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 Britain ’s destiny. With the signing of the new EU constitution, power will have moved from Westminster to Brussels . Mr Brown’s long fight to prevent the Prime Minister from trading in the pound for the euro will have failed, as will his efforts to keep Britain ’s successful economy from becoming inextricably intertwined with that of the sclerotic EU. Thanks to Mr Blair, Mr Brown will indeed find himself sitting at the top table in EU meetings. But it will be well below the salt, where he will be banging his spoon against his begging bowl for attention. He won’t get it. France and Germany together will have the power to block any reforms the other 23 members propose. It does not take a legal expert to understand these words: “The constitution, and law adopted by the Union ’s institutions in exercising competencies conferred upon it, shall have primacy over the law of the member states.” But it does take a careful reader to notice two interesting points. First, this is a constitution, not, as Mr Blair contends, merely a treaty that “tidies up” earlier treaties. Second, the word “competencies” is deliberately used in place of the word “powers” in an effort to minimise the concerns of the constitution’s opponents. That sets the broad institutional framework, the distribution of power that will prevail during a Brown premiership. The specific frustrations Mr Brown will face will make matters worse. The constitution confers on the EU the power to tax: “The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives.” At precisely the same time as Mr Brown will need to increase the flow of revenues into the Treasury to finance his continued expansion of the public sector, the EU will be tapping into the same revenue stream ­ the pockets of British taxpayers. Worse still, Mr Brown will have to sit helplessly by as his cherished goal of preventing eurowide harmonisation of taxation moves from merely improbable to clearly unattainable. The constitution says: “A European law . . . shall lay down measures for the harmonisation of . . . turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation . . . ” An EU official told me just last week that this certainly includes the harmonisation of capital gains taxes, and if CGT are covered, corporate taxes can easily be shoehorned into the definition of indirect taxes, especially if the body wielding the shoehorn is the European Court. Meanwhile, Mr Blair will have the last laugh on the question of the euro. Again, the constitution is bravely unambiguous: “The activities of the member states and the Union shall include . . . a single currency, the euro, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange-rate policy . . . ” No messy referendum needed; no need to meet a single economic test, much less five of them. The euro is in, the pound is out. And Mr Brown ’s successful management of the UK economy will come to an end, as the baton is passed to the folk who have brought double-digit unemployment and stagnation to Germany , and periodic nationwide, union-led shutdowns to France . To protect against the possibility that Mr Brown’s powerful intellect will allow him to find some way to maintain his control over the economic fate of Britain , Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and his fellow draftsmen have made sure to close all escape hatches: “Each member state shall ensure that its national legislation, including the statutes of its central bank, is compatible with the constitution and . . . European regulations (and) . . . decisions.” The targets that Mr Brown determined for the Bank of England will be replaced by those of the European Central Bank, and the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street will finally be able to lay down the burden of trying to find an interest rate that, when combined with the Chancellor’s fiscal policy, will keep the British economy inflation-free and growing. Mr Brown is too clever not to realise all of this. But he has a dilemma: should he oppose the new constitution, and lose the support of Mr Blair for his move to No 10, or support the constitution, actively or passively, and inherit an address and an office stripped of the power he has always coveted? To complete this nightmare, imagine that Peter Mandelson’s benefactor grants his wish, and installs the twice-fallen minister as Britain ’s man in Brussels , with more power under the new constitution than Mr Brown can muster. (Irwin Stelzer, The Times April 13, 2004 )

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 Strasbourg , due to a backlog of unopened letters possibly containing bombs. Further details have also emerged about the group suspected of carrying out the bombing campaign. The anarchist group "Federazione Anarchica Informale" (FAI) is believed to be behind the bombing and is estimated by Italian officials to have about 350 members. The group is said to be waging its campaign against EU "exploiters" and is passionately opposed to the establishment of a European Constitution, according to Die Welt. The President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi - who received a letter bomb in late December - was targeted as "the representative of ... a repressive new European order". (EUobserver.com 8/1/04 ) http://euobs.com/?aid=14035&rk=1

