I would very much like to provide you with some more arguments on why we should definitely campaign in favour of the Reform Treaty on ALL levels of our organisation and on how we should do this exactly.

Look, I wholeheartedly hope that we won’t be wasting a single minute in Copenhagen by nitpicking again about the Sherpa method. Firstly, the method was completely legitimate and it was a wonderful option to get the EU out of its shitty condition, though it is only tolerable for last resort and not to be repeated anymore in the future. Secondly, all this happened in the past! The political momentum is entirely different now and we must look to the future if we still want to call ourselves “a generation ahead”. After (or even together with) our campaign for the Reform Treaty, we focus on the 2009 EP elections, and it’s then up to the following Congress to make a first priority again of our basic demand for a new and fully democratic Convention that elaborates a federal Constitution, provided (!) that we would have succeed in getting the RT ratified of course. Otherwise, if we fail, we will be stuck in an even greater mess with the only result that we will see our Constitutional dream postponed again.

Now, let’s talk about the content please. We notice that the Reform Treaty is far from “falling short of the Constitution” or a “far cry from what we as federalists could have expected”, as it is almost precisely the same as the Constitution (about 90%). We campaigned for the Constitution and we will thus do exactly the same for the Reform Treaty.

Its only negative points are:
- no more “constitutional nature” or other state-like symbols
- opt-outs (opt-ins) for the UK (perhaps also Poland) and some delays in the implementation

And that’s about it. Come on, how can one possibly keep lamenting about mere cosmetic changes and minor shortcomings? These are not vital AT ALL for the future functioning of the EU.

On the contrary, in addition to the previous 5 arguments, I enlist here 5 new arguments as to why genuine federalists should automatically support this new Treaty. I’d say, don’t miss this opportunity to improve the transparency and democracy in the EU !!
- When the Council will be deciding on legislation it will meet in public (for the first time in history!)
- The treaty gives the European Parliament equal rights with the Council of Ministers in deciding on all parts of the EU budget, including the CAP
- A provision to enable a country to withdraw from the EU, which would finally wipe out the criticism that the EU is not legitimate enough as the people cannot choose whether to stay in or not
- 49 new (technical) topics to be decided by QMV in the future instead of unanimity, among them: humanitarian aid, the supervision and coordination of intellectual property rights protection and energy market liberalisation
- Strengthening the role of the national parliaments: 1) They get 8 weeks time to examine proposed legislation by the Commission, to better monitor JEF’s beloved principle of subsidiarity and 2) They get the explicit task of scrutinising the EU’s work in the area of freedom, security and justice

It would almost sound absurd if JEFers don’t jump for joy because of all this, wouldn’t it? My source is by the way a communication from the European Movement… at least one organisation that is already doing its utmost for the European cause.

If we don’t campaign for the Reform Treaty on all levels, we miss out a gigantic opportunity to improve the EU and explain it to the citizens, we will miss out a fresh, clear, rational and federalist strategy to rally all members of our organisation behind and recruit new members at the same time, and we will miss out a chance to manifest ourselves as reliable European frontrunners. We will feel deeply ashamed when we don’t campaign with all our strength and the Reform Treaty would be voted down somewhere, causing a new and unpredictable crisis.

If we do campaign for the Reform Treaty on all levels, we do exactly our duty, we do what federalists are expected to do, namely defending the gradual evolution and integration of the EU. It will most probably help us to solve part of the financial problem and gain new funds, as the European institutions will have an advantage in us communicating the RT to the public and campaigning for it in some of the delicate countries. I expect the EB of JEF-Europe to send out positive press-releases, to build-up a campaign website and to partly support some of the sections that are willing to travel abroad for the sake of promoting the RT. National sections are strongly invited to organise as many activities as possible concerning the Reform Treaty, which will bring in new members. And as soon as the 2009 EP elections are approaching, we link our campaign to further specific federalist demands in specific policy fields among MEPs and motivate the people on the street to go voting!! Our brand-new guiding principle being that: Convincing the citizens of the importance of the reformed EU will convince them to go voting in 2009 !!!

Any comments on these suggestions would be highly appreciated…
Many thanks in advance!
Yours,
Philippe

Thank you for sharing this message. Obviously there went a lot of praiseworthy work in it, however, I am unable to hide my disappointment because of the lack of federalist principles and the staggering negligence of the citizen. This resolution rather creates an image of JEF as an ideological talking machinery that lost its roots with the real world.

1) The message is too demagogic.
- I don’t know exactly with which criteria you are counting but as far as I know we had not 3 but just 1 clear constitutional project.
- The argument “pacta sunt servanda” is totally out of order as there has not been any treaty that came into force yet – how could it then possibly have been violated? We do not want governments to be able to conclude binding international treaties without parliamentary back-up at home, do we?
I thus reverse the argument by saying that governments would have violated the “pacta sunt servanda” principle AND basic democratic standards if they had NOT abandoned the constitutional project, just because it has been directly rejected by the people of two principal countries and just because the Rome Treaties oblige ALL Member States to ratify modifications at home.
- The proposal of Sarkozy to convoke a “wise people’s committee” to reflect on the future of the EU has nothing to do with the level of democracy in the EU. Firstly, why making such a fuss over it as it has only been a proposal so far? Secondly, this committee would be merely consultative and would not have any binding power whatsoever. Moreover, it is nowadays trendy in the UN to convoke High-Level Panels and these proof to be very useful since they allow parliamentarians to pick up new concepts and creative ideas.

