September 01, 2007 ... No need for the distraction of an EU treaty referendum.

To be simply belligerent there is no possible problem with the proposed EU treaty from any EU member-state’s point of view. This is simply because no matter what the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules, or how grand the title and responsibilities conferred to whomever the Supreme European Magnificence may be (SEM), there is no centralised army or police force empowered to enforce by way of coercion a member state to do what it does not want to do. Which was amply demonstrated during the recent Balkan conflicts when robust American intervention prevented the EU’s social and economic fabric from being seriously undermined because of interminable squabbling by EU members, in lieu of proper action.

Beyond the contentious guff of this treaty-cum-constitution, the real issue which must be debated is what is the purpose of government. It is generally understood that the purpose of government is to secure our rights. But because what our rights are and how they may be secured is contingent upon that which is good for the political class-cum-élte, we have ended up with government as an end in itself, and its purpose so mired in the conflicting and competing interests of government and self-organising networks that we have next to no security in the face of international conflicts and terrorism, and we have barely any rights worth fighting for.

As for centring a referendum on whether or not the UK including Northern Ireland should leave the EU or should seek to have only a limited role in the EU, this is akin to an own goal. Yes, it would be economically and socially viable to draw a 100 mile circle from central London, call this newly defined area New Albion, for example, and abandon the rest of the UK to its destiny. But that would be too Alex--the next king of Scotia--Salmond, and the EU in the world of 2007, and beyond, needs no more quasi autonomous micro-states like Monaco or San Marino.

At this juncture the EU is desperately in need of a purpose, which the revised treaty-cum-constitution will not provide, beyond creating a layer of formalised bureaucracy which would align the EU as a recognised entity within international law and its institutions, such as the UN. Hardly a grand ambition.

More usefully, the EU should progress towards being a continental wide entity in which the law is harmonised within the context of one’s right to life and one’s property including one’s physical and intellectual expressions, and secured by a central government limited to defending these fundamental rights and forbidden, by a constitution, from contriving rights which only serve to justify government.

If the more market orientated UK including Northern Ireland desired a better EU, this would be a better approach than hunkering down behind the Thames barrier and figuring that the future is best met within the context of the EU and not exclusively by way of a very moot special relationship with the Americans, who have enough to be getting on with.

In the meantime, and in lieu of yet more need for American intervention, there is Darfur to consider.

If the EU was remotely serious about this problem it could do a lot and with minimal intervention by way of the UN or the commitment of further EU tax monies.

1. Barr any EU business and banking activities to the Sudanese in the same way as the Americans can seem to easily do.

2. Indict, by way of an international arrest warrant, the Sudanese military and government leadership to be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

3. Encourage EU athletes to withdraw from the 2008 Olympic games in Beijing. And request a boycott of the same games by EU broadcasters, since China's leadership is too much in support of Sudan's

4. Destroy the Sudanese air force in the same way as France’s President Jacques Chirac swiftly did when nine French UN soldiers were killed in the Côte d'Ivoire conflict, presided over by President Laurent Gbagbo.

5. Instigate an EU wide petition to be signed by Muslims residing in the EU as a condemnation of the Islamic regime currently in charge of Sudan. This would be worthwhile in itself, and would also serve to ascertain the allegiance of Muslims residing in the EU.