NORMAL LIFE: Let The People Decide, Gordon!

I'm not anti-European. If anything, I value the modern day European Union; without it's current shape and form, I would not have been able to live in Finland for the last six years. However, time and again, I have insisted that the European Union should be nothing more than a labour union. All the bureaucracy around social security, taxation, rights to healthcare and education in your country of residence, let alone foreign policy, defence and immigration, have caused much of the anti-European sentiment felt by citizens thesethese days.

And it is for this reason I think the UK Parliament decided NOT to let the people decide whether or not the Lisbon Treaty, a watered-down version of the EU constitution signed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown last December, should be ratified by referendum (related article here). Instead, despite the fact that all three parties promised a referendum as part of their 2005 General Election manifestos, parliament has decided - now that they are comfortably in office and claiming their daily expenses to and from Westminster - that they and they alone will decide.

Fair enough, I suppose they were elected to represent the people, but if the politicans can't even be trusted to keep one simply promise - which all three parties made - what can they be trusted to do? More to the point, what are they afraid of? I suspect, given the increase in nationalism, the British would vote NO to the Lisbon Treaty, which would have disastrous consequences in the EU since every single one of the 27 members states MUST ratify the treaty in order for it to come into force.

Ireland, in true democratic style, is the only EU member that has decided to hold a referendum, which will be held during May or June 2008. It will be interesting to see how the public vote. So far, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Romania and France have endorsed the treaty which could potentially impact on the lives of half a billion European citizens.

With reference to the EU Constitution, which was rejected by the Netherlands and France in 2005, politicans agree that the Lisbon Treaty is about 90% the same as the already-rejected Constitution. Furthermore, British Labour MEP Richard Corbett pointed out that: 'The DNA of mice and humans is 90% the same, but the remaining 10% is rather important.' Rather important? Bloody important I would say!

The Lisbon Treaty would create an EU Presidency, whose term would last thirty months rather than the current six months. Compare the EU Presidency with the Eurovision Song Contest whereby the former East European states would nominate neighbouring states to become the next EU President. It will happen because that's what they do. Just imagine, we could have a President from Poland, then Estonia, Hungary, then Latvia, pretty much in that order. While the President has no executive powers, he or she would be a representative at meetings with the US and in Asia, representing European - including British - interests.

In addition, the Lisbon Treaty would create a single figurehead for EU foreign policy (likely to be called High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy), combining the current roles of both Foreign Policy and Security Chief as well as External Relations Commissioner. I can only imagine that there is a Stalin or Hitler or Milosevic in the European Parliament right now vying to get his hands on one of these positions. Scary! One of the things that has made nations like Britain powerful is our ability to defend our island. The newly created High Representative could use the clout of the other 26 member states to reprimand Britain should a need to respond militarily arise. As if we weren't outsiders enough already, we are at an ever increasing risk of marginalising ourselves from our European cousins.

The UK and France will lose their seats on the UN Security Council, having held a prestigious position which only seven nations hold in 'maintaining international peace and security'. Instead, there would be one EU seat instead of two. Oh, let's do it and make Europe's voice matters of peace and security even less!

The Lisbon Treaty is self-amending meaning that, without the need to organise an intergovernmental conference, the EU can amend future EU treaties incrementally without consultation. While defence is an area that cannot be amended without consultation, the impacts are otherwise without limitation.

Further EU integration has it's worries. On the top of everyone's mind is a nation's loss of sovereignity, the transferrence of power meaning the surrender of vetoes, the granting of new powers for the European Court of Justice, institutional changes (including the creation of a new president and "foreign minister") and changes to the voting system used by member states.

Instead of ushering in treaty after treaty, why don't we take some time out to allow EU citizens an opportunity to catch up with what the hell is going on? In this sense, the British government was right not to allow the public to vote on such a contentious issue. However, isn't it a country's duty to ensure that it's citizen's know what it is signing up for?

So far, the history of the EU has been obsessed with 'deepening integration'. Some states see this as pooling sovereignity because it's easier to get results this way than by acting alone. After more than twenty years of constant treaty revision, it may be time to take time out to see where revisions really are needed.

If integration really is the key, why hasn't the UK, Denmark or Sweden adopted the Euro currency? The British parliament may have got one over the electorate on this time, but when the day comes to adopt the Euro currency, that opens another can of worms and, possibly, a slap in the face to the European Union. I already cast my vote: NO!