This is by a Daily Mail political reporter based in Brussels... who is FINALLY catching up.
Why was none of this ever brought up by her, or the rest of the media when Lisbon was first up for debate years ago .. ??
Talk about stable doors and bolting horses!!
xxxxxxxxxxxx j
http://synonblog.
Euroseptic: Mary Ellen Synon in Brussels
05 November 2009 2:39 PM
Cameron: ignorant or slippery? I ask the professor
Cameron mouth cover
The more you examine David Cameron's new European policy, the more it
just falls apart.
I pointed out in an earlier post that Cameron's pledge to let the
British people have a referendum before any new powers are shifted to
Brussels is meaningless. What the Tory leader has either overlooked,
or more likely, is hoping no one will notice, is that the Lisbon
Treaty is a new kind of monster, a 'self-amending' treaty: now that
Lisbon is law, the European Council can shift new powers to the
European institutions without a new treaty or treaty amendment being
required. Powers can shift without there being any treaty on which to
hold a referendum.
The power lies in eight highly-technical sections of Article 48 of
Lisbon (known to the wonks as TEU, but that is not relevant just at
the moment), but it comes down to this: Lisbon allows the council to
move things that are currently done by unanimous voting to qualified
majority voting -- in other words, Britain loses its veto, and without
the need for a treaty amendment.
Just to confirm that is how things are, earlier today I asked Damian
Chalmers, professor of European Union Law at the London School of
Economics and head of the European Institute, to answer a couple of
questions about Article 48, known as the passerelle clause.
One question I put to the professor was this: David Cameron's
undertaking is that, under a Conservative government, no new powers
will be passed to Brussels in any new treaty without a referendum. It
seems to me that under Lisbon new powers can pass to the EU
institutions without a new treaty. Is that right?
Answer from the professor: 'You are right.'
As for how this can happen, he says: ' The new Article 48 TEU allows
the European Council [that is, the prime ministers or heads of state
of the member countries] to move things that are currently unanimity
voting to QMV [qualified majority voting] in most fields of EU
competence..
amendment...
'However the European Council must agree by unanimity and it must be
done in accordance with domestic constitutional requirements. So every
Head of State [or p.m.] has a veto over any change in voting.'
Which is where I see red alarm lights going off. The professor, being
a decent sort of man despite being a euro-enthusiast, does not. He
imagines Cameron would actually go back, as pledged, to ask parliament
to agree.
Yes, sure, professor: another Cameron 'cast iron pledge.'
Here is what experience tells me is the way it will work. I see a weak
British prime minister sitting outnumbered 26 to one at some European
summit at 2 o'clock in the morning, being told he must 'compromise' or
risk being 'isolated.' In return for his capitulation, he will be
given some form of meaningless words to take back to Britain, assuring
parliament and the people that the change from unanimous voting to
majority voting was merely 'technical,' and wasn't a real transfer of
power at all.
That's the way the euro-elite and their collaborators in the British
Foreign Office do it. It is called a 'three-shirt summit.' Your prime
minister is forced to sweat through three changes of shirt and sleep
deprivation until he agrees.
But neither Professor Chalmers nor I see a referendum coming out of
it. He wonders, 'Would there be a referendum if the passerelle clause
were used? Interestingly, it was not mentioned by William Hague
yesterday and he explicitly excluded its use on Turkish accession. As
Turkey would increase EU population by about 15 percent and therefore
lead to a rough loss of 15 percent British influence, it seems a loss
of British influence could happen without a referendum. There is some
woolliness here.'
See what I mean? The professor is a decent man. He will call it no
more than 'woolliness.
But then, none dare call it treason...
Posts
