| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Blair’s Referendum Gamble |
| 2004-04-06 |
| This may have a real impact on the WOT insofar as it impatct’s Britain’s role in the EU and in common EU defense mechanisms. Speculation is growing that prime minister Tony Blair will give in to public pressure and call a Europe referendum this autumn. However, it might not be the referendum voters have been demanding. Instead of the referendum on the European constitution which voters across the political spectrum have called for, Blair is reported to be considering a wider vote on Britain’s place in the European Union. The terms of the referendum are still not clear but according to a report in The Sun any such vote could go well beyond the question of whether or not Britain should sign the constitution. The Guardian reports that some opposition MPs are speculating that Blair might go for the ’nuclear option’ of basing the vote on British membership of the EU itself - a ploy designed to isolate what the PM sees as a tiny group of "withdrawlists." If Blair won such a vote he would claim public approval for the constitution and perhaps even membership of the single currency. Critics accuse the PM of staging a ’fraudulent’ debate on EU membership: Conservative foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram said that a wider EU vote would be a gimmick and that if Blair called a referendum it should be on the constitution alone. Blair could be playing with fire here. He is probably right to believe that at this stage only a minority of British voters approve of wholesale withdrawl from the EU. However, much can happen in six months and the PM’s approval ratings are not so high that he can afford to risk holding the British people hostage with an "all or nothing" Euro vote. Opposition leaders might spot an opportunity to unseat Blair, who has made Britain’s closer integration into the EU a cornerstone of his premiership. It would be fairly easy to persuade Britons to vote for a semi-detached àla carte version of EU membership along Danish or Swedish lines, and opposition parties would do well to present this vision as their alternative to Blair’s federal referendum. Sounds like a sane option Links to original Sun and Guardian stories are in the online article |
| Posted by:rkb |
| #19 Anonymous2U> "you suggesting that Greece would not vote in favor of Turkey being included? " For 20 years we were vetoing any closer union or financial agreements between Turkey and EU. Why do you think we couldn't have continued doing so? Here's why: I'm simplifying the situation a bit but the bottomline is that Greece made an agreement with the rest of the EU about Turkey -- it would withdraw its own objections to Turkey entering or forming pacts with the Union, as long as Cyprus joined the EU with the next wave of countries. The deal was made. Partly because we knew that once Cyprus joined, it would no longer have the need of Greece to back it up in rejecting Turkey's entry. And partly because we knew that Turkey had much bigger problems to solve than its disputes with Greece, and having the EU focus on Greece's own refusal of Turkey was doing more harm than good, in showing Turkey's current incompatibility with the rest of Europe. As for Cyprus it will indeed join. Something which in turn led to the Annan plan for reunification of the island, a direct positive consequence of Cyprus' entry to the Union -- and a direct answer to the idiots who think that EU membership only has financial benefits and that it doesn't actually strengthen the diplomatic and political position of little countries. Do you really think the serfs would go against the king???? If you are calling Greece a serf then Up Yours, dearie. This serf here has a long tradition of going against the king. More so than I would have liked actually, since under the government of some anti-West politicians like Andreas Papandreou it often seemed as if we were doing it out of sheer spite -- kinda like the UK government is doing nowadays. -- You know, that's the kind of ignorance that annoys me when some people here babble about the EU and don't have a *clue* about what has actually occurred in the past. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-06 11:20:25 PM |
| #18 --And don't you think it's up to the individual voters to decide on whether this is a union or not, and how much, if at all, this matters to them? -- Germany's not getting the option, and the only reason Tony's going the nuke route is because he's getting flack. He doesn't want a vote. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-04-06 9:27:32 PM |
| #17 Aris, it's France - the ones who wrote the agreement????? It's france - the shitty little country w/delusions of grandeur. Are you suggesting that Greece would not vote in favor of Turkey being included? Do you really think the serfs would go against the king???? |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-04-06 9:26:17 PM |
| #16 Bulldog, does he get to control the verbage of the referendum? In the US that would be the responsibility of Congress. As in most cases where they might be held accountable, Congress would appoint a non-accountable Blue Ribbon Commitee to decide. I think a European Union is a good idea and because I am offended by French demands to participate in our presidential elections, I usually shutup and listen when you guys debate the pros and cons. It still seems like you can do better than a bureacracy that spits out stuf like this: Terrorism funding report causes controversy |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-06 9:10:30 PM |
