eurealist.co.uk

Road to EU Surfdom

John Palmer, Political director of the European Policy Centre, an EU think tank, is bearing prophecies of hunger and pestilence.

Of course a referendum in Britain may still produce a no vote, even if everyone else has agreed to ratify, and even if all the candidate member states are also in favour. But in these circumstances it is the British relationