GERMAN Chancellor Angela Merkel last night pledged to make European Union law more powerful than British law.

 

She vowed to get the European Charter of Fundamental Rights made legally binding by mentioning it in a new treaty.

 

That will allow the European Commission to challenge British laws in the European Court of Justice.

 

European leaders meet in Brussels next Wednesday to agree a treaty which would hand the EU more control over the UK.

 

Mrs Merkel warned she will snub Britain’s objections to the charter — and make it legally binding.

 

Tony Blair is refusing to give Britain a referendum on the treaty but The Sun today gives you a chance to vote.

 

 

 

 

 

With no referendum could Britain become just a part of Europe, with no say on how the country is run?

 

 

 

 

I'm personally really not happy about this... I just hope that it doesn't go through -_-

 

 

I'm so tempted to go into Al Murray mode but people might not get the irony.

 

 

 

BBC News Blog:

Tories gird for battle

Mark Mardell 15 Jun 07, 12:15 AM

 

A few hours ago we got the first real evidence of what is planned for the new treaty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is going to be tricky. The British government wants it out, partly because there are fears it might extend workers’ rights, but mainly because it makes the treaty more constitution-like. Ministers think opting out would look silly. So they want some sort of text that says it won't have any effect. But that's exactly the opposite of what some other countries are after, according to the German presidency. These countries mostly aren't too bothered whether the text of the charter is left in or taken out - the one thing they insist on is that the treaty should make it legally binding.

 

But maybe the European Court has already achieved the same thing by other means? The European Commission has gone out of its way on its website to make the point that "the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has already made an impact on the European courts" and that "new case law is being established all the time". It goes on to say, "The Charter is already featuring regularly in the deliberations of the Advocates General, and is therefore bound to play a part in European Court of Justice findings."

 

The government expects to be given a kicking over the new treaty, no matter what. I hear from all sides that because of the debacle over grammar schools, David Cameron is bound to throw some red meat to Conservative MPs and supporters who feel that they've rather given up being proper Conservatives. A call for a referendum on Europe is just the sort of thing that will get them stirred up.

 

A couple of months ago, Mr Cameron wasn't sure. First off, he didn't want to go "banging on about Europe" and worried that it would raise memories of Mr Hague saving the pound but not getting elected, and, much worse, the bitter divisions in the dying days of the Major government. But there was another worry - political pragmatism. If Mr Cameron ever becomes prime minister, the logic goes, he knows he would have to sign up to an EU treaty at some time or another and the last thing he wants to saddle himself with is a commitment to a referendum.

 

Giving more power...

 

On the other hand, those who feel strongly about the EU (against it) would be quite happy for him to be in this position. I'm told by an impeccable source that the current thinking is that a Conservative government would find its poker hand immeasurably strengthened if other countries knew Britain would have to hold a referendum on anything serious. The source says that Britain could get the Czechs and Poles to join in and "bring the whole integrationalist process to a halt".

 

But that is for the future. For now, the Conservatives have decided to campaign hard for a referendum. But how far apart are David Cameron and Tony Blair? Mr Cameron says that he wants a referendum on anything that gives more power to Brussels. Mr Blair has said what is unacceptable is anything that "fundamentally" changes the relationship between the UK and Brussels." Privately, officials have said that anything that looks like a constitution or gives more power to Brussels has to be excluded. Is there a difference?

 

Well, it will be a battle for interpretation. I don't think anyone is in any doubt that giving up Britain's veto powers would "give more power to the European Union". Equally, I don't think anyone would bother to argue that involving national parliaments more would fall at this hurdle. But what about the idea for a new way of running meetings?

 

At the moment, the council (that is, the EU body made up of national governments) is chaired by one of the 27 countries. Every six months the country in the chair changes. At the moment it is Germany. Before that it was Finland. Next in the queue is Portugal. The big countries argue only they can do it well, although they say it quietly so as not to offend the little ones. So the constitution came up with the idea that an individual, elected by the 27 heads of government, would become president of the council for two-and-a-half years.

 

Zero-sum game?

 

Senior Downing Street sources argue this is not giving more power to the EU. They say that through better organisation it would strengthen the council, that is the power of the nation states, and so can't be seen as giving more power to the EU.

 

Think tanks like Open Europe, on the other hand, say that the president, based in Brussels, with a big staff, would inevitably become part of the machine and would work closely with the commission. Moreover, they say there is nothing to stop the president of the commission and president of the council being the same person - and that would indeed be a powerful role, paving the way to a US-style directly elected president. So, they say, it not only gives new powers to the EU, it leads to a huge increase in power. There will be many such arguments in the next few weeks, although few may follow them in detail. I will.

 

It is interesting though that the government will be fighting, as it were, on territory chosen by the enemy. It's a little odd that the government has not tried harder to put across the argument that it's not a zero-sum game. Internally, some have urged them to try to sell the line that in some areas where the UK wants quick agreement, like co-operating against terrorism, "more power for Brussels" could equal "more power for Britain". Blair says it, but only when he has to. Those passionately in favour of the EU are constantly frustrated by the government's unwillingness to put the case, and I can't see Brown being any different.

 

Frankly, I dont see how it makes a difference.... WE, the people of this country have precious little say in how the country is run anyway, which is plainly obvious to me, the majority opposed the Iraq war, made no fukkin' difference did it...? So, bureaucrats from Whitehall will be replaced with bureaucrats from Brussels.... Big deal.....

 

The only real change that will happen, the only way WE the people will have a say, is if WE the people TAKE power from the Bureaucrats, wherever they are from.....

I think it is time for a complete withdrawal from Europe and its laws

 

We should run our country the way WE want not the way Brussels want

 

The amount of money we pay into the EU each year would pay for a lot of hospitals, schools, prisons and so on

 

I do not believe that trade would be affected with our EU partners if we withdrew, we are a strong and dynamic economy so the other countries in the EU need to trade with us

The only real change that will happen, the only way WE the people will have a say, is if WE the people TAKE power from the Bureaucrats, wherever they are from.....

 

yep... i agree with that!

 

I think it is time for a complete withdrawal from Europe and its laws

 

We should run our country the way WE want not the way Brussels want

 

The amount of money we pay into the EU each year would pay for a lot of hospitals, schools, prisons and so on

 

I do not believe that trade would be affected with our EU partners if we withdrew, we are a strong and dynamic economy so the other countries in the EU need to trade with us

 

 

i dont, we are better off being in the eu, and we have benefitted greatly from eu handouts as well as contributing to a stronger economic power that is europe. we arnt strong enough to thrive as well on our own, just look at the eurovision song contest voting to see that! :lol:

 

if europe isnt strong then japan and america will pick off the weaker countries... id sooner be part of europe then another state of america.

id sooner be part of europe then another state of america.

 

Agreed....

if europe isnt strong then japan and america will pick off the weaker countries... id sooner be part of europe then another state of america.

 

I totally agree. I feel that I have more in common with Europe than with America.

 

i think the days of us being an island nation are gone wether or not we like it, we are in europe and we need to forge the best deal possible within europe. i dont think gordon brown will be a pushover..

The EU has done a huge amount to assist Spain, Portugal and Greece in their transition from right-wing dictatorships to mature democracies. It is now doing the same for many ex-Soviet bloc countries. I think we should be proud to be members of such an organisation.