| #15 ruprecht> "The English choice should be to jump in with both feet, form a coalition with Italy and Eastern European members" Believe it or not, there exist more issues in the universe than Iraq, which seems to be your criterion for your proposed alliance... :-) Rafael> *shrug* Americans are a federation, especially after their civil war -- EU is currently just a confederation. It's still early to tell whether it'll manage to evolve into anything tighter, but ofcourse there's no need to *ever* become as tight a union as the USA is. As for the hyphenated bullshit, it reminds me of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. There are ways to make it work. And there are ofcourse also ways to make it fail. But nothing is a priori doomed, as I often get the impression people want to make it appear. The Swiss also use hyphenated bullshit, I believe, and they've worked out just fine. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-06 8:25:06 PM |
| #14 Believe it or not Aris we here in North America have a lot of experience with unions (of the political kind). There are two immediate examples: Canada and the US. The Canadian one isn't working very well (separatism is only a referendum away), while the US seems to have succeeded. Is it a coincidence that when you ask a Canadian and an American what their nationalities are, one replies "American" while the other gives you some hyphenated bullshit? The European "Union" is more akin to the Canadian experience. If Europe continues down the road it's going, I can predict the same situation and unhappiness that exists in Canada. Canadians are civilized, not at each other's throats, but the resentment is real and growing. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-06 7:59:57 PM |
| #13 The English choice should be to jump in with both feet, form a coalition with Italy and Eastern European members and help guide the EU (or form a loyal opposition to the Franco/German axis) or cut themselves free. England could easily join NAFTA if they are afraid of being cut out of Europe economically. We'll just change that to North Atlantic Free Trade Area without missing a beat. |
| Posted by: ruprecht 2004-04-06 7:52:10 PM |
| #12 "That goes hand-in-hand with voting to join the union. Not even you can deny that joining means giving up some sovereignty." Mutually sharing sovereignty, yes. "And who will call the shots if Europe chooses a system of representation by population/GDP output" There's no possibility of a system of representation by GDP output as you should well know. "Even YOU implied in comment #6 that countries like Poland should be thankful, instead of whining. " No, I imply that they should make up their minds. In or out. Their choice so they should definitely not whine. But "thankful"? I'll just say that the rhetoric that goes "you should be grateful, you ungrateful pigs" has never come from *me* in this forum. "To show whether people think of themselves in a union, I propose a single referendum question: do you see yourself as French/German/Spanish/Italian/... or European?" Do you see yourself as Polish or as human, Rafael? Btw, why not just ask them simply "Do you see yourself as European" rather than require an artificial exclusivity? Where did you come up with the idea that "unions" only exist when the citizens think their primary allegiance is to the union rather to their nation-state? You are talking non-sequiturs. For me the EU is self-*evidently* a union. Since "union" is so vague that it could mean anything at all, from a federation, to a confederacy, to a community, to a simple alliance of convenience. Put the word "civil" in front of it, and it can also mean gay marriage. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-06 6:29:23 PM |
| #11 You mean that most people didn't actually vote to become lackeys? That goes hand-in-hand with voting to join the union. Not even you can deny that joining means giving up some sovereignty. And who will call the shots if Europe chooses a system of representation by population/GDP output. You're deluding yourself if you think countries like France and Germany will give a shit about their union brethren. Already France and Germany have demonstrated as much. Even YOU implied in comment #6 that countries like Poland should be thankful, instead of whining. Some union. perceived Very good choice of words; as in different from actual. ...it's up to the individual voters... You bring up a very good point. To show whether people think of themselves in a union, I propose a single referendum question: do you see yourself as French/German/Spanish/Italian/... or European? |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-06 5:48:36 PM |
| #10 Anonymous2U> For a new country to join up into the Union you need UNANIMOUS agreement of ALL the other countries. I can't believe that Turkey would accept at blind faith any promises made to her by individual politicians who could at best only commit their own nations, and often even less than that. Rafael> You mean that most people didn't actually vote to become lackeys? Most people actually weighed what they perceived as the benefits of the Union against what they perceived as the bad? *gasp* That actually sounds like a real choice. And don't you think it's up to the individual voters to decide on whether this is a union or not, and how much, if at all, this matters to them? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-06 4:17:37 PM |
