EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION
Tom Paine, eighteenth century firebrand, revolutionary
and political philosopher: "A
Constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a
government … and government has no right to make itself a party in any debate
respecting the principles or modes of forming, or of changing,
constitutions"
GORDON
BROWN is doomed to inherit not a poisoned but an empty chalice,
drained of all power. When Tony Blair finally passes control of the Labour Party
to his Chancellor he will not be passing on control of
The
German security services said yesterday that more
letter bombs are probably on their way to senior EU figures. In an internal
document reported by German daily Die Welt, the German security services say
that a "series of pre-prepared letters" is to be feared. The German
police added that "further letter bombs are already in the postal system or
have recently been given to the postal service". Especially high vigilance
will have to be maintained at the beginning of next week when the European
Parliament holds its session in
Article
59, the so-called "Exit clause",
contains an intolerable
violation of the very foundation-stone of our own constitution and
of our democracy itself: it seeks to constrain the right of unilateral withdrawal
by imposing a two-year waiting period on
the withdrawalist state. This
imposition would mean that the Parliament that passes an Act of ratification
of this provision is seeking to bind future Parliaments. Will
it succeed in so binding them? Well
the first question here is whether those who will make up the next Parliament
will allow themselves to be mesmerised into letting themselves be
so bound? Or will they robustly
declare, on taking office, that in
IGC
delegate Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, who leads the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said, "The French people and government have
always been and are today at the side of the Iraqi people.
While
the sudden collapse of the Constitution
talks in
“Someone
said the best way to destroy the EU would be to let
The present draft is
grandiose, imprecise and long. It is proscriptive
rather than enabling. It includes
law, instead of creating a framework
for law-making. It offers no effective checks and balances to control
the law-makers. Instead, it consolidates
power in a shadowy, self-perpetuating
political elite. And, since many
Europeans believe the State exists in its own right and the people
answer to it, the proposed constitution attempts to include everything,
and thereby implicitly forbids everything
else. Here in
The
latest version, (proposed EU Constitution)
released in advance of a tough bargaining
session in
Who
is doing what over the proposed EU Constitution
· HOLDING A REFERENDUM - seven countries Czech Republic,
British
diplomats have appealed to
THOUSANDS of women could be banned from aborting
severely disabled babies as a result of a legal challenge by anti-abortion
groups using a little-noticed
clause in the proposed European constitution. The
groups plan to use a passage that
prohibits countries from “eugenic practices” to get a legal ban on the
screening of babies for genetic deformities or diseases. Each
year in
President
Vaclav Klaus of the
The
Constitution will: * Force us to give up
our British veto in 30 additional areas (or more, depending how you count them).
* Reduce our voting weight to below 10% of the EU -- and, for the first time,
below
Ahead of the European Council summit in
The
European Union's draft constitution
proposes radical reforms of the EU's institutions - more sweeping than those
in the Single European Act and the
In
the book
New Britain,
My
Vision Of
A Young
Country by
Tony Blair
(ISBN 1
- 85702
- 436
- 2
) published
by Fourth
Estate Ltd, he
writes on
page 70
the following,
which may
be helpful
in persuading
the Government
to hold
a referendum
on the
new Constitution
for the
EU:- "We
have led
calls to
reform the
CAP and
the institutions
of Europe.
Of course, if
there are
further steps
to integration,
the people
should have
their say,
at a
general election
or in a
referendum." (e-mail
Alan Wood
14 Jun
2003)
UKIP
challenged the government’s assertion that the devolved assemblies would
‘bring government closer to the people’. UKIP said that it would actually
achieve the opposite, with a tier of local government being removed, while Assembly
members would represent twice as many constituents as MPs. With assemblies
set to comprise a maximum of 35 elected members, that would mean one member for
every 192,278 people in the
The
biggest winner
(from the Constitution) is probably
the European
Commission, which
gets general
executive and
enforcement powers.
The EU's
new foreign
minister will
be a
member of
the Commission.
The commission
president will
be elected
by the
European Parliament.
In fact,
the EU
will be
top-heavy
with presidents,
all trying
to out-president
each other.
A late
change last
week brought
in another
one: the
euro zone
countries are
to elect
their own
president to
represent them.
This Europe
of Presidents
will do
nothing to
bring the
EU closer
to its
citizens. The
truth is
that the
European Constitution
founds a
new union,
with a
single unified
structure and
legal personality.
The existing
structure, which
secures the
rights of
member states
to make
their own
decisions and
collective arrangements
about foreign
policy and
criminal justice
matters, will
disappear. The
EU
will have
"exclusive competence"
over trade,
competition rules,
common commercial
policy, fisheries
conservation and
the signing
of all
international agreements.
Most
other policy
areas will
be "shared",
including transport,
energy, social
policy, the
environment, consumer
protection, criminal
justice and
policing, and
"economic, social
and territorial
cohesion". "Shared"
is defined
to mean
that, when
the EU
decides to
legislate in
these areas,
member states
are forbidden
to. The
EU's proposed
criminal justice
powers are
particularly striking
because they
allow for
harmonisation of
national laws
and procedures
by majority
voting. This
obviously goes
to the
heart of
domestic policy,
particularly for
a country
such as
Britain with
a distinctive
common law
tradition, including
jury trials,
habeas corpus
and rules
of evidence
that differ
from those
in most
other EU
countries. Government
promises are
being overturned.
