Polar Regions

Following some of the BBC's regular blog contributors can sometimes be a fascinating journey but it can also become very tedious to watch certain contributors descending into rants and raves in defence of strongly held positions. All strength to the arm of those willing to defend their corner and come out fighting but a pox on the houses of those who attempt to do so by simply flailing blindly about in the wind. They will be decked by the first well aimed blow but sadly many will not have the sense to stay down.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Mark Mardell's Europe Blog. Almost every thread, however remote the connection, seems to end up being about Britain's role in the EU, the Lisbon treaty and the whole question of whether the European Union is worthy of pursuit or, in the elegant phraseology of one poster, a crock of shit (how did that get by the mods?). It matters not how hot under the collar any of us gets, none of us - except the Irish - will have a direct say on whether or not Lisbon goes forward. Yet, somehow the whole question of the rights and wrongs of Lisbon have morphed into the general European debate I mentioned before. There are more questions than answers. Firstly, is the Treaty so radically different - some would say watered down - from the original proposed constitution as to not to be a constitution at all? That you can judge for yourselves. The Original draft constitution is HERE and the text of Lisbon HERE. Perhaps more important at this stage of the game is whether the differences are significant enough for 26 of the 27 to back away from the referendum undertaking (as Prodi seems to think)or if it is simply a subterfuge to avoid a vote and is effectively the same document (as Giscard d'Estaing suggests).

The implications of this question are serious. If the politicians are right, then we bloggers from both sides of the argument have allowed ourselves to be be wound up into a full blooded debate over something we cannot influence. But if the original architects of the project are right, then one would have to infer that there has been a conspiracy amongst the collective leadership to circumvent the democratic process and that would be a very serious matter indeed. Whatever the answer, the debate has changed character. What began as a case of 'the devil being in the detail' has become a debate about the credibility of the current EU leadership. Subtle skirmishes on the fringes have become trench warfare and posters are heading for the trenches leaving vast areas of no mans land wherein this debate should be taking place if it is to have any real meaning.

So is this really a great moral issue, a major turning point, a 'make or break' moment? Or is it simply another staging post on the way forward? Do we go on or do we turn back - because one thing is for sure, we cannot just stand there waiting for something to happen?

What do you think?