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 Britain the  British constitution is supreme and always has been, and that this  pretence that a so-called EU constitution can over-ride the will of the  British Parliament is a load of old cobblers to be treated with the  contempt it deserves; and they will then pass an Act repealing the EU  constitution and all its works, *with immediate effect*.  The point is not academic. For another little-noticed clause in article 59  provides that not only shall a withdrawalist state not be allowed to  withdraw of its own volition for two years after announcing its intention,  but during those two years it shall be excluded from decisions and  deliberations concerning it, all the while remaining subject to the  supremacy of EU law.  In a word, that state will be reduced to the condition of a colony.  Consequently, during those two years the EU could a) strip it of all  moveable assets, plundering it as the Wehrmacht plundered occupied Europe  sixty years ago, and b) pass laws so restrictive of the political and  indeed physical liberties of the inhabitants of that state as to  "persuade" its government to change its mind, and to drop the request to  withdraw.  So the BIG question which MUST be answered, and answered NOW, and first  and foremost by the TORY PARTY, is, after, say, the Constitution has been  ratified, signed, sealed and delivered, by the Blair government, WILL THEY  CONSIDER THE UK TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 59 IN CASE WE SHOULD  WISH TO WITHDRAW? (E-mail form TDE 15 Dec 2003)

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. France has been one of the first countries to insist on the transfer of authority as quickly as possible to the Iraqis." He then went on to say the magic words: "When Iraq has recovered its sovereignty, the country will be able to conclude its own contracts and the market will be free and open. If French businesses put forward the best offers, then they will have every chance. We want a free and open economy." Since France isn't going to be paid anyway, Paris might as well accept the inevitable and wait for the transfer of sovereignty. Moscow also seemed to shift its position simultaneously, indicating coordination between France and Russia.   France 's realignment on Iraq was nothing compared to the bombshell French leaders dropped in Europe . Having been blocked by Spain and Poland in its aspirations -- shared with Germany -- for a European constitution, Paris leveled two threats against the rest of Europe . The first was that there might be economic consequences for those who thwarted approval of the EU constitution. The second was that France would create its own coalition of the willing -- generating a constitutional bond with those members of the EU who wanted it, and leaving others behind. This would fragment Europe into four parts: non-members of the EU, EU members that do not belong to the Euro bloc, euro block countries that are not part of the constitutional arrangements, and fully integrated Europeans. Then this would be overlaid by NATO and non-NATO membership.  One would think that as in Iraq , this is a game of psychological warfare. The notion and reality of Europe is already sufficiently complex and ambiguous not to need a new tier of relationships and distinctions. French leaders, however, are quite serious, we think. They are feeling extraordinarily uncomfortable in the world that is being shaped by U.S. power, and they fully understand that by itself, France cannot offer a counterweight. In the end, the United States is more likely than not to prevail in Iraq , increasing its power. Paris is forced to maneuver violently on issues like Iraqi debt forgiveness -- something forced on France by its inherent weakness. With much of Europe uneasy about a loss of sovereignty to a multinational entity, France is being locked into a very uncomfortable position. It cannot stop its small maneuvering until its grand maneuver its completed. And that grand maneuver -- European integration -- is an increasingly unlikely event. That will mean continued accommodation with the United States.( STRATFOR'S INTELLIGENCE BRIEF Dec. 16, 2003 )