When the
Charter of
Fundamental Rights
was agreed
by the
Government in
2000, the
Prime Minister
assured the
Commons that
it was
a political
document only,
and there
was no
question of
it being
made legally
binding. It
is now
included as
Part Two
of the
Constitution, fully
legally binding
under the
European Court
of Justice.
The Government
is now
trying to
ensure the
charter is
applied more
sparingly by
insisting "due
regard" be
given to
some accompanying
"explanations". Other
convention members
were open
in their
view that
this was
a contrivance
to help
the Government
through its
embarrassing U-turn
at home.
Foreign
policy, which
is at
present decided
between national
governments, will
change completely.
The new
foreign minister
will "conduct
the
Mr Letwin said: "The latest draft of the
new European constitution gives the EU a wide range of new powers to control
criminal law in
Britain
is ready to give up its permanent seat in the European Commission's decision
making "inner cabinet"
as part of a deal on the new EU constitution struck in Brussels yesterday.
The pay-off for
President Giscard d'Estaing, in a meeting to national parliamentarians,
has just revealed that the new EU Constitution will contain a self-amending
"ever closer union" mechanism.
President Giscard announced that elements which are preserved for
unanimity by bargaining ministers at
the intergovernmental conference, could STILL
become QMV at a later stage. "This
would happen without the need for any referendum, or even it would
seem a debate in the Commons," warned David Heathcoat-Amory, MP.
"If this is indeed in the new
draft, it is a dangerous denial of democracy."
The decision to shift to QMV would require a decision through unanimity
in the Council. However, given that
the Constitution would expressly authorise such
a development, there would be constant pressure in the years to come
to trigger it. To resist, member states would inevitably have to give
ground elsewhere in order to appear "good Europeans".
"It is a federalist clause.
The Government must veto it," added Mr
Heathcoat-Amory. (Conservative Party Release Date:
The constitutional
draft is a smokescreen which is being treated as if it was poisonous gas. But,
when the smokescreen drifts away, there will be revealed a bloody great tank
with its gun pointed straight at us. However, the simplistic level at which the
debate is being conducted is also of concern. The discussion, in concentrating
on what is happening to the constitutinal draft, fails to recognise that there
are at least four models on "offer" of what the EU should be. There is
not "one" EU but versions of four
different models in operation. The
first is definitely a Germanic model, proposed by Schroder/Fischer under
pressure from the Lander - and Stoiber in particular - which is based on the
supranational model but seeks to define and constrain the powers of the
Commission, to preserve the powers of the Lander (without concern for the
federal government). This supranational model appears similar to that proposed
by Prodi, the difference with his being that it seeks to extend the powers of
the Commission, giving it greater authority and control over all levels of
subordinate government - the nation states, regions, etc. This is the closest
approximation to the original Monnet
models. Then there are two "intergovernmental" models. The first
is the "association of nation states",
each state of equal status, working in harmony and co-operation, so loved by
Blair and Ancram (there is not a fag-paper between the positions). The second is
the "directoire", model
favoured by Chirac, which has the EU run on an intergovernmental basis but by an
inner caucus of powerful nations, with the Commission subservient on matters of
high policy, acting as a civil service under the control of the directoire. At
the moment we have an uneasy amalgam of all four models, and the "inner
circle" debate is about which of the four models is to dominate. In fact,
the end result will be a fudge - it always is - with bits of all four models
making gains, all at the expense of the powers of the nation state. The problem
for us is that the outcome will be sold as the "association of nation
states" model, which is as dangerous as the others in its own way, as it so
easily falls into the "directoire" mode. But any developments in this
area will be hailed as a "great victory" by Blair. On the basis of
"know thine enemy", we need to understand more of what his game is,
and focus our attacks on the tank rather than the smokescreen in front of it,
which will disperse in due course. (Dr R E North
For
the real federalists, indeed, the constitution is disappointing
because it does not go far enough, and they mutter darkly that things cannot be
good if the British government supports the constitution. Therefore Nicolas
Meyer-Landrut, the spokesman for the presidium, boasted on Tuesday that co-decision, the legislative procedure which gives the European
Parliament a veto on new EU laws, is now the norm in the EU’s lawmaking
process. From 34 policy areas today, extended to 40 by the Treaty of Nice, he
said that co-decision would henceforth apply to 70 policy areas. By the same
token, the number of policy areas decided by majority voting in the Council of
Ministers would, he said, rise by twenty. Moreover, the new voting rules in the
Council represented “an important extension of the communautaire (i.e.
