It's that big old word again: sovereignty. It seems to be a vexed question everywhere, not just in the EU, though it takes on a particular form here.

Is the EU a sovereign entity? or simply the outcome of treaties concluded between sovereign entities?

I don't know the answer, properly, and nor do I think many people even care to make the distinction. Those who call for more direct democratic input the formation and governance of the EU have to face up to the fact that by doing so, they will be embodying the EU with some kind of sovereign right. The only defensible position for a Eurosceptic is to fight against referenda and plebiscites, holding that any treaties signed by the government of a state are done so in full power of being able to sign such a treaty.

For these people, the only way out of any treaty is to claim that the excutive cannot possibly sign to recognise 'a power higher than itself'. I have a book called 'Treason at Maastricht', where some British eurosceptics attempt to do just that.

Personally, I don't know where I stand on this. For me, the EU is a positive thing, and needs to continue on, with Britain being a full member. I used to think that the 'superstate' idea was the ideal goal for this, but not long ago I was reading something by Habermas and various other writers, and now I'm not too sure.

Member of the Anti-Fabulousness League since 1987.