 While the sudden collapse of the Constitution talks in Brussels on Saturday (13 December) was very unexpected for most participants; French president Jacques Chirac was perhaps not so surprised.   Most diplomats pointed to France as the crucial reason for the breakdown of the talks.  At breakfast on Friday, Mr Chirac had already hinted that there would be no agreement and that the summit would end mid Saturday, reports Der Standard.  Now, being able to blame the breakdown on Spain and Poland may suit the French president as it gives him more room to shape the future of Europe .   Although Paris officially supported the German position on the proposed new voting system (double majority voting), there were also fears that such a system could, in the long run, limit French influence in Europe .  With the Nice Treaty, after fierce negotiating by Mr Chirac both France and Germany have the same number of votes – 29 each – in the law-making council of ministers.  However, a double majority voting system – as proposed in the draft Constitution – would change this historical balance between Germany and France .  The double majority voting system would mean that a majority of member states representing 60% of the population would be needed for any decisions to be taken.   With 82 million Germans against 60 million French, the two countries would no longer be equal in the decision making process.   With the perspective of Turkish membership of the European Union, it would very much be possible for a German-Turkish alliance some time in the future to set the European agenda and block new decisions.  "The system proposed by the Convention will permit Germany to dominate Europe . This would be followed by a growth in Turkish influence, eventually surpassing that of Germany between 2015 and 2020," writes Philippe de Villiers, French MEP and president of the Mouvement pour la France , in Le Figaro.   French and German leaders have for months been examining the idea of a "hard core" Europe of countries willing to push EU integration forward if there is no agreement on the Constitution.   France has already long been hesitant about enlargement of the EU to 25 member states, fearing a dilution of its own power and a swing in the power axis toward eastern Europe.  President Chirac explained on Saturday, after the failure of the talks, that a Europe of 25 would be made up of countries with too varied levels of development - especially democratic development.   The UK and the more intergovernmental-minded EU member states might soon find themselves faced with two options: Accepting the European Constitution or living in a European Union ruled by a core-club of countries. (EUOBSERVER 14/12/03 )

“Someone said the best way to destroy the EU would be to let Poland in”. (E-MAIL I Francis 13/12/03 )

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 Britain , the opposite is true. We, the people, are sovereign and  our governments answer to us. Here, everything is permitted, until we elect  a parliament that decides otherwise. And if we dislike a law, we elect  others to overturn it.  The EU's proposed constitution attempts to change all that. (Letter to The Times, A Mote December 12, 2003 )

The latest version, (proposed EU Constitution) released in advance of a tough  bargaining session in Naples this weekend, empowers the EU to decide  foreign policy by qualified majority voting for the first time.  The  dramatic change is tucked away in Article III-201 on the role of the new EU  foreign minister. (EU Weekly News – C Mobray 30/11/03 )

Who is doing what over the proposed EU Constitution · HOLDING A REFERENDUM - seven countries Czech Republic, Denmark , Ireland , Luxembourg , Netherlands , Portugal , Spain · NOT HOLDING A REFERENDUM - one country Germany · UNDECIDED, 17 countries Austria , Belgium , Cyprus , Estonia , Finland , France , Greece , Hungary , Italy , Latvia , Lithuania , Malta , Poland , Slovakia , Slovenia , Sweden , United Kingdom (EU Weekly News – C Mobray 30/11/03 )

British diplomats have appealed to France not to hold a referendum on the new European constitution to avoid embarrassing Tony Blair.  One high-ranking British official has privately told senior French diplomats that it would be "unhelpful" to Mr Blair if Jacques Chirac, the French president, decided to go ahead with a poll in France . (EU Update 17/11/03 )