federalist) method” because they reflected population weighting more
faithfully than before. He said this because the presidium is often accused (see
above) of favouring an inter-governmental approach instead. New domains to which
majority voting and co-decision apply include the attribution of structural
funds, the common agricultural policy, border controls, police cooperation and
immigration & asylum policy. Tax policy is exempt from this rule (except for
the fight against financial fraud) as are family policy and foreign policy
(except for executive decisions). Finally, it is worth noting that the
Constitution does essentially nothing to simplify the arcane procedures of the
EU: the arguments are all essentially of the same type as we have had for
more than ten years. They concern which policy areas should be transferred to
The
Adam Smith Centre in Warsaw
has
issued a long report about the way in which the
debate is being conducted in
Peter
Hain, the Cabinet minister on the convention, said that talk of
a Brussels-run federal superstate was a
"myth" it was simply a “Tidying-up exercise.” He then said
there were important battles still to fight and tough negotiations to protect
The Charter is a very
different animal from the European Convention of
Human Rights, signed in 1950, and now covering 45 countries. Its
purpose is to create a series of
far-reaching economic and social rights, most alien
to the British tradition, that do not exist in EU-wide law at the
moment. The Tories and the
Confederation of British Industry both gave warning at
the time that it was a case of the "one-size-fits-all" impulse
running wild. It risked setting
off an avalanche of litigation, opening the way for
Euro-judges to impose Franco-German corporatism on
Britain's prospects of influencing Europe's future constitution appeared to recede yesterday, as hundreds of amendments flooded in to the draft text put forward by former French president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. The broad thrust of about 1,500 amendments was to maintain the European Union's centralising push, with calls to preserve references to "an ever closer Union", promote the "European social model" and work towards common defence. Not so widely shared, however, were concerns expressed by Peter Hain, the UK representative, over the use of the word "federal", the primacy of the EU over national law and the EU's "exclusive competence" over the free circulation of people and capital. Mr Hain has objected to almost every one of the first 16 articles put forward by Mr Giscard d'Estaing, the chairman of the convention drafting the constitution, together with the body's governing praesidium. The strong tide of opinion in a more federalist direction is amarked contrast with earlier assurances that the debate in the 105-member convention was moving in Britain's direction. The amendments appear not to share Mr Hain's reservations over proposals to include the EU's charter of fundamental rights in the new constitution and to give the EU legal personality. Many members call for explicit reference to the symbols of the EU - such as its flag, anthem, currency and public holidays, many of which are seen by UK politicians as having the trappings of statehood. (Financial Times February 20 2003)
Sir John Kerr, a senior British civil servant working in Brussels on the "Constitutional Convention", to Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish MEP who sits on the Convention (private telephone conversation): "It would set a very bad precedent if members of the Convention were able to table proposals". (The Convention has systematically ignored submissions from sceptics -- and the so-called "Praesidium" of the Convention has consistently ignored the views of the Convention as a whole!). (Roger Helmer's electronic newsletter from Brussels February 2003 )
The reference to an 'ever closer union' is to be dropped from the draft constitution on a future Europe. (EUobserver.com 06.02.2003)
Far from being a new initiative, the idea of a convention to establish a constitution stemmed from Spinelli who, back in 1941, had written in his Ventotene Manifesto: Their crowning dream is a constituent assembly, elected by the broadest suffrage, which scrupulously respects the rights of the electors, who must decide upon the constitution they want. Spinelli's concept was a convention based on the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which would complete the process of forming a European federation. Although he had taken little direct part in the formation of the EEC, from 1976 to 1986 he had been a member of the European Parliament, becoming president of its institutional committee in 1984. From that base, he resumed his campaign to introduce a constitution, promoting in the now directly elected European Parliament a draft treaty establishing the European Union, with its own constitution. This had been blocked and shelved by the national governments, which in 1985 had passed the less ambitious Single European Act. Yet, in 2002, here it was again - the same agenda. Thus, the convention was not a response to the concerns of European "citizens", or anything to do with reform. What the European Union was doing typified its whole approach to the integration process. Under the guise of "reform", it was exploiting the convention, in order to implement a strategy devised by Spinelli sixty years earlier. Heathcoat-Amory had perceived something of the truth. But it was more than merely defending the existing institutions. The constitution is the "endgame", the last major piece needed to complete the "project" - Spinelli's dream of a fully-fledged European Federation. The "reform" was a sham, nothing more than an excuse to pursue a pre-existing agenda. (7/2/03 The Constitutional Convention - extract; Dr. Richard North UKIP Research)
Former Europe Minister Peter Hain attacked the first draft of the proposed new European Constitution. Peter Hain complained that the body chairing the Convention - the Praesidium - had ignored the wishes of the rest of the Convention. He said, "This does not reflect the discussions that have been going on - the Praesidium has a lot of explaining to do." "The word federal means different things to different people and it has to be clear: this speaks of federal powers within a constitution but we say the member states are the key building blocks and there must be no question of a federal superstate being erected. On one reading of this draft we can agree with it - but on another reading we could not." Given that Labour MP Gisela Stuart is part of the Praesidium group which produced the draft, and John Kerr, Head of the Diplomatic Service until last year, is Secretary General of the Convention, Hain's comments either reflect a failure of the Government to control the content of the draft or a total breakdown in communications between different bits of the Government. It is not really credible for the Government to try to say that it doesn't understand how the treaty is meant to be understood. The Convention and the Constitution are increasingly looking like an embarrassment for the Government. The draft proposals are a long way from Tony Blair's original claim that the Convention would only focus on defining the division of competences between the EU and the member states and that "Some powers could be taken back" (FT, 12 December, 2000) ("No" bulletin 13/2/03)
The European state constitution will be organised on a "federal basis", says Article 1. But there is no clear division of powers between the participating states and the federal level. The proposed construction is in reality more akin to a unitary state like France. There will still be a lot of rudiments left over from the period of nation states, particularly different representation in the United Nations, just as the Soviet Union for many years had different representatives for some of the participating Soviet states. But there is only one answer to the crucial question: "Who decides if there is a disagreement between a participating member state and the federation? The answer is in all questions: The federation. THE EUROPEAN FEDERATION DECIDES Even a regulation decided by some civil servants behind closed doors late at night will prevail over all national constitutions in the EU and can never be amended by any of the previous European peoples on their own. At a later date there may be a possibility allowed for of leaving the new European state, but the first 15 articles do not even contain the federal principle of division of powers between the two levels of government. AN HISTORIC HALLO TO THE EUROPEAN SUPERSTATE The important sentence is Article 9: "The Constitution and law adopted by the Union Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it by the Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the Member States." Read it once more: This sentence marks the historic good-bye to the European nation state and the Hallo to the European super-state. Any conflict between the two levels of government has to accept the primacy of community law. The EU Court may decide that the legislative bodies in Brussels have taken a decision against the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. But there is no Constitutional Court in Germany or High Court in Denmark that will be allowed to rule against the primacy of EU law. AN EU MORE CENTRALISED THAN THE USA The draft EU constitution is more centralised than the constitution of the United States. In the EU there shall also be mixed competences for foreign policy and defence, Justice and Home Affairs, social policy and Labour law, energy and - public health. In Denmark public health lies with the regions. Now the EU will be able to make laws that prevail over any decision by a region or a nation state. For the nation states the draft EU Constitution allows national legislation for employment, industry, education, vocational training and youth, culture, sport and protection against disasters. NOTHING IS HIDDEN But even here every national decision has to respect the common horizontal fundamental principles. There is to be no national "discrimination," which means that the federal level will decide on the number of foreign players in the previous national football teams. We may increase employment, but not through our own economic policy, since this also is to be coordinated in common. We may protect ourselves against disasters, but the health system will be a matter for private enterprise in the common market under the primacy of EU law. We will be provinces, without a democratic say, if we accept this draft constitution. (JENS-PETER BONDE MEP: Danish member of the European Parliament 7/2/03)
The Franco-German compromise on the future institutional balance in the EU has sparked mixed reactions throughout the EU. The agreement calls for two presidents. A European parliament-elected commission president and a council president, elected by member state governments, for a two and half or five year term. While the UK, Spain and Denmark come out in favour of the plan, a number of smaller countries, including Greece, holder of the presidency, have been more critical. (EUobserver.com 16.01.2003)
The working group on "freedom, security, and justice" in the Convention on the future of Europe is proposing that "emergency actions" in the field of police and judicial cooperation (Eurojust, europol etc) should be allowable using article 308 of the Treaty on the European Community. This is the text of article 308, which the Commission wants to use to widen to all EU areas (not just the "common market") : "If action by the Community should prove necessary to attain, in the course of the operation of the common market, one of the objectives of the Community and this Treaty has not provided the necessary powers, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, take the appropriate measures" (Posting by Idris Francis 1 Jan 2003)
Exit Clause. At the present moment, no one Parliament can bind another. This means that any incoming Government can issue a two-line bill repealing the European Communities Act (which locked us into the Treaty of Rome) in less than a day, provided our MPs vote of behalf of the people and not themselves, we would be out of the EU as all other treaties are amendments to the Treaty of Rome. Andrew Duff, Lib/Dem MEP, has asked the Convention to put an 'exit' clause into the constitution. His suggestion is that 75% of the Council of Ministers, 2/3rds of the European Parliament and a majority in every national parliament in the EU must agree before a member can leave. This is an ENTRAPMENT clause designed to prevent members leaving. People should remember this when they vote Lib/Dem in the next European Elections. (Save Our Sovereignty November 2002)
As the Convention on the Future of Europe nears its halfway stage, it is clear that the 105 "Founding Fathers" drafting a constitution are opting for a highly integrationist text that creates the governing machinery of a fully-fledged European state with superpower ambitions. Before Christmas, the foreign policy working group - chaired by Jean-Luc Dehaene, a former Belgian prime minister and ardent federalist - presented its final report, proposing a European Union "diplomatic service" with "EU embassies" backed by a "diplomatic academy". There should also be a "European External Representative", or Secretary of State, and "a single spokesman" at bodies such as the United Nations. The report called for "maximum use" of majority voting in foreign policy, with dissenting countries limited to "constructive abstention". When the draft text was shown to London's man on the Convention, the Welsh Secretary Peter Hain, he demanded that the term "EU diplomatic service" be removed. It was not. He also asked for "EU embassies" to be struck out in favour of the less loaded term "EU delegations". The authors denied him even this solace. Britain received the same contemptuous treatment in the defence group. Arguing that national defence is "no longer sufficient", the final report proposed a Euro-Pentagon commanded by a defence chief with a broad mandate to conduct worldwide military operations. The justice report upgraded Eurojust (an EU body of magistrates) into a Justice Department able to launch investigations into cross-border crimes, backed by a proto-FBI. David Heathcoat-Amory, the lone Tory MP on the Convention, said the survival of the English common law system was now in question. "What's happening is extremely alarming. The whole Convention is going off the rails," he said. He said the Government was fatally mistaken in thinking it could "rescue" the text during the final treaty talks next June. It is assumed in Brussels that Tony Blair will capitulate, but this may be a miscalculation. The hardline integrationists have forced the pace so much that it may now be difficult for Mr Blair to fend off Tory calls for a referendum. (The Telegraph A Evans-Pritchard in Brussels Filed: 28/12/2002)
