The EU Constitution Is Not Dead
One of Blair's last acts as Prime Minister was to sign up to the Lisbon Treaty, which in effect brings back the EU Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. This EU treaty will give the EU even more control over our lives. It is the latest step in the long process of creating a United States of Europe. This treaty has now been ratified by our Parliament.
EU Contempt for Democracy
Those who drafted the 2005 EU constitution compared themselves with the Founding Fathers of the USA at their Philadelphia Convention. The contrast could not be greater. The US Convention recommended a form of Government which eventually became the US Constitution. But it was not adopted without extensive public debate between the rival advocates of states' rights and federal power. The debate raged at all levels, the highest being the Federalist Papers, a series of in-depth political analyses written by members of the Convention and widely published and discussed before the US Constitution was finally ratified.
Contrast this with the EU constitution, largely written by Giscard D'Estaing, an elderly and patrician Frenchman with a well-documented contempt for public opinion. Both Labour and Conservative representatives on Giscard's panel complained that any contrary views were simply ignored. There was no public debate on alternative approaches. The draft was simply presented - take it or leave it. No Government was willing to challenge anything, for fear that carefully crafted compromises would fall apart. The Governments approved, but French and Dutch voters gave the proposed constitution a resounding "No". The politicians and pundits had issued dire warnings of the disastrious consequences of a No vote. Gunther Grass and a group of German intellectuals warned "France would isolate itself fatally if it were to vote No. The consequences of a rejection would be catastrophic". In fact there were no adverse consequences to France or the Netherlands - just to the EU itself.
That should have been the end of it. But EU leaders showed their usual contempt for democracy. Ignoring the voters, they quietly started to implement most of the constitution: Already most of the new institutions authorised by the Constitution are in place or quietly being developed.
The EU Constitution - Back, but not by Popular Demand
Not content with this , the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, insisted on bringing back the constitution itself. She wrote to EU leaders, suggesting that the Constitution should be brought back, using "different terminology without changing the legal substance". It is now called the Lisbon "treaty", rather than a constitution - so that they can claim that it no longer needs to be put to a referendum. The EU cannot trust the voters to get the answer right.
Blair used his last EU summit to sign up to the Lisbon treaty, which includes:
- A permanent, unelected EU President and effectively a Foreign Minister, both of whom will immediately set about finding ways to increase their own powers at the expense of the nation states.
- Power for the EU to sign international treaties which will bind Britain
- The EU's "Charter of Fundamental Rights" will become legally enforceable and override British law. Blair claims to have won an opt out, but this may not be legally valid.
- Reduced rights for member states to block EU legislation
- A European Defence Agency and command structure intended to supplant NATO
- An EU diplomatic service
- A common asylum and immigration policy
- An EU police force and public prosecutor, and new EU powers to harmonise civil and criminal laws.
- The right of the EU to take on even more powers, without a formal treaty.
Gordon Brown said there is no need for a referendum, because the new treaty is very different from the EU Constitution. The other EU leaders gave the game away, boasting that they had preserved over 90% of the constitution.
Opinion polls say that an overwhelming majority of voters wanted a referendum (see our Pollwatch page). The Opposition and most of the Press supported the call for a referendum (see our EU News page).
EU Leaders Admit the Deception
"Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" Jean-Claud Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxemburg - Telegraph 3/7/08
"All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way." Giscard D'Estaing, author of the Constitution
Commons European Scrutiny Committee warns “Red Lines” will not provide adequate protection
The Commons European Scrutiny Committee warned in a report on 14 November 07 that the UK would face “new and unquantifiable risks” as a result of the revised EU Constitution, arguing that the UK’s ‘red lines’ would not provide adequate protection.
The report noted that "There will be a steady transfer of jurisdiction to the Commission and the European Court of Justice in the areas of civil and criminal justice. These matters should be debated on the floor of the House before the treaty is signed." Committee Chairman Michael Connarty added that Britain's "opt-ins" on justice and home affairs matters would surrender jurisdiction from the UK courts: "Although the Government has secured the right to opt-in in respect of justice and home affairs matters, it is clear that if the Government opts in on any measure, ultimate jurisdiction will transfer from the UK courts." He said that choosing not to opt-in would present "new and unquantifiable risks".
The report called into question the Government’s claim that the controversial EU Charter of Fundamental Rights would not affect UK law: "We express doubts on the effectiveness of the protocol on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and do not consider that it guarantees that the Charter can have no effect on the law of the United Kingdom when it is combined with consideration of the implementation of Union law."
The Committee also criticised the lack of opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate before the Lisbon treaty was signed: "The process could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments and to curtail public debate, until it has become too late for such debate to have any effect on the agreements which have been reached."
Irish "No" Vote Ignored
When Ireland, the only people allowed a vote on the treaty, voted No, the EU immedialtely started to find ways to circumvent the vote and implement the treaty anyway. They had the arrogance to say that it was a problem for the Irish to solve, presumably by voting again till they got the answer right.
European Commission President Jose Barroso said "The Treaty is not dead. The Treaty is alive and we will try to find a solution."
EU Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said on UK television that the EU needs the treaty in order to overcome its democratic deficit. So to make the EU more democratic, a democratic vote has to be ignored? Good thinking, Margot.
However the Polish and Czech Presidents have courageously refused to sign the Treaty, because EU rules require treaties to be approved unanimousy. Some how the other leaders have managed to ignore this - "a No is inconvenient" said the Head of the EU Commission in the UK recently.
rish Europe Minister Dick Roche said that the main lesson learned from the Referendum was "to avoid them. If any other member states had held a referendum on the Treaty, the same issues would have been raised and in many cases the same result." Now the Irish are being forced to vote again (see News of the European Union)
The Democracy Movement and other Eurosceptic organisations has strongly supported the campaign for a referendum. For details see our "How You Can Help" page.
What some of the Small Print of the Constitution Means
The small print: Article 1-1.6: Establishes the EU as a country with a legal personality and gives it the right to negotiate interenational treaties.
What it could mean: The EU could sign treaties which would bind us, without our consent.
The small print: Article 17.1: If the EU decides that the Constitution does not give it the powers to do what it wants, it may take the appropriate measures to give itself the powers that it requires.
What it could mean: This is not the final settlement the Constitution was supposed to be - if the EU wants more powers, it won't need another treaty to get them. We can be outvoted, and lose even more control.
The small print : Article III 62: European law shall lay down measures for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation.
What it could mean: The EU gets its hands on more and more taxes, and won't stop until it gets the same taxes right across Europe. Most EU taxes are higher than ours.
The small print : A separate protoocol says that if national Parliaments representing one third of the votes object to a proposal of the Commission, the Commission shall review its proposal. After such a review the Commission may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal.
What it could mean: Our Parliament and others can protest at anything the Commission wants to do, but the Commission does not need to take a blind bit of notice. It can go ahead regardless.
Churchill's Warning
Winston Churchill warned that dictatorship can take many forms, including "the rule of caucus of political secretaries, banded together in the close confederacy of a common doctrine held". The EU operates by stealth and bureaucracy, but it knows where it wants to go.
We will Leave the European Union - when we see it for what it is.TWe it for what it is.he EU Treaty is almost identical t
the EUonstitution. Give us an EU Referendum |