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 Britain about 1,800 babies are aborted after genetic tests show them to have any of 200 conditions, including Down’s syndrome, spina bifida and muscular dystrophy.   Pro-abortion groups said that they would fight a ban on such genetic screening, declaring it “deeply inhumane”.   The Government is committed to signing the European constitution, which would take primacy over United Kingdom law, and insists that there is no need for a referendum. The draft includes a new charter of fundamental rights, which has been declared non-negotiable. It requires the “prohibition of eugenic practices, particularly those aiming at the selection of persons”.   Professor Jack Scarisbrick, national director of the charity Life, said: “If we join the constitution, we will definitely invoke it to procure an end to eugenic abortions. Of course it is eugenics — it’s weeding out substandard members of the human race to stop them being a drag on society.”   The pro-Life Alliance campaign group is seeking a formal legal opinion on getting a ban on ante-natal genetic screening. Josephine Quintavalle, its spokeswoman, said: “Eugenics is the underlying philosophy of pre-natal testing in the UK . We will fight tooth and nail to get it stopped.”   However, pro-choice groups have said that they will campaign against a ban. Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: “I would be extremely opposed to such a ban. It should be the decision of families, who actually have to live with the situation. It is completely inappropriate to categorise it as eugenics. Women are motivated by saying they can’t cope with the situation, not that it is wrong for such people to be born.”   Alastair Kent, director of the Genetic Interest Group, representing families with genetic diseases, said: “If it is interpreted that ante-natal testing were a eugenic practice, it would penalise the small number of families that have children with severe abnormalities. It would be deeply inhumane.”   There is no legal definition of “eugenics”, but medical practice accepts that some elements of genetic screening — either to decide whether to implant an embryo or to abort a foetus — are eugenic.   Professor Tom Baldwin, a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, said: “It’s seriously worrying. A court would have a hard time showing it is not eugenics — it is designed to prevent the birth of a person with certain genetic characteristics.”   The charter on fundamental rights, which was written four years ago, goes considerably further than the European Convention on Human Rights that the Labour Government has already enshrined into United Kingdom law. The charter was originally intended to be a political declaration of no legal consequence, but earlier this year was included in the proposed constitution, giving it supremacy over UK law. It will be up to the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg to decide whether UK law conforms with the charter. (The Times October 29, 2003 )  

 

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic has already chilled the mood by refusing to attend today's ceremonial launch, and slamming the draft text as a blueprint for a European super-state. "This is crossing the Rubicon after which there will be no more sovereign states in Europe with fully fledged governments and parliaments which represent legitimate interests of their citizens," he said. "Basic matters will be decided by a remote federal government in Brussels , and Czech citizens will be only a tiny particle whose voice and influence will be almost zero." From now until Christmas, ministers and diplomats meeting behind closed doors at the granite Justus Lipsius building in Brussels will haggle over the draft, trading minor concessions in the hallowed tradition of EU treaty talks. Then the real trouble starts. Denmark , Ireland , Luxembourg , Holland , and Portugal are all committed to a referendum. Spain and Italy are expected to follow suit. President Jacques Chirac has said there ought to be a vote in France , hoping that it will trigger bitter divisions among his foes. The pressure is building up on the others. Finland rejected the idea at first, but is now opening the door again. The Swedish government is in a quandry, fearing a severe backlash if it attempts to "smuggle" its Eurosceptic public into a constitutional union without a vote. One of the sub-themes of the euro campaign was a deep disquiet about the EU's military agenda, a neuralgic point after Sweden 's 200-year history of unbroken neutrality. It only takes one country to block the constitution. A No vote in two or three would force Brussels to abandon the plan altogether. If the French rebelled it would be an earthquake, though it nearly happened over the Maastricht Treaty, which passed by 50.5 per cent to 49.5 in 1992. A string of bitter clashes between Paris and Brussels over breaches of the euro zone Stability Pact and illegal bail-outs for struggling French firms has revived Gallic Euroscepticism. Pierre Mauroy, the former prime minister, said: "If Chirac holds a referendum, there is a big chance that the French would vote no. And that holds for the Socialist grass roots as well." For the French Left, the EU is increasingly seen as the tool of "savage" Anglo-Saxon capitalism. The Dutch, once model Europeans, can no longer be counted on either in the new political landscape left by the firebrand populist Pim Fortuyn. The biggest net contributor to the EU budget, the country is now in deep recession yet is having to slash welfare spending to stick within the Stability Pact, even as France cuts taxes and blithely tears up the rules of the euro zone. Frits Bolkestein, Holland 's European commissioner, says there is open nostalgia for the "many hundreds of years of stability" of the guilder. It is coupled with anger that "some countries in the euro zone seem more equal than others". In Denmark , which rejected the euro three years ago, support for the Giscard text is only 18 per cent. Jens-Peter Bonde, an MEP and doyen of Denmark 's Eurosceptic movement, said the document was too deeply flawed to win acceptance in any Scandinanvian state. "It is worse than a federal state," he said. "It is a unitary state without any checks and balances. The Danish people will never accept it." (Daily Telegraph 04/10/2003 )

