The system would work by “running the data against a combination of characteristics and behavioural patterns aimed at creating a risk assessment”, according to the draft legislation.

“When a passenger fits within a certain risk assessment, he could be identified as a high-risk passenger.”

They admit that this is a massive intrusion into people’s lives. They know full well that they’re demanding intimate, personal details which you wouldn’t give to certain acquanitances - let alone a beureaucrat with a mind to put them on file, just in case you do something to upset them in future years.

They know that this could go wrong. They want the details to monitor people, to create a profile. So, they use the details, and compare them to a model they’ve constructed on paper. You use your credit card a certain way, you use your phone a certain way. They decide that, looking at a model, a terrorist uses their phone and card that way. You must be a terrorist. You’re nothing of the sort, of course, this is how you’ve always done something. But they arrest you anyway. There’s a long, tortuous court process spreading out over several months and involving the shedding of yet more personal details into a pan-European computer system. You’re found innocent - and are sent on your way, having spent a considerable amount clearing your always innocent name. There is no compensation, as this was all for the sake of security, and we don’t want to go soft on terrorism, do we?

They know that, on an individual level, this is a very, very bad idea.

This shouldn’t be happening in the EU. The very point of open borders, of freedom of movement between members, of European citizenship was that there wouldn’t be these restrictions. You wouldn’t have to fill in a form to hop into another country. You wouldn’t have to scribble all your details down in black ink, block capitals, in triplicate. You wouldn’t be watched by border officials intent to monitor and prevent your movement. It was undoubtedly one of the best things to come out of the EU.

And this would stop all that. Am I the only one who can’t help but feel that, not only are we sleep-walking into a police-state - but that we’re doing it backwards?

EDIT: Although, I suppose, today hasn’t been all bad on the civil liberties front. Proposals for a national DNA database terrify me even more than this. I really would have considered emigration…

Firstly the “Bad” news: apparently some Serbs are a bit upset.

 I love the smell of angry impotent reactionaries kicking up a ferocious fuss about something and getting nothing at all save some destruction done to show for it. It smells like progress.

Apparently it is not getting a UN State and “only” a core of European states and the United American ones are going to recognise and deem it a protectorate but, as Benedict Anderson illustrated in his masterpiece Imagined Communities what is important above all in the creation of a nation is not official recognition by international bodies of dubious reputation but instead the sense of cohesion that exists even with those you have not met, the sense of belonging as a member of a whole which is distinct and unique in some way from the rest of the world. Whether this is benign or otherwise is another argument entirely.  Indeed as an internationalist I would argue against it, but in this context it can be safely said that here an imagined community is now unquestionably present and, judging from the historical state of the region, entirely benign. Let the petty imperialists adapt to it, that is the only path open to the Serbs now.

Meanwhile the Indie also reports this:

“It’s the biggest day for a million years!” declared an ecstatic Kosovar, celebrating his country’s independence along with tens of thousands of other ethnic Albanians in Pristina last night.

 How delightful.

I’m not sure how to feel.  Should I be amused or depressed?  Someone labelling Nigel Farage, Middle England personified, as anti-royalist, verges on ridiculous.  That this someone who presumably cares enough about the royals to do the labelling is a member of the Labour party says something about the party I don’t want to hear.

Actually, I think I’ll settle on being amused - at Farage’s reasons for being upset.  Charles made a speech saying that the EU should provide co-ordination and leadershipin combatting climate change.  Eminently sensible.  What use is one country having an excellent green policy and record if the one next door is churning out enough smoke to turn the sky black?  It’s a fairly obvious point - and, to be honest, one that doesn’t need a standing ovation.

Farage, as usual, interpreted this as some sort of call for a pan-European fascist dictatorship, and threw a tantrum.  “How,” he wails.  “Can somebody like Prince Charles be allowed to come to the European Parliament at this time to announce he thinks it should have more powers?”

Because, my dear Nigel, somewhere in that pickled dynastic brain of his, Charles has actually had a vaguely intelligent thought for once.  That’s more than can be really said about his complaints.  I don’t approve of the royals speaking on any matter of policy, at all - but then again, I don’t approve of the royals.  I might even have accepted Farage’s complaints if that was their basis, that royals shouldn’t interfere.  But, of course, it’s not:

“It would have been better for the country he wants to rule one day if he had stayed home and tried to persuade Gordon Brown to give the people the promised referendum.”

Translated:

“He disagrees with me!  Wah!”

Farage wants the royal family involved, it seems - but only when they’re on his side.  If that means completely and utterly rejecting an idea without actually giving it fair consideration, then all the better for him, it seems.  That’s fairly typical of UKIP, though…

To refuse to clap is rude - but understandable, if it’s really that poisonous.   But at least think about the speech before knee-jerking about social-democratic dictatorship…

(How does that work, actually?  Farage is convinced that all three parties in Britain are completely social-democratic - and has said so, several times.  Now that Charles agrees with them on an issue, does that make him part of their socialist conspiracy too - and a royal still?)

As for the Labour MEP - how does he manage to be proud of the monarchy and yet believe, we presume, in equality of opportunity at the very least?  I’d like to know.  It would make quite an amusing explanation…

No less than three Danish newspapers have plans to publish some cartoons.

Is this odd? Well, a little unusual to have them all do it at once with exactly the same ones, but otherwise the only thing that I find unusual is that even the supposedly daring newspapers over here {The Indie, The Spectator, The New Statesman…} were to terrified to.

That and that fact that there are both those deranged enough to want to kill over this event and those cowardly enough to appease such sociopaths.

I’m deeply sceptical about this first vote on the Lisbon Treaty. Here’s why:

This is an important vote for both sides of the debate.  They are thus likely to try and muster as many MPs as possible, and to whip them.

Labour has 352 MPs.  Of these, 18 are declared rebels, and will vote against the reform.  100 are said to be unhappy that there’s been no referendum.  However, most of these will probably also be unhappy with breaking the whip.  Even if this many do rebel, that’ll leave the government with some 220-230 votes, give or take several tens.

The majority of Tories are against the Treaty - both on the grounds that they, “want a referendum,”* and because they disapprove of the reform itself.  There are, at most, 194 of them.

The Lib Dems are abstaining en masse, calling for a debate on European membership itself instead.

There are 4 nationalist MPs who have signed the same amendment as the Labour rebels.  They will presumably vote against the Treaty.

As for the rest of the independents and minor parties, I’m not aware that any of them have declared a position.  Similarly, I’m not particularly sure their votes would amount to much significant anyway.

Viewed that way, the government should be able to pass this without too much trouble, even accepting a large Labour rebellion is possible.  The most that might change, I suspect, is that such a rebellion, if it happened, might make the government reconsider its position and derail the legislation somewhat.  But that seems unlikely too.

I don’t like parliament functioning this way, as it shouldn’t do - but I suspect it will.

*I maintain that, actually, they want to humiliate the government and indulge their eurosceptic egos rather than actually give the people a choice.