|
Thursday, 02 July 2009 |
And so, as happens every 1st of July, and indeed 1st of January, we have a new European Presidency. This time we say goodbye to the Czech Republic and hello to Sweden who takes over the role for the next six months. It is unlikely that the Swedish Presidency will match its Czech predecessor for controversy. My favourite episode of the last six months was the furore that broke out regarding the sculpture ‘Entropa’ unveiled in the Council building to mark the Czech Republic’s Presidency. I thought it was a most insightful piece with Britain being absent from the map of the EU, symbolising our distaste and dislike of our EU membership – however, I must admit if I was Bulgarian I think I would have been a little disappointed with my country being represented as several squat lavatories! The endless line of critics clearly failed the artist, David Cerny’s test to see “if Europe is able to laugh at itself" but they also ignored another achievement of this now notorious sculpture. By depicting European countries by their national stereotypes Cerny actually managed to do something at which the European elite repeatedly fail. And that of course is capturing the attention of the member state citizens! Certainly here in Britain more people knew who held the Presidency of the EU as a result of Cerny’s work than is normally the case - which is where if you stopped 100 people on an average high street you’d be lucky to find one who could name the Presidency holding country. Returning to the new Swedish Presidency what can we expect over the next six months? The Swedes have stated that their priorities are the economic crisis, employment and climate change. Hmm, not terribly different then to what previous Presidencies have outlined as their focus, which in some part explains why so little interest is shown in such events! During my time as an MEP there have been ten different countries holding the Presidency of the EU, from the largest member states such as the UK, Germany and France, to some of the smallest, for example Slovenia and Luxembourg. Except when the Czech’s unveiled ‘Entrpoa’ has anyone outside the Eurobods noticed these changes and indeed this latest hand over? I very much doubt it. |
|
|
Monday, 22 June 2009 |
And so we see history repeating itself. Another European Council, another fudge, and another blatant disregard of those little things such as honour, principal and democracy. It never matters if a country says ‘no’ to a European Treaty, things just carry on anyway. Originally we thought that was because it was only the smaller countries that tended to say no, Ireland and Denmark for example (we in Britain have been consistently denied any opportunity to voice out opinion on any aspect of our EU membership since 1975)! But then in 2005 two founding members of the EU, France and the Netherlands, said ‘Non’ and ‘Neen’ respectively – and France is not only a founding member but one of the ‘big three’ (alongside Germany and the UK). That though, as we all now know, apparently makes little difference. The name of the offending Treaty was changed, but aside from that and some very small cosmetic surgery substantively the same text was trotted out a few years later under the new name the ‘Lisbon Treaty’. This time however, governments did not dare put the question to the people, knowing that the response would be the very same rejection of further European integration and federalisation. So why are we surprised at what has happened over these past few days, why are we disappointed when all along we knew, deep down, that the Irish referendum result was no more than a little blip for project Europe. For Ireland concessions have apparently been made regarding tax, abortion laws and military neutrality in an attempt to reassure the Irish people that their concerns have been listened to and addressed before they are asked once again their opinion on this Treaty. Actually as it stands Ireland is in such financial turmoil it is likely a Yes vote would have been returned regardless, with people too worried about the potential financial implications that this net beneficiary of EU funds may have faced if they had dared to express their opposition for a second time. And so it would appear that the European elite will once again ride roughshod over the wishes of the people and the Lisbon Treaty will take effect sooner rather or later. So what hope for Britain? Quite frankly - not much. The Tories clearly have no intention of repealing the Lisbon Treaty if it is ratified by all Member States by the time they come into power. And the eurosceptic parties consistently fail in general elections. Ironically what has happened this past decade illustrates perfectly the ridiculous situation within which this country now finds itself. We cannot decide anything for ourselves or indeed by ourselves; ever more of our legislation comes from the EU, and our pathetic Government will not brave a referendum on any European issue. Our once proud and dignified nation state has almost entirely been reduced to some browbeaten puppet of the EU. I suppose that is why I am disappointed, though at this stage not surprised, that the small ray of light the Irish ‘no’ provided us has it would seem been effectively extinguished. |
|
|