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 Germany 's. * Give control of asylum and immigration to Brussels , along with transport and energy * Require us to give "active and unreserved support, in a spirit of loyalty" to the EU's common foreign and defence policy. Defence sourcing will come under EU control. * Give the EU a "legal personality", making it autonomous from member-states, and opening the way for Brussels to take over Britain's permanent seat on the UN Security Council * Create a permanent EU President (who will out-rank the Queen) and an EU Foreign Minister * Give the EU a duty to harmonise economies and social policies (the courts will use this point to over-rule any tax opt-out that Tony Blair may get) * Make explicit the supremacy of EU law over British law * Create an EU Justice Department and Public Prosecutor able to undertake cross-border investigations (and backed by the EU Arrest Warrant) * Enshrine the so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes clauses that can be used to limit our rights, and to deny us free speech. Jack Straw and Peter Hain say that it is "Just a tidying up of the treaties". But Valery Giscard d'Estaing (who chaired the drafting committee) says it is "a great leap forward for European integration", while Commission President Romano Prodi concedes it is a "giant step". (MEP Roger Helmer's electronic newsletter 10 September 2003 )

 The old incrementalism is still there - just as almost all the other features of the previous treaties remain, incorporated into this new constitutional text. So does that mean that the government ministers are correct when they say that it changes virtually nothing and confines itself to mere "tidying up"? That question could be answered in two different ways. One would consist of listing all the significant additions that are to be found in this draft constitution. These include such matters as granting the European Union new powers over energy policy, power to "coordinate" national employment policies, powers over immigration and asylum policy, and so on. The list is a long one, and it includes important changes in the structure of the union, as well as the creation of the new post of European foreign minister. But the other way of answering that question is potentially more important, even though its significance is much less obvious to the casual observer. The fundamental change here is the very fact that the powers of the European Union, which were previously based on treaties, will now be based on a "constitution". With this change, the EU crosses the Rubicon, from something that could not legally be considered as a state to something that most definitely can. Any organisation based on treaties - Nato, for example - draws its authority from two things: the will of the sovereign states that signed the treaty, and the principles of international law under which treaties operate. This constitution, too, will be brought into being by a treaty - but that will be a final, self-denying treaty, one that will repeal the treaties of Rome , Maastricht and so on and that will ensure that the authority of the EU will, from that moment onwards, no longer be treaty-based. "This Constitution establishes the European Union," says Article I-1. In other words, the authority of the EU will now be located in its own governing document. Any disputes about that authority will have to be dealt with not under international law, but by the EU's own constitutional court - whose powers will themselves be derived from the EU's own authority. Many federal constitutions have phrases stating or implying that the powers of the provinces were somehow prior; that some powers have been passed to the federal government; and that the rest remain with the provinces. But if these claims are valid, their validity flows from, and depends on, the - federal - constitution. That is why, when there is any dispute about these matters, it is the federal supreme court that makes the final decision. Higher authority resides, necessarily, at the federal level. In many ways, this new European Constitution fits the model of existing federal constitutions. The word "federal" was removed by the drafters for cosmetic purposes, but the structure - which that word correctly described - remained unchanged. Part I lists first the "exclusive" powers of the EU (the federal government), and then the "shared" powers, where the member states are allowed to act "to the extent that the Union has not exercised" its own power. This is directly modelled on Chapter VII of the German constitution, which distinguishes "exclusive" and "concurrent" powers, and allows the provinces to make laws about the latter "to the extent that the Federation does not use its legislative power". The list of "exclusive" powers in the new EU Constitution is admittedly quite short; but many of the powers usually exercised by federal governments are listed in the "shared" category, and the mechanisms are in place for the European federal authorities to take over as much of them as they need. What is entirely lacking is a list of the exclusive powers of national governments. In theory this is unnecessary, as they retain all powers not otherwise listed. In practice it might be embarrassing to compile such a list, as it would reveal how few items of significance were left at the national level. But if this draft European Constitution is in some ways a typical federal constitution, in other ways it is one of the most disturbingly untypical constitutions ever written. The purpose of any constitution is to set out the fundamental structure of authority of the state - the powers of the parliament, government and judiciary, the basic rules for elections and citizenship, and so on. A constitution is about legality and political authority. It is not about the particular policies which a government, once it was legally elected, might or might not wish to pursue. This constitution, on the other hand, is stuffed full of policy statements. The third of its four main sections is actually entitled "The Policies and Functioning of the Union ". These policies are mostly defined in terms of "objectives", which range from the sublime ("peace" and "social justice") to the ridiculous ("protecting the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen"). They include full employment; "high levels" of health protection and consumer protection; "dialogue between management and labour"; reducing disparities between the regions; raising the incomes of farmers; and, by the by, eradicating poverty in the developing world. In addition, there is a lengthy "Charter of Fundamental Rights", which contains a further wish-list of policies (workers' consultation, the universal right to strike, and so on). Most of these matters are the sort of thing which, in any democratic state, are left to the politicians to deal with. Yet in the new Europe , these policy "objectives" will be constitutional imperatives; the European Parliament will be able to "request" that they be implemented; and, most crucially of all, "the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives". This European Constitution will be problematic, then, in a variety of ways. Instead of the virtue of fixity, it offers a kind of institutionalised mission-creep. Its federal structure also lacks stability, with a built-in mechanism for the one-way transfer of powers. And its insistence on policy "objectives" both diminishes normal democratic politics, and increases the likelihood of ever-higher expenditure. Yet these are not the most problematic things about it. The central problem is the sheer fact of its being a constitution. For, in the political realm, only states have constitutions - and the definition of a sovereign state is that its own constitution is not subject to the authority of any higher constitution. Endowed with this new constitution, the European Union will match that description. It will also have its own "legal personality", with the ability to sign international treaties in its own right; it will have its own president, foreign minister and foreign policy, as well as its parliament, supreme court, flag, anthem and currency. It will fit the criteria of a sovereign state. The member states, whose constitutions will be subject to the authority of a higher constitution, will not. (Daily Telegraph 28 Jul 2003) 

