The debate regarding the future of Europe has yet to come to any conclusive culmination. Following the French and Dutch 'no' votes in 2004, the debate has revolved around a multitude of possible solutions. The adoption of a mini-treaty, the division into a three-speed Europe and total EU withdrawal (bah!) have all been suggested.

But I've always been slightly annoyed that this can of worms was even opened. The European Constitution was a seriously meaty legal text, and for those of you who've ever read a European Treaty, you'll know that it's far from light bedtime reading. Was it foolish to expect governments to expect the electorate to make an educated, balanced decision about such a complex document, which for the most part, was incredibly mundane? Institutional reform for the creaking EU is long overdue, those who understand the exact reform requirements best (such as our elected leaders or MEP's) are most suitable to make such a decision.

In my mind, the adoption of a mini-Treaty would serve to introduce the reforms which were the specific, more bland constitutional proposals. This is what should have happened in the first place before the people got to vote on whether to accept the more controversial issues (such as the creation of an EU Foreign Minister). Now the parts essential for reform could be brought in through the back door; fortunately, shunning democracy is something the EU is well practiced at.

Post a Comment
  1. # Blogger Marko

    "fortunately, shunning democracy is something the EU is well practiced at"

    The problem is you agree with it, so why blame it on the EU and not on those of your sort:)?


Links to this post

Create a Link

© 2007 euromatt | Template adapted from GeckoandFly original.

eXTReMe Tracker