The Lisbon Treaty is receiving support from various quarters and this page is designed to act as an archive of support for the treaty. If you see anything suitable email them to the usual address here.
Financial Times, January 28th 2008
A modest and pragmatic response to enlargement
Sir,
We write in support of the Treaty of Lisbon, as it starts its passage through parliament. As former British ambassadors to the European Union, accustomed to defending and promoting Britain's interests in the EU for more than three decades between us, we believe that this Treaty will benefit both the UK and the EU.
The enlargement of the EU from six members at the outset to 27 members today is a sign of its success. New member states have brought fresh ideas, opportunities and markets to the EU. Britain has gained from enlargement: the new member-states support many of the reforms we have long sought. Furthermore, the emerging markets of eastern Europe have provided new economic opportunities for British business.
In order to maintain its relevance, any institution needs periodic internal reform. This is particularly the case for an organisation as complex as the EU. The sensible reforms in the Treaty should help the EU function more efficiently and effectively. We welcome the increase in the UK's voting weight by 45 per cent in the Council of Ministers, which should further enhance the UK's leading role in the EU. The modest moves to majority voting have, as in the past, to be considered in the light of British interests. In this case, the areas such as energy and development are ones where any votes are likely to support the British position in the Council; and in areas such as justice and home affairs the UK has the right to opt in or out of any action that the Council may decide.
The Treaty has generated a lot of sound and fury, but when judged objectively, it is a modest and pragmatic response to enlargement, allowing the EU to navigate its way out of the inwards-facing debate that has preoccupied it for too long.
Sir John Grant (UK Permanent Representative to the EU, 2003-2007)
Sir Stephen Wall (1995-2000)
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (1990-1995)
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (1985-1990)
Sir Michael Butler (1979-1985)
Sir Donald Maitland (1975-1979)
Sir Michael Palliser (1973-1975)
The Times, January 23rd 2008
The real consequences of the Lisbon Treaty
Sir, Bill Cash et al (letter, Jan 21) are guilty of a series of distortions and untruths about the Lisbon treaty. First, contrary to their claims, the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not increase (or diminish) the rights of workers to strike — the charter itself states that this is up to national legislation, a point that is reaffirmed by a legally binding protocol stating that the charter does not create any new rights in British law.
With regard to their allegation that the UK will lose control of its criminal justice system, the reality is that the UK retains the right to opt in or out of such decisions as it chooses.
Finally, the merger of the two existing EU external relations posts will not give the new high representative any new powers. EU foreign policy will remain intergovernmental and the high representative will be able to speak for the EU on policy only where every country, including Britain, agrees.
Bill Cash et al describe the Lisbon treaty as a “fundamental threat to the livelihoods, business and government of the British people”. This reminds us of similar claims made by John Redwood that ratifying the Amsterdam Treaty would “abolish” Britain. Such claims are as absurd now as they were then.
Gary Titley, Mep
Leader of the European Parliamentary Labour Party
Richard Corbett, Mep
Labour Spokesman on the Lisbon treaty in the European Parliament
Michael Cashman, Mep
Labour Spokesman on Justice and Home Affairs in the European Parliament
Richard Howitt, Mep
Labour Spokesman on Foreign Affairs in the European Parliament
Sir,
The letter from Bill Cash et all would be far more convincing if it were signed by, say, 20 or more chief executives of the leading companies in this country. Similarly, Lord Rees-Mogg's views (Comment , Jan 21) would carry more weight if he were acquainted with the economics of business and our dependence on trade with the European nations. The real people qualified to judge its long-term benefits or otherwise are those who trade with the EU members.
T. J. Pert
Tonbridge, Kent
Sir,
William Rees-Mogg accuses the Government of being undemocratic in refusing us a referendum, and as usual he seems to believe that all the voters want one. Not so. I have yet to find a significant number of people, other than the usual suspects, who want a referendum, and many people, like me, are quite happy that the Government has referred the constitution to Parliament, which is the real home of democracy in this country. At least we stand a fair chance that the people we have elected will understand the issues involved and vote accordingly, whereas referendums are, ironically, a doubtful substitute for democracy designed by those despised Europeans.
The Rev Canon Tony Neal
Camborne, Cornwall
Daily Telegraph 21 January 2008
The EU is good for Britain
Sir,
Today's start of the second reading of the Bill to ratify the EU Reform Treaty opens a debate that will highlight Britain's relationship with Europe. The business community should not be silent.
Thousands of British companies do business with the rest of Europe. Over half of our trade is with the continent. Many British businesses have benefited from the free movement of labour.
Following enlargement, the single market is now the largest in the world. Britain's attractiveness as a place to do business is multiplied by its access to this market. Our business environment and economy benefit enormously from our position in the EU.
But, as business leaders, we believe that this instinctive pro-Europe approach should be complemented by a drive for further economic reform and for an effective single market, entailing a level playing field for all companies. We believe that the optimal approach is constructive engagement.
Sometimes it is necessary to be critical of what the EU says and does. But this should be done in the context of overall support for Britain enjoying a positive relationship with the EU.
Roland Rudd, Chairman, Business for New Europe, London EC2
Signing in a personal capacity:
Lord Browne (Managing Partner [Europe] of Riverstone Holdings)
Roger Carr (Chairman, Centrica)
Mervyn Davies (Chairman, Standard Chartered)
Niall FitzGerald (Chairman, Reuters)
Paul Skinner (Chairman, Rio Tinto)
Sir Martin Sorrell (Chief Executive, WPP)
Peter Sutherland (Chairman, BP)
Willie Walsh (Chief Executive Officer, British Airways)
Bob Wigley (Chairman - Europe, Middle East & Africa, Merrill Lynch)
Lord Aldington (Chairman, Deutsche Bank AG London)
Lord Brittan (Vice-Chairman, UBS)
Alberto Calderon (Group Executive and Chief Commercial Officer, BHP Billiton)
Russell Chambers (Chief Executive - UK and Ireland, Credit Suisse)
Sir Ronald Cohen (Chairman, Bridge Ventures and Co-Founder, Apax Partners)
Guy Dawson (Founding Partner, Tricorn Partners)
Vernon Ellis (Senior Adviser, Accenture)
Richard Gnodde (Co-Chief Executive Officer, Goldman Sachs International)
Sir Philip Hampton (Chairman, Sainsbury)
Stephen Hester (Chief Executive, British Land)
Lady Barbara Judge (Chairman, UKAEA)
Paul Marshall (Chairman, Marshall Wace Asset)
Andrew Moss (Chief Executive, Aviva)
Dominic Murphy (Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co Ltd)
Vijay Patel (Chief Executive, Waymade Healthcare)
Stuart Popham (Senior Partner, Clifford Chance)
Kieran Poynter (Chairman, PricewaterhouseCoopers)
Sir Michael Rake (Chairman, BT Group)
Sir Nigel Rudd (Chairman, BAA)
Bryan Sanderson (Chairman, Northern Rock)
Lord Simon (Deputy Chairman, Unilever)
Bill Thomas (President - Europe, Middle East & Africa, EDS)
Rosemary Thorne (Non-Executive Director Abbey National)
Philippe Varin (Chief Executive, Corus)
Bill Winters (Co-Chief Executive, JP Morgan)