Ahead of the European Council summit in Thessaloniki later this week, the Conservatives have laid down 17 demands that they believe Tony Blair should put to other EU leaders. First principles of national sovereignty 1. The establishment of an EU Constitution, overriding national constitutions, must be excised. 2. The European Union must not be granted a single legal personality. 3. There should be no permanent EU president. 4. There should be no European foreign minister, especially one who initiates foreign policy and could replace national representatives in the United Nations Security Council. EU Powers and Laws 5. There must be no "Escalator clauses" that allow the loss of national vetoes without national parliamentary approval through Treaties. 6. There should be no "flexibility clause" that allows the EU to extend its power in any area mentioned in the new Treaty. 7. The Charter of Fundamental Rights should have no legal standing in either EU or domestic law. 8. There should be no shared competences which would give the EU a carte blanche to take the lead in law and policy making in areas like energy and transport. 9. National parliaments must not only be able to warn against breaches of their rights under subsidiarity and proportionality - they must be able to enforce them. Home Affairs Concerns 10. The prime minister must guarantee that he will preserve intact British control over our criminal law, border control, and asylum system, resisting moves to establish a common area of freedom, justice and security. 11.The prime minister must uphold control of our criminal justice system and not let it be governed by Europe or assimilated to the European system by the backdoor. 12. The prime minister must resist the move towards control of our judicial practices from Europe . 13. The prime minister must not allow our police forces and their practices to be governed by Europe . 14. To ensure that we keep control of our asylum and immigration policy, along with control of our borders, the prime minister must secure an unbreakable opt-out from Schengen as well as ensuring that we opt back out of Dublin 2. The EU must not be allowed to decide our immigration and asylum policy. Defence Concerns 15. There should be no consolidation of defence and security issues into the new EU Constitution. 16. The primacy of NATO over EU defence policy must be asserted at this summit and in any new Treaty. 17. The EU should suspend its decision to take over the NATO peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia , until NATO has exercised "right of first refusal". ( 20-6-03 )  

