Apropos of not a lot, now that the Treaty of Lisbon’s all over, what was being said when the similarly disputed and unsatisfactory Treaty of Nice was finally passed back in 2001?
From The Economist, Vol. 360, Issue 8232 (28th July 2001):
Nice is complex and difficult to understand; in future, the EU must do better in explaining its workings to a European public that seems to be simultaneously bored and irritated by the Union.
Sound familiar?
November 5th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Nosemonkey,
Even if the Lisbon Treaty lost some compared to the Constitutional Treaty, the amended Treaty on European Union is a fairly clear outline of what the EU is about, as far as you can say that of any legal texts. (Britain did some damage to the clarity by insisting on putting the foreign, security and defence policy Articles into the TEU, though, instead of with the rest of external relations in the TFEU.)
But naturally the policies and activities of the European Union are much more than the improved basic legal texts.
I just wonder how anyone can explain the working of the EU in a country where the most sold newspapers routinely report news (not comment even) in terms like “the hated EU treaty” etc.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Once another stage of reforms roll into motion, today’s Lisbon treaty opponents are tomorrow’s defenders.