Klaus cannot be serious! After the struggle to get every member state to ratify Lisbon, with just Poland (though it seems like it is soon to ratify) and the Czech Republic still to do so, and with his own Parliament supporting ratification, he has the gall to suggest an amendment that might require another ratification round!

This can be nothing but obstruction for obstruction’s sake; even if there was some substance to his request for a footnote, it’s unlikely to be compatible with the spirit of the Treaty. All I can see from the European Voice and BBC articles on this is that Klaus wants something vague on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which in his political context likely means a weakening of it—and yes, I know the UK has an opt-out on the Charter, which I disagree with, but at least we negotiated it at the right time, and in the right way.

So, what are the chances of full ratification before the Tories figure out a way to withdraw the British ratification?

Image by Bertelsmann Stiftung on Flickr, used under a Creative Commons licence.

Ok, it’s time that I posted something. My extended absence from posting here can be explained by my recently moving house, but it isn’t a good excuse any more. Anyway, reading EurActiv over breakfast this morning, I had a look at their LinksDossier on the Swedish presidency of the EU. After the joke that was the Czech presidency (sorry to any Czechs reading this, it isn’t personal), it was refreshing to see the programme that Sweden has lined up for their six months at the helm. While an “effective, open and results-oriented presidency” sounds a bit too much like management speak to me, it’ still something worth pursuing, while the commitment to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty and the ambition to push Europe forward on actions against climate change are both things which I’d tentatively support (tentatively, as I haven’t had time to look through anything in much more detail than the LinksDossier).

Even if they can’t succeed with all of their programme, as the Centre for European Reform mentions, “Internal political stability and a skilled diplomatic corps should help.”, so I doubt another Czech-style presidency will be seen just yet (again, sorry to any Czech readers).

But it is the risk that the presidency could go wrong again so easily, and the inherent instability that comes from a six-month rotating presidency that just makes such a good argument for a static president with a political mandate. All eyes should be on Ireland to see whether that can happen.

Obviously this new group is going to be just a bit repulsive, and it seems mad for David Cameron to be doing this when he’s also trying to present the image of a new and fresh, inclusive Conservative Party in the UK, but there is one promising aspect of this: it will pull a few MEPs out of the European People’s Party, potentially giving the Party of European Socialists the dominating position in the Parliament. Frankly the PES is only a tad better than the EPP, but at least it’s something.

Anyway, I guess we’ll have to wait for the results of the elections before knowing for sure how things will turn out. In the mean time, I’m off leafleting. Several streets worth of tenements await me.

I’m generally in favour of Lisbon, though my understanding of exactly what it says is marred by the fact that it is an amending treaty, rather than the originally coherent constitution, and is filled with paragraphs such as:

the words ‘this Treaty’ and ‘the present Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘the Treaties’, the verb, where applicable, shall be put in the plural and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made; this point shall not apply to the third paragraph of Article 182 and to Articles 312 and 313; 

Now clearly this makes sense, but only if you happen to have copies of the Treaty on the European Union, and the Treaty Establishing the European Community to hand, coupled with a lot of patience. To be fair, the protocols later in the treaty are more readable, but European citizens are still presented with a largely incomprehensible and highly technical document. Of course, as with most legislation, citizens themselves rarely see the raw material. But the barrier to entry on something as important as Lisbon means that the alternative way of participating in the political discourse—through the media—is vulnerable to the sort of lies and scare-mongering which was seen in the Irish ‘no’ campaign, and which will likely be seen again in June or October, and in any referendum held in the UK.

The aims of Lisbon are frequently ignored in debate on the treaty, and should it ever be fully ratified, we’ll be able to enjoy a better and more democratic Union, but I’m certain the legitimacy of the treaty will be called into doubt after so much of a muddle has been made over its implementation.

As well as the growing strength of more extreme forms of politics, as I mentioned the other day, I think that the economic woes we all currently face across Europe cause states to reconsider how strongly they value their sovereignty. The European project relies on the pooling of sovereignty for common benefit of member states. Without this, we may as well scale European integration back to the cosy intergovernmental confines of the European Free Trade Association and the Council of Europe. But naturally, pooling of sovereignty means that a number of decisions, primarily economic, are taken from the hands of national leaders, and placed in Brussel, Strasbourg and Frankfurt. When people are easily manipulated by the far-right, and member states’ governments seek an ‘anything which could save us’ approach, as many are trying to do now, distancing of decision making, in what are perceived to be the hands of foreigners, just won’t wash with a lot of the electorate.

I personally hope that something of Lisbon’s ilk, eventually passes. But I can’t see Lisbon itself being ratified. The EU should start afresh and (I shudder as I borrow a term from the Scottish National Party here) promote an ‘international conversation’ on how to proceed with the European project. Not a debate solely between national governments and policy wonks, but a debate which includes all European citizens. Discussing the facts of the matter, without recourse to plainly domestic affairs (sending messages on the popularity of the present government, and similar), or scare-mongering as was seen in the Irish referendum.

The only way forward for Europe, which will ensure a sustainable future for integration and strong partnership between member states, is for European citizens to wake up, and realise what Europe is, and what it means. What benefits it brings, and how it needs to be improved.