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 Maastricht and Nice Treaties combined. Many reforms have been debated but little attention has been paid to the most critical: the reform of EU decision-making procedures. This lack of scrutiny is astounding. Decision-making rules are at the heart of any constitution. Most EU laws are adopted by majority voting. These laws are binding in all member states - including those that opposed them. Crafting such rules must be done with care. Nations should assess their stake in decision-making, since this affects how often they end up with laws they have opposed. Our research* demonstrates that the constitution's rules would make it much easier to pass EU laws, improve the EU's decision-making efficiency and would shift a great deal of power to the four largest members: Germany , France , Britain and Italy . The consequences of transferring power to the larger countries is obvious. The implications of improved efficiency are subtle but just as important, since the constitution will transform the balance of power among EU institutions. The increased decision-making efficiency stems from reform of majority voting in the Council of Ministers. Instead of the Nice Treaty's complex system, the Council would pass EU laws when half the members, representing at least 60 per cent of the EU population, vote for it. This would make it easier to achieve a winning majority in the Council. Under the Nice rules, only about 2 per cent of all conceivable coalitions constitute a qualified majority. Under the Constitution's rules, over a fifth of all coalitions will achieve that goal. Such a change primarily benefits the European Commission. It has a monopoly right to propose legislation. This right - which amounts to a "pre-veto" over legislative ideas that it dislikes - gives the Commission influence over the shape of EU laws. On each law every member in the Council has particular concerns. The law that passes does not have to address all these concerns - only those of countries representing at least half of the members and 60 per cent of the population. With so many ways to form a winning coalition, the Commission will have more choice over which concerns it pays attention to. One hopes that the Commission will act in the best interests of Europe , of course. But constitutions should be about power, not hope. Indeed, the extra power makes it ever more important that the Commission is viewed as an honest broker by all national governments. Limiting it to 15 members is a bad idea. Since the Commission's own decision-making rule - simple majority - is highly efficient, the constitution should allocate one voting Commissioner per country but allow the Commission president to give portfolios only to the 15 most capable. The European Parliament also gains. The constitution would strengthen its power over EU legislation in two ways. First, it would require parliamentary approval for most EU laws, including many that are now decided only by the Council. Second, the greater decision-making efficiency means legislation will be passed more quickly. In contrast, the Council of Ministers loses. It does not decide which proposals it votes on - that is the Commission's job. Making it easier to find a winning coalition reduces the Council's influence on what is passed. After all, when many alternative winning coalitions are possible in the Council, the coalitions can be played off against each other - either by the Commission with its "pre-veto" power or by the parliament with its actual veto. The reforms now contained in the draft constitution were deemed so sensitive they were rejected at the summits in Amsterdam in 1997 and Nice in 2000. So does their inclusion in the draft constitution indicate a change of heart among EU leaders? (Financial Times 23-6-03 )

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) 

  The constitution gives the EU full "legal personality" and lays down that EU law will have primacy over the law of member states. It prohibits Westminster from legislating in most areas of national life - agriculture, justice, energy, social policy, economic cohesion, transport, the environment, and aspects of public health - unless Brussels chooses to waive its power. There is to be a full-time European president, elected by prime ministers, and a foreign minister. The EU will acquire competence in "all areas of foreign policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy", though major decisions must be unanimous. The European Court , which acquires vast powers, will ensure that member states "actively and unreservedly support the EU's common foreign and security policy". M Giscard said the national veto is abolished in 50 new areas, including immigration and asylum. There is to be a European prosecutor to tackle cross-border crime. The legislative powers of the European Parliament are doubled at a stroke, covering the EU budget and farm aid. The commission, which has complained of being reduced to a "college of eunuchs", will take charge of justice and home affairs and economic management. Britain will have only one commissioner, with periods of non-voting status. Mr Hain said there were thorny problems to be resolved in foreign policy, defence and criminal law, and a so-called "escalator" clause slipped into Article 24 at the last moment that would allow future amendments without parliamentary assent. He called the clause a formula for "permanent revolution", fearing it would open the way for endless erosion of national sovereignty. (Daily Telegraph 14-6-03 )

