eurealist.co.uk

A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an absolute ruler

That is the plan, look at the convention proceedings and the resulting totally non-democratic, zero-accountability constitution and there can be no other possible conclusion.

I do not know where that came from but if we care to look at the process that has developed to force the EU Constitution on the people, we can clearly se that the whole process is totally undemocratic with no input being allowed or wanted from the people that will have to live under the new EU government based on its own constitution.

Following on from a declaration to the Treaty of Nice and a later declaration agreed by the European Council (summit meeting) in Laeken in December 2001, the Convention on the Future of the European Union had the task of examining the current EU and EC Treaties and suggesting possible changes. The declaration of Laeken called for “more democracy, transparency and efficiency” in the EU and for reforms that would bring the EU closer to citizens. It referred to the possibility of “restoring tasks to the Member States” and the possibility “in the long run” of adopting a constitutional text for the EU

Its members, 105 in all, consisted of two representatives from each national parliament of the EU Member and Applicant countries, one from each national Government, and representatives of the European Parliament and EU Commission. The Draft Treaty says the Constitution was adopted “by consensus” at the EU Convention. The consensus was largely inside the heads of its chairman, former French President V.Giscard d’Estaing, and his 12- person Praesidum. No votes were taken on the over 1000 amendments submitted. Minority and dissenting views were ignored,
In fact even before the Convention met the President GISCARD D’ESTAING had decided that the only way forward was a Constitution at his opening speech on 26 February 2002 he said

“The Laeken Declaration leaves the Convention free to choose between submitting options or
making a single recommendation.
It would be contrary to the logic of our approach to choose now.
However, there is no doubt that, in the eyes of the public, our recommendation would carry
considerable weight and authority if we could manage to achieve broad consensus on a single
proposal which we could all present.
If we were to reach consensus on this point, we would thus open the way towards a Constitution for
Europe.

In order to avoid any disagreement over semantics, let us agree now to call it: a “constitutional
treaty for Europe”.

So we can already see that the Convention called to discuss the way forward had been hijacked by the federalists, who were not interested in finding a solution to the problems of the EU but were intent upon delivering a document that would force further integration.

Gisela Stuart who represented the Labour Party at Convention on the Future of Europe, and was a member of the Presidium. Said even those members of the Presidium had no power to control what went in or what was left out of the treaty. This was decided by Giscard and his deputies, Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene, and possibly Kerr. This group of four formed an inner core which directed and controlled the whole Convention.

“Consensus was achieved among those deemed to matter, who made it plain that the rest would not be allowed to wreck the fragile agreement struck. In the final stages, a number of delegates, including me, made it clear we could not endorse the text and that it should be regarded by the parliaments that sent us as no more than a basis for further discussions. Yet hardly was the ink dry on the draft than this was turned into an endorsement by all those present and governments were warned not to pick apart the carefully achieved compromises”

The debates focused solely on where we could do more at European Union level. None of the existing policies were questioned.
The most frequently cited justifications for a written Constitution for Europe have been the need to make the Treaties more understandable to European voters and the need to streamline the decision-making procedures of the European Union after enlargement. I support both of these aims. But the draft document from my experience at the Convention it is clear that the real reason for the Constitution – and its main impact – is the political deepening of the Union.
This Treaty establishing a Constitution brings together all that has been agreed in the past and introduces significant new changes in the EU. It will be difficult to amend and will be subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice. And if it remains in its current form, the new Constitution will be able to create powers for itself. It cannot be viewed piecemeal; its sum is more than its parts.

I was critical of the draft text and spelt out some of my concerns in a Fabian pamphlet last December. Unlike the Tories, I am not opposed to the concept of a constitution as such. Indeed, much of the confusion and lack of accountability in the EU could well be due to the absence of clearly defined rules.
There are worrying aspects. It gives more power to the European institutions but does not make those institutions more accountable to voters. By extending qualified majority voting, power is being handed to the European institutions but not to the nation states.

Where integration can be deepened no further, this text has rigid rules as for example in the list of exclusive competences of the Commission. Power at the centre cannot be returned to Member States. Where the political climate means that certain ideas for further integration are not yet acceptable, the Draft Constitution creates the structure for a process to develop later.”

The Constitution does not define the rules or limit the EU in any way in fact it does the opposite and allows the EU to change the rules and extend its power as it wishes, There are already areas of tax which are under the control of the EU and the Constitution makes it clear that the EU aims to harmonise tax. Most of the criminal justice system! this is only the thin end of the wedge there is nothing to stop the ECJ from extending its remit into all of these areas. Again the Constitution is clear that defence will be brought under the control of the EU later, we already have a joint fast reaction force on which the EU will build.

There is going to be an EU foreign minister who will speak for the union and each country will be expected to stand by its duty and conform to the EUs wishes and do nothing which could undermine the EU. The Constitution is full of things which undermine the role of national parliaments.

“This is not a State and is not intended to become a state” is the clarion call at each treaty, but each time we have a new treaty the areas that can be pointed to showing the EU is not a State get smaller and smaller This time It is just two areas Taxes and Army. Last time they could have said there is no Constitution!

So this is the Constitution which we are now being told by the EU foreign Minister designate Javier Solana we must accept, or we will open up the question of the relationship with other members of the EU.
So what! that is what the Laeken declaration called for, and the Convention on the Future of the EU ignored. If the EU cannot be further deepened without the peoples consent then so be it, Giscard should have considered this when he used the Convention to further the aims of the Union elite without a thought to the people.