Plans to create a network of European Union embassies, staffed by a new EU diplomatic corps, are winning wide support in the debate about Europe's future. The idea is part of a wider drive to give Europe a bigger presence on the world stage. Even Britain has indicated it could be prepared to second diplomats to Brussels to help an EU diplomatic service get off the ground. Such a development would allow the EU to provide consular services for member states which did not have their own embassies in some capital cities. Chris Patten, EU external relations commissioner, has indicated he could accept the plan, as long as it is made clear that EU embassies should not replace those of member states. (Financial Times 9/12/02)
"A FEW"...Now is such a time when a small number of individuals by their collective action can save the sovereignty of Britain, return the control of our laws to the people of this country by making the Queen and Parliament the only ultimate and unchallenged source of our laws. We intend to hold a national referendum before Parliament ratifies the proposed EU constitution. This action will be independent of the government and ask a simple, fair and non- ambiguous question. It will concerns itself with the preservation of our law, form of democratic representation and the limitation of the powers of Parliament as set out in Magna Carta, The Bill of Rights and related Acts along with the subsequential precedents which have been long established under common law. It would seek to re-establish the sovereignty and dignity of the individual. It would concern itself with the meaning of the oath of allegiance politicians swear prior to sitting in Parliament. In short it would require that our elected representatives represent us, the people, no other interests and take all such actions as are necessary to preserve our ancient freedoms and liberty. It would return to us the power to be masters of our fate - not to give control of our lives to some unelected foreign organization. (December 2002 http://www.afew.org.uk/ )
The outcome of the constitutional conference will be: a Constitution for a United Europe, or a United States of Europe. The very strong likelihood is that all members will have to use the Euro, just as all members of the USA have to use the dollar. We know that they view the opt-out from the currency as a *temporary*, regrettable variant on their original plan. No new entrants are to be allowed an opt-out from the Euro. The package offered to Britain will be "Take the Constitution (with the Euro inside it) or leave the EU". The polls say that a majority (clearly uninformed), or nearly, prefer to stay in the EU, so even if they had a referendum on this they would have a chance of winning it, or at least a better chance than with a referendum on the Euro alone. But there will not be any referendum, the govt have already told the DM in a letter that there will be no referendum on the Constitution, and the government have said this before even knowing what the Constitution will include. They have already said they will abrogate the existing Treaties - and they can do that without everybody's agreement under the Vienna convention. They have to destroy a constitution that has served a people well for centuries and it would be surprising if they managed to do that without any violence. (Comment by Torquil Dick-Erikson 22 Nov 2002)
European Commission President Romano Prodi wants to abolish the right of veto in EU decision making. He said the ability of one or other country to block key votes marked one of the "bleakest periods" in recent EU history. Successive British governments have insisted that the veto must remain to defend vital national interests if they are threatened under EU policy although Tony Blair has increasingly agreed to the vote of the majority in Euro affairs. Until now Mr Prodi has accepted the need to retain unanimous voting on issues of "constitutional importance". "If the veto has frequently brought paralysis with 15 member states, think what could happen with 25 or more - that is why I think majority voting should be the rule." Mr Prodi also called for more power for the Commission with a Commission president in future elected by a minimum two thirds majority of Euro MPs. He poured cold water on proposals to give more EU power to the member governments themselves by creating a "President" to oversee the work of national government ministers. The debate on the future of Europe is now centred on the rival power bids between the governments and the Commission. Mr Prodi questioned who would elect such a president and who the figurehead would be accountable to. (Ananova 5th December 2002)
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I hope that no one in Brussels is a reader of Hansard of your Lordships' House because the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Wilcox could result in our expulsion from the EU. Is he aware that the President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, not a working group, says that he identifies a clear consensus in the convention for the scrapping of national vetoes on tax and has issued this specific threat to countries such as ours which reject tax harmonisation: "We should say", that is, to countries such as ours, "... you can no longer be in this political system. That will be the consequence of refusal" (Hansard "early" October 2002)