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 North West , compared with an average 89,730 people for each Member of Parliament in the region. (UKIP release 16th June 2003 )

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  Union 's  foreign  policy".  There  is  provision  for  majority  voting  on  policies  recommended  by  the  foreign  minister.  The  commission  acquires  a  general  duty  "to  ensure  the  application  of  the  constitution",  backed  up  by  the  Court  of  Justice.  To  put  the  matter  beyond  doubt,  it  is  asserted  that  "the  Constitution    shall  have  primacy  over  the  laws  of  the  member  states".  The  draft  constitution  will  now  go  to  the  European  Summit  in  Thessalonika,  and  then  to  an  Inter-Governmental  Conference  in  Rome  later  this  year.  The  Government  has  a  list  of  "red  lines",  and  it  will  succeed  on  some,  perhaps  most.  But  it  is  the  nature  of  such  negotiations  that  other  positions  have  to  be  surrendered.  Meanwhile,  the  essential  structure  of  the  constitution  will  remain,  uncontested  by  the  Government.  If  the  Government  is  sure  that  the  outcome  will  be  good  for  Britain,  let  it  have  the  confidence  to  put  its  arguments  to  the  people.  After  all,  it  was  supposed  to  be  all  about  democracy  and  creating  a  Europe  "closer  to  its  citizens".  (David  Heathcoat-Amory  MP,  the  Tory  party  representative  on  the  convention,  Daily  Telegraph  18/06/2003)   

 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 ." In a speech to the Euro-sceptic Bruges Group, he added: "Under the constitution Britain will not be able to use its veto to stop EU legislation that defines serious crimes and sentences for such crimes. " Britain will also not be able to veto moves by the EU to expand the area of criminal law over which the Union takes control. "For too long, the Government and those intent in Brussels on creating a European superstate have expected that people in Britain will not notice the implications of treaty clauses that create the basis for the EU to gradually expand its powers. (Daily Telegraph 12/06/2003 )  

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 Britain and other large member states, who will all lose voting rights on the Commission for five year periods, is that a new position of elected president will be created.   The post, for which many EU leaders believe Mr Blair would be ideally suited when he is no longer Prime Minister, will come into being in 2009.  The agreement goes beyond outline plans for a reshaped commission agreed at Nice in 2000. Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, who represents Britain on the Convention on the Future of Europe which is drawing up the draft constitution, said such a deal was "in our grasp" and would have Government support.  Mr Hain said it was more important to strengthen the role of the Council of Ministers with a new president who could represent the EU abroad than to ensure Britain always had a commissioner able to vote in meetings of the Brussels executive.  The Council of Ministers is made up of ministers from each member state. "To be perfectly honest, what is much more important than whether Britain gets a commissioner (in the inner cabinet) at any one time is to have a stronger intergovernmental thrust in the council," Mr Hain said.  Under the deal, a fundamental reshaping of the EU's institutions, each country would have one European commissioner after the EU expands to 25 members.  But in a new move that goes beyond the Nice treaty, the number of commissioners who attend meetings and have the right to vote would be reduced from the current 20 to 15. Membership of this "inner cabinet" would be determined according to a principle of "equal rotation". Under this system, each country from the smallest such as Malta or Luxembourg to the largest, including Germany , France and Britain , would have a seat in the 15 member "college" for 10 out of every 15 years.  During the other five they would still have a commissioner, though in a lesser role outside the inner core and unable to vote.  John Bruton, the former Irish prime minister and a member of the European Convention, said Britain had concentrated hard on getting the deal it wanted on and preventing the erosion of national vetoes on tax and foreign policy more than defending a permanent position on the commission.  In the row with Valery Giscard d'Estaing over the drafting of the constitution, Spanish and Dutch representatives joined the British protest in which Gisela Stuart, the British representative, walked out.  The draft plan would have allowed EU government heads to vote at any time to abolish the national veto in all policy areas, including foreign policy, defence, taxation and even constitutional changes, switching instead to a form of qualified majority voting. (Daily Telegraph 07/06/2003 )   

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: 6 June 2003 )  

  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 parti