posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
purplecthulhu at 07:41am on 23/10/2007
purplecthulhu at 07:41am on 23/10/2007Apparently there are some rather nasty clauses buring in the EU treaty that Brown doesn't want us to have a referendum about.
Anti-environment aspects to EU treaty.
purplecthulhu at 07:41am on 23/10/2007| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18 |
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
(no subject)
(no subject)
'Specifically, the EU will unreservedly oppose any environmental protection law in another country that could be detrimental to EU trade. So if a country has environmental laws (eg on vehicle emissions) then we shall be party to bringing them up before the WTO if we feel this may make them buy less of our products (eg fewer cars if ours don't meet their emissions targets). Obviously capitalism takes precedence over actually doing something about climate change.
Also, the EU has the stated aim of browbeating developing nations into Economic Partnership Agreements - essentially guarantees of free trade between us and them. Threats for not signing up include withholding aid. So, if they don't let our larger market dominate theirs and prevent small-scale local producers from having a snowball's chance in hell we won't give them any aid money. Fabulous. What a progressive society we live in.'
The source is usually pro-EU so I don't see any reason for this to be a misrepresentation.
(no subject)
To be more specific: the new treaty sets among the EU's goals for external action the following: You may not like e), but it's surely wrong to pretend as your source does that d) and f) are simply not there. There is no explicit directive in the treaty (or anywhere else) to "oppose any environmental protection law in another country that could be detrimental to EU trade".
The Economic Partnership Agreements date from 2000, so have nothing to do with the new Treaty. They do indeed seek to apply free trade, but interestingly are not being applied to the 49 Least Developed Countries, who continue to benefit from zero-tariff access to EU markets for everything except arms, without having to concede free trade to the EU in their own markets. This arrangement also has nothing to do with the new Treaty.
(no subject)
I will draw this discussion to
(no subject)
development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price
stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full
employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and
improvement of the quality of the environment." So I shall be interested to see what
(no subject)
To quote Ted Heath in the run up to the only referendum we've ever been allowed on the issue of Europe (after we'd already joined the Common Market), "There is no possibility of this leading to anything more than a trading agreement".
(no subject)
At the moment the parliament, which is all we get to vote on, has to try very hard to stop anything that thee commission wants. Arguably it can't stop something if the commission wants it enough. And the commission is appointed by national governments in such a way that it is usually a dumping ground for failed national politicians (the mode of failure being anything from unpopular views, to dodgy dealing to outright corruption).
There is no direct democratic accountability for commissioners or the head of the commission. I want that changed, and the treaty makes no moves in that direction because it is not in the interests of the national governments who like to use the commission to launder unpopular national policies. The UK government is a master at this and it is a thoroughly distasteful practice.
(no subject)
The EU being more democratic - the treaty a) gives the European Parliament more power and b) introduces a new mechanism for national parliaments of member states to block legislation. Not perfect by any means, but surely a step in the right direction?
Even at present the European Parliament can and does reject legislation proposed by the executive rather more often than, say, the British parliament! Recent examples include the infamous software patents directive (from the Commission) and a rather less famous proposal on data retention (from the British goverment, among others).
The Commission as a dumping ground for failed and corrupt national politicians - I'll give you Mandelson, as long as you'll concede that Blair is responsible for his appointment; but to tar them all with that brush is unreasonable. (There was also the Barrot case, but that has certain French peculiarities which make it less of a big deal than the UK media wanted to think.) Three of them (Barroso, Kallas and Špidla) have been prime ministers, several others have been foreign ministers or chief negotiators for their country when joining the EU, and none of those positions mean you are a failure; at least two others (Michel and Rehn) have realistic chances of becoming prime minister in their own country some day. Sure, there are a couple of lightweights, but look at the British cabinet!
As for the accountability - in fact the European parliament can sack the entire Commission, and more or less did so in 1999; it forced three changes to the team Barroso originally wanted to appoint in 2004; and while it's not formally in the rules, it is quite clear that a commissioner who lost the confidence of the parliament could not carry on. Again, it's not perfect, but to say that there is no democratic accountability is simply wrong.
I have to also report that on a less formal level, I am really impressed by the culture of openness in the Commission in particular, in its readiness to meet and talk with all stake-holders, including NGOs (which after all is the sector I work in). I suspect it compares well with most national government administrations in that regard. I doubt, however, that most British journalists bother to try and find the story. There are some honourable exceptions.
(no subject)
I'm happy for the parliament to be get more power, not sure about national parliaments vetos (I'd thought that vetoing was being reduced!). I'm familiar with the software copyright rejection as I was involved with lobbying, but the impression I got from that was that the commission decided to stop pushing not that it was completely blocked - they could have got it through if they wanted, but maybe that's an incorrect impression. More worrying to me have been the EU's supine response to data protection wrt passenger records, SWIFT etc. and it's willingness to launder aspects of the UK's security agenda. The parliament seems to have no power or willingness to intervene in these matters.
As to the commission being a dumping ground I will definitely give you Mandelson. I'll freely admit to not being up to speed with all national delegations but I'd submit that the UK, France and Italy have all been guilty of this. I'd also submit that being a prime minister doesn't remove you from the classification - would you want Berlusconi at the EU?
The problem with the commission is that the accountability is all at arm's length. I, as a voter, do not get to directly influence them. National governments and the EU parliament might, but I can't. I'd like to see pan-European elections for them so that they do not have to appeal to all member states not just the one that appoints them. Edith Cresson facing John Humphries is the kind of thing I'm looking for.
I'm in two minds about the openness of the Commission. There are reports I read in non-mainstream media (eg. The Register) which suggest that some of the murkier goings on in Brussels might be accessible to the press - the supine relationship of the Commission wrt the US passenger record system is a good example. It's unclear to me if this has emerged as a result of openness or ElReg's investigatory prowess, or because the Commission is open, but the mainstream press certainly don't pick up on it. Do they in other countries?
(no subject)
You're still unfair to the parliament on both software patents, where the reason the Commission didn't push again is that the parliament would have resisted again, which surely counts as a win for the latter, and resisting the UK agenda on data retention, where it has little actual power but has done what it can.
Because the EU's business is mostly tediously technical, specialist media like The Register (and, at another extreme, the Financial Times) tend to get the story right when it affects their own particular interests; describing their own particular trees, as it were. Most general media in most countries make honest efforts to describe both the forest and the trees. It's only in the British media that the forest is portrayed as Birnam Wood come to Dunsinane.