A grassroots constitutional action in the Courts is being launched in Remembrance Week by "The Democratic Party Ltd" to challenge the legal authority of the Government in its intention to install an alien constitution in the United Kingdom, without the authority of the Electorate in a referendum. For thirty years a course has been pursued which has taken Britain into a supra national European Union under alien laws. The Government is now working towards a legally enforceable EU Constitution by 2004. All existing European treaties would fall away and, in effect, this will bring to an end our present constitutional settlement established over 800 years, placing the historic freedoms of our people in the greatest jeopardy since World War II. The Democratic Party's extensive research has confirmed that the situation is immensely serious and that this fact has been hidden from the people. The only solution now to this unprecedented constitutional crisis is to bring the whole issue into the open through an action in the Courts. Counsel's opinion has now been finalised in respect of the whole constitutional position in order to mount this legal challenge to maintain our Country with the freedoms, which are our birthright. The Democratic Party believes that a critical point is being reached in which the final take-over of Britain, a global trader, will happen unless action is taken now. Britain is losing its identity, way of life and freedom of choice. Successive governments have been negligent in the ceding of powers to unelected and unaccountable bodies. They have given away the powers that have preserved our liberties for 800 years. The Democratic Party states that these powers must be returned. Proposals are now being made that the EU Constitution have an "exit clause" under which Britain could be forced to stay in the European Union against the will of Parliament and the wishes of the British people! This would actually constitute an unlawful act. "The Democratic Party Ltd," a company limited by guarantee to ensure that profit is not made, is initiating the strategy for court action. The only reward will be a recovered freedom. Considerable additional funds are needed urgently to cover this crucial action. (Contact: GEOFF SOUTHALL -- Tel. 01684 891 700 Fax. 01684 891 600)
Neill Sharp, replying on behalf of the Foreign Office to a letter from the all-party Democracy Movement requesting to know whether there would be a referendum, confirmed there would not be. In his response Mr Sharp of the FCO's European Union Department said that 'an EU constitution will not fundamentally change the relationship between the EU and its citizens, nor alter the position of nation states as the fundamental basis of the European Union.' Using this as a justification for not holding a referendum he then went on to say: 'A new structured treaty … would need to be ratified according to the individual constitutional arrangements in each of the Member States. In the UK, the Government is committed to the existing system of parliamentary democracy, rather than public referenda.' This is grossly disingenuous. In its own contribution to proposals for the Convention on the Future of Europe the government has acceded to the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This extends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to such areas as consumer protection, social security payments, state housing and education. This is despite having said in 2000 that the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be incorporated into the EU treaties, and would be "no more legally binding than the Beano or the Sun". Also, under proposals put forward by both Valerie Giscard d'Estaing and the government recently, the EU constitution would give the Union a legal personality and would result in the member states losing their capacity to negotiate and sign international treaties. Finally, Article 52 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states that all personal and political freedoms can be restricted if "made necessary by objectives of general interest pursued by the Union". In other words the right to marry, to employment, to housing and to have children can be withdrawn by 'objectives of general interest pursued by the Union.' Hitler could not have worded it better! (Letter to Bill Wiggin MP 6/11/02)
The Government's proposals for the Convention on the Future of Europe were published this week. A draft Constitution for the EU, commissioned and partly funded by the Foreign Office, contains the proposals favoured by the British Government. Despite having said in 2000 that the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights would not be incorporated into the treaties, and would be "no more legally binding than the Beano or the Sun", the draft would incorporate the Charter into article 2 of the new treaty. ("No" Bulletin 18/10/02)
An important step in the progress towards a European Constitution took place on Thursday. Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the chairman of the Convention on the Future of Europe presented the outline of such a constitution to his colleagues in the Convention’s steering committee – or presidium. A short document consisting of just a few pages with some twenty chapter headings, it contained one very controversial point: Should EU member states fail to ratify this new constitution – by referendum or otherwise – then they will simply not be a part of the new system. They will be outside of the new Europe. (EUobserver.com 19.10.2002 )
Britain will propose the creation of a powerful new post of President of Europe today as the Government outlines its goals for a new governing treaty for the European Union. Some cabinet ministers believe that Tony Blair may seek the post himself if he decides to stand down as Prime Minister after the next general election. "Downing Street is taking a very close interest in this proposal," said a government source. The appointment of a figurehead to represent the EU on the world stage, originally floated by France, is gaining support across Europe and is likely to be included in the new treaty, to be agreed in two years' time. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, declares the Government's backing for the post in an article in The Economist magazine. He argues that a full-time president would be better than the current system of "musical chairs" under which one country holds the rotating chairmanship of the EU for six months. Mr Straw says the president should be chosen by the EU's 15 heads of government and be accountable to them. "He or she would serve for several years, overseeing delivery of the Union's strategic agenda and communicating a sense of purpose to Europe's citizens," he says. In his article, Mr Straw discloses that Britain will support bringing foreign and home affairs under the new EU treaty – a move that will be attacked by the Tories as a step towards a European superstate. (Independent 11 October 2002)