2) On the Reform Treaty.
How can you ever expect the Reform Treaty to solve all structural deficits if even the Constitution didn’t do much more? The point is that the Reform Treaty offers a step forward, which means that federalists automatically support it. According to my simple understanding of federalism, all people who do not advocate NOR act in the benefit of the gradual development of the EU can not call themselves genuine federalists anymore.

3) Why we need to campaign for the Reform Treaty.
- Because, like you proposed, we badly need to relaunch the image and political message of JEF. It would be a mistake to aim solely on and wait for the 2009 Parliamentary elections. It would be completely wrong to just “invite” or “ask” parties for transnational lists and candidacies for the Commission, not because these goals are not noble, but because the return on investment or effective follow-up on our proposals might turn out to be very low. And it would be totally disastrous “to open a phase of discussion internal and external to JEF” as we need to stop talking and reach out to the citizens NOW.
- Promoting the Reform Treaty in the streets has the advantage that we have a very clear topic we can focus on, we speak to and interact with people (not only parties or politicians) and we reaffirm our federalist message to the world.
- It is the best way to get the spirit back to JEF and surpass the burnout or apathy that some members are coping with. We need a big campaign again in favour of supranational ideals to revive the organisation at all levels.
Plus, it is the only way to convince new members to join us for the European cause, something we will obviously not attain when we address only politicians and keep moaning about the method instead of shifting our attention to the substance and to what a reformed EU would mean for the citizen and the rest of the world.
- And the best argument is evidently that it is our duty to communicate Europe to the public, let alone to actively promote it. Campaigning for the Reform Treaty implies more activities regarding the EU all across the
continent: debates, lectures and pub-chats in universities, trips to the institutions, objectively explaining the Reform Treaty on websites for all who is interested, and especially campaigning on the streets in the countries where a positive outcome cannot be taken for granted.

I apologise for this long e-mail, but I hope to spark more reactions than last time…

Federalist greetings,
Philippe

Independence of judges in in Central and Eastern Europe-
http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/070430_en.asp

Discrimination of Romani job-seekers in Eastern Europe-
http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/070402_en.asp

etc.

this is exactly the same resolution:) last FC we did not officially submit this statute change as this can only be done at a Congress. But we felt it would be good to introduce it that early so that everyone has the chance to give their input – as there was not input given from anyone we have now officially submitted the statute change resolution.

Anyone can still submit amendments of course and I hope we will be able to find a version that everyone is happy with!

Best,
ASa

And I repeat, legitimacy does not come into this at all considering that neither the FC nor the EB need to accept the outcomes of the task force.

JEF is stagnating – from a membership, activity, financial – and looking at the number of candidates – also a motivation perspective.

A task force, lets be clear is an ad hoc group that is put in place in times of difficulty. It IS NOT a separate statory body, nor does it intend to conflict with the work of the EB/FC. It is there for a short period of time to carry out intensive work – so lets be perfectly clear – if this is to be a WG, it must be different from the normal FC WG. This will meet very regularly (monthly at least) and work to tight deadlines. It should analyse, provide research and recommendations to each of the above matters. It should NOT conflict or contradict the work of the FC. It will be up to the FC/EB to decide which recommendations of the TF to take forward.

So legitimacy is not really an issue here, since this work is simply advisory and since this is not a fixed statutory body.

Regarding the memebrship of this group, JEF veterans who have valuable experience should sit on this. I am assuming they know who they are!

My proposal is to divide the group into 3 subgroups. 1 to deal with communication and visibility 2. to deal with finance and development and the third – direction and vision. The 3 subgroups will meet alongside the full group meeting. It will be easier to categorise the work and split it in smaller groups for efficiency reasons, and then to report back to the full group what the subgroups have been doing.

Ok enough. its saturday night and im going out…..

So actually this resolution is saying – lets talk about Turkish accession once we achieve a Federal Europe. So we are putting the accent on the fact that deeper is necessary for wider to happen. Im not quite sure if that was the intention but its certainly what what it implies!

Im glad that this resolution aknowledges that with the current framework of the EU, we cannot accomodate Turkey and meet its needs. At the same time, Turkey is domestically not ready to join the EU.

I still think there is a better solution (one that will save Turkey waiting centuries) and that is to develop a ’special relationship’ with Turkey. I still need to be convinced that the government and people of Turkey wish to join the EU for political or cultural reasons or because they feel that they share out values. Turkey wants to join for economic advancements, and if thats the case, why not develop further trade and economic agreements, and in return for these special benefits, we ask Turkey to inforce human rights and democratic values.

There are other ways of brining economic advancement and political stability / human rights to Turkey – they dont have to join the EU for it to happen. What will we do with Iraq? She we ask them to join too so that they can become politically stable?

We have been promsing Turkey EU accession for decades; I think its time to stop it and offer them something concrete, something that wont take another 50 years to achieve. Preferential tratment with strings attached (to benefit Turkey, not us) NOW.