| #9 Is Aris going to comment on the post below relating to Italy's single-finger salute to the Stability and Growth Pact? Methinks Aris would much rather debate a hypothetical referendum, which may-or-may-not take place in his arch-nemesis Great Britain, than confront the very real crisis which is facing his own country's currency because of the self-interested behaviour of France, Germany and Italy. SH: Blair is a brilliant pol. Um, That's not the exact phrase I'd choose to use! LOL Seriously, if this story is true, Blair's actions would be about as utterly contemptuous towards the British public as they could be. Not only deceitful, but potentially very, very reckless. Such a move could backfire with massive ramifications for Britain and the rest of Europe. My guess is that he'd hope for a widespread boycott of the referendum from those who would rightly regard the exercise as scandalously dishonest, and effectively win by default. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-04-06 4:15:21 PM |
| #8 What pisses me off is people like you presenting a "union" where none exists. Actually, what most people voted for was not "union" in the politcial sense but for free trade, a single currency, free movement of labour, the promise of jobs, and a curb on corruption (in the Eastern European case). It will be a cold day in hell when Germans look at Poles as equals. And that applies to every other country in Europe. Some union. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-06 3:46:39 PM |
| #7 ARis, you're too close to it. You need some distance. We've had 225 years of official distance and another 150 on top of that. Europe's history preceeds it. Look at what happened to Turkey - promises of speeding up the union process if our people aren't stationed in Incirik then D'Estaing pulls the rug out saying never, IIRC. Every death in Falluja can be placed at Turkey's feet. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-04-06 3:40:51 PM |
| #6 "I can't believe Aris is this naive" Well, I have long since past even trying to believe *your* levels of naivete and hypocricy. "do I want economic isolation? Or do I become a French-German lackey? Some choice" Yeah, make the poll's question be phrased exactly like that. That's objectivity in your view. Most people I know would choose isolation over lackeydom any day of the week -- and yet most people support the EU, because they *don't* see participation in it as becoming anyone's lackey. Wanna check? Ask people "Did you vote in favour of being a French-German lackey?" and see what they respond. The ones who *do* see it as being someone's lackey... are the people like you. The people who'd vote "No" to the Union. In short: A minority. And that's the thing that pisses you off, isn't it? Though given your pro-Putin rhetoric, it's clear to me that you wouldn't mind if Poland turned back into being a lackey of *Russia*. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-06 3:25:35 PM |
| #5 Gee, let me choose: do I want economic isolation? or do I become a French-German lackey? Some choice. Option E! Option E! Option E! Which is invoke Rule Britannia and redeclare the Empire starting with..... New Zealand. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-04-06 2:51:22 PM |
| #4 Blair is a brilliant pol. Widening the issue and upping the ante is the exact opposite of what conservatives have done in the US with Partial-birth abortion which represents narrowing of the issue and lowering the stakes. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-04-06 2:34:33 PM |
| #3 I can't believe Aris is this naive... Gee, let me choose: do I want economic isolation? or do I become a French-German lackey? Some choice. If it was a genuine union, then maybe. But this expansion has proven how artificial, self-serving it really is. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2004-04-06 1:42:46 PM |
| #2 "withdrawlists"?? is this people who want withdrawal from the EU or people with a particular southern speech inflection? don't these journos have editors? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-04-06 1:28:02 PM |
| #1 I do want the British people to vote on EU membership as a whole -- too many British idiots have over the years claimed that the British people weren't given a choice over their EU membership, they were misled, they were brainwashed, they were affected by evil mind-rays, the EU was only supposed to be an ecomonic block, the evil continental Europeans are keeping them enslaved, blah, blah, blah. A vote on the issue will stop the whining one way or another -- are you in or are you out. And if they confirm that they are in, then they will hopefully also understand the necessity of a functional union rather than keep on waffling over an issue that all the other members have already resolved -- whether they want to be a part of the Union at all. "semi-detached àla carte version of EU membership along Danish or Swedish lines" Nobody in the continent would have a problem with Britain choosing that -- but such a choice unfortunately goes against UK's attitude which so far has been to the point of "If we don't want it for ourselves, then you mustn't want it for yourselves either" -- such as a defense pact, common foreign minister, federal taxation, etc: matters that UK has vetoed even if they happened on a purely voluntary basis that wouldn't affect UK itself. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-04-06 1:23:57 PM |