The main influence on the workings of the Parliament, however, was not Monnet, but Alterio Spineli, who is honoured as the "father" of the European Parliament. Primarily, directly elected Members of the European Parliament's first job is to establish direct influence on public opinion, and thus to exert pressure on the European policies of governments. Some years later, in open session in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, the then president, Madame Nicole Fontaine, reminded the members that their job was not to represent their constituents' interests, but to represent the European Union to them. Strangely - but not unusually - this comment did not appear in the verbatim record of the proceedings (the European Parliament equivalent of Hansard). Spineli's great hope and expectation was that MEPs, representing public opinion, and holding positions which were not dependent on the maintenance of national sovereignty, would be better able to pursue political integration. That has turned out to be the case, not least because the majority of candidates who put themselves up for election tend strongly to favour European integration. Thus, of the three main institutions, the Council, the Commission and the Parliament, in practice it is the Parliament that displays the greatest enthusiasm for integration. It often chides the Commission for not going far enough, fast enough, and tables amendments to proposals which take the European Union further along the path of integration. And, in the continuing battle between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, the Parliament often sides with the Commission. Even if the MEPs actually decided to pursue active representation of their constituents, it would be difficult for them to do so. With the regional voting system, up to eight UK MEPs represent a single region, with a population of up to ten million, covering hundreds of square miles. It is physically impossible for any single MEP to service the whole constituency and, given a spread of parties - and therefore the absence of co-ordination or co-operation - it is difficult for any individual to decide who exactly their MEP is, and for MEPs to decide who they actually represent. They cannot produce a legislative manifesto, as the monopoly of proposal resides with the Commission. In fact, legislation in progress at an election continues through the process with the new Parliament, as if there had never been an election. As to blocking or overturning a legislative proposal in the national interest, even if the whole UK bloc formed a cross-party alliance (which is unlikely), their numbers would be insufficient to prevail against the rest. Then, in respect of removing laws, the MEPs have no power at all to force the issue. They can produce what are known as "own initiative" reports or resolutions - which have to be adopted by the majority - asking the Commission to take action. But the Commission is under no obligation whatsoever to take any notice of them. Voting is carried out separately, in block-sessions of ninety minutes to two hours, where as many as three hundred votes have to be cast. They are registered variously by electronic means, at the touch of a button, or by show of hands, with votes cast typically at an average of one per 10-15 seconds. Such is the volume and complexity of the voting that it is not possible for members to have any idea of what they are voting for, on the majority of issues presented. They can follow theatrical hand signs (thumbs up or down) from their group leaders, watch the president's console, where the light shows which way he has voted, or they can work to "crib-sheets" prepared in advance by their staffs, which tell them which way to vote. For most of the time during voting, the MEPs play no greater role than could carried out by suitably trained monkeys. The Parliament, through the use of "own initiative" reports, actually confounds the Council of Minister's intentions, in what is a profoundly anti-democratic manner. This works through the Commission, which uses the mechanism when it is considering introducing contentious legislation that might not attract the support of the Council. Through its many sympathisers in the Parliament, it will float the idea via an "own initiative" report and, with the support of the Parliament, will later introduce a proposal based on the report. It is then very much harder for the Council to oppose the measure, as it is reluctant to be seen to be opposing the "democratically elected" members. By this means, the Commission plays off one institution against the other, so increasing its own power. (Dr R North ,8 Sep 2002)
Jack Straw in his recent advocacy of a legally binding European constitution has given the impression that the proposed European constitution would be a static instrument, merely defining the existing roles of the EU institutions. This is a dangerous misconception. The proposed constitution would, in practice, be dynamic. It would not merely define the existing powers of the EU institutions, but would be instrumental in expanding and furthering those powers in the cause of the 'ever closer union' referred to in the treaties: in the cause, that is to say, of full political integration and the creation of a single European state. The constitution would perform this dynamic role through the intervention of the European Court of Justice, to which would fall its interpretation and enforcement. For in exercising that jurisdiction the European Court would inevitably invoke the quasi-political jurisprudence which it already adopts in its existing jurisdiction: a jurisprudence which involves interpreting the law in the manner most conducive to implementing the 'spirit' of the treaties and achieving 'ever closer union'. In the absence of any effective constraint on the European Court (from which there is no appeal), and in the light of its existing record, it would be reckless to assume that the court would refrain from an activist role designed to further the cause of political integration at the expense of national legislatures. The danger inherent in a legally enforceable constitution is that it would subject every Act of our national Parliament to the possibility of scrutiny by the European Court acting as guardian of the constitution and pursuing a mission of political integration. (Letters to the Times September 07, 2002 From Mr Peter Horsfield, QC)
Today's European Commission is fighting a rearguard action to keep Schuman's vision alive - the federation of Europe. As leaders of the Convention on the future of Europe meet today, realisation is dawning on Romano Prodi, Commission president, that he may have been outflanked. He warns that plans by EU member states to shake up their own affairs could impinge on the Commission's much-prized right to draw up new legislation. Both developments matter because the Convention is edging towards producing a constitution that could govern the EU for the next generation - meaning that if Schuman's vision of a powerful supranational authority is to be achieved, it must be achieved now. The reforms Mr Prodi fears, championed by Javier Solana, the member states' top representative, were agreed at a June summit in Seville after criticism that Europe's priorities change because of the rotating EU presidency, under which a different country takes the chair every six months. The presidents and prime ministers agreed to draw up annual and three-year programmes to establish more of a grip on the agenda. In such a world the Commission could be reduced to doing little more than dotting the i's and crossing the t's on legislation member states think it should suggest. Though several national capitals might be happy with such a state of affairs, it could not be further from Schuman's vision. When Mr Prodi called for a greater role for the Commission in foreign policy earlier this year, he was swiftly slapped down by Mr Giscard d'Estaing, who remarked that foreign ministers would be unwilling to give up their powers any time soon. But as Mr Prodi indicates, the Commission is on the defensive. He writes of the need to alert Convention members "of the real risks of. an intergovernmental approach" rather than on one based on institutions such as the Commission. Unless he can do so convincingly, the founding vision of the EU may soon be out of date. (Financial Times; Sep 05, 2002)
Jack Straw has stated his support for the idea of a written EU constitution. The speech marks a mistaken change of heart on the part of the Government. A constitution would achieve nothing that treaties could not. Moreover, changing the treaties into a constitution would be a highly significant step, with profound, and negative, implications both for Britain's ability to get what it wants from Europe and for the European Union itself. More importantly, providing the European Union with a constitution sends out a dangerous signal. The word constitution will strengthen in the minds of many the notion that the European Union should replicate a traditional nation state. In Britain, where even euro-enthusiasts tend to eschew the more ambitious federal schemes espoused by some (albeit increasingly few) of their continental counterparts, such ideas are dangerous. It is only a matter of time before the inadequacies of the EU's "army" are the subject of carping, though, of course, the Union's defence force is not an army at all. By adopting more terminology derived from nation states such as constitution we risk exacerbating the capability-expectations gap. Replacing the EU treaties with a constitution would not only fail to meet the expectations of proponents of the idea. It would also serve further to weaken the Union itself. (The Times September 06, 2002)
The Commission’s proposal on future EU reforms, unveiled on Wednesday, set the ground for the debate on the future of Europe, providing a rival vision to the project supported by leading heads of EU states. With the Commission’s proposal on the table, the "battleground" for the EU future is finally set, and the options of deepening the European integration or favouring the inter-government cooperation are stated. The Commission countered, through its paper, a forceful proposal put forward by the leaders of France, the UK and Spain and pushed robust proposals for reinforcing the Commission’s role in the EU. The European Parliament preached a holy alliance with the Commission in the reforms battle. However, a third way, combining elements of the two visions, may be possible. (EUobserver.com 24/5/02)
Prodi laid out his vision for the EU as part of an ongoing convention on the future of Europe. This convention eventually will lead to a new guiding document for the EU that some have termed a constitution. The ambitious proposal spans political, economic and security issues, both internal and external and an EU frontier police and public prosecutor in an EU area of harmonised civil and criminal law. According to Prodi's vision, the Commission would assume greater power over justice and immigration issues as well as foreign policy -- issues that traditionally have remained under national control. Saying, "Europe must speak with a single voice on all aspects of external relations," Prodi suggested replacing national government envoys to international bodies like the International Monetary Fund and the G7 with commission representatives from Brussels. Two issues in particular, budgeting and taxation, will generate the most vocal opposition. Prodi's suggestion that Brussels should have greater control over national budgets probably sent chills down the spines of finance ministers throughout Europe. The proposal also opens the door to the idea of tax harmonization, which governments like those in London and Dublin have long opposed. Just as national government officials are allergic to budget controls, the European public has shown tremendous resistance to any suggestions of direct taxation by Brussels. True to form, however, Prodi suggested that Brussels be given the power of direct taxation as well. (Stratfor 22 May 2002)
The Convention deciding upon the new European Constitution has 105 members of which only 7 are Eurosceptics. (BBC R4 Midday 28/2/02)
The representative of the European Commission in the Convention’s presidium said in an interview on Tuesday that the Convention must produce a European constitution allowing the enlarged Europe to emancipate from America. For Mr Barnier, the constitution must affirm "the ambitions, the values, the commun policies, must integrate citizens’ rights, define the duties of EU states and what institutions and what methods are serving the project, and must also affirm values and politics," (Euobserver.com 27/2/02)
The former French president, Mr Valery Giscard d’Estaing has asked a tax-free salary of 20,000 euro (£12,200) per month for his work as chair of the EU Convention, preparing reforms of the EU treaties and drafting a European Constitution. The salary would be at the level of the EU Commission president. Also at a top-level diplomatic meeting on Thursday Mr d’Estaing asked a luxury suite of rooms in Brussels, private offices and a handpicked team of between 10 and 12 people to assist the work, according to Belgian newspaper La Libre Belgique. One of the problems is now how to finance these demands of Giscard d'Estaing's. (he is not to be paid anything in the end) The Convention was agreed at the Laeken summit in December and starts working 28 February. Each of the 28 countries (15 EU states and 13 applicants) will appoint three representatives in the Convention (two national MPs and one representative of the government). The European Parliament will appoint 16 members in the Convention and the Commission will send two. A presidium of 12 members will lead the discussion, headed by the 75-year-old Giscard, while former Italian Prime Minister Giuliano Amato and former Belgian Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene were named vice-presidents of the Convention at the Laeken summit. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi later insisted to nominate someone in addition to Mr Amato to represent the Italian government in the Convention. This seems to have been accepted by all the EU states except Britain, that blocked a solution at the top-level diplomatic meeting on Thursday, according to Liberation. The British government is not sure to have a representative in the Presidium, leading the work of the Convention, preparing reforms of the EU treaties and drafting a European Constitution. Finally the national parliaments will have two seats in the body leading the work of the Convention. Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt and colleagues are said to have agreed at the Laeken summit that the national parliaments should be represented by a member of the British Parliament David Miliband and a former Polish minister of foreign affairs, Bronislaw Geremek. (EUobserver.com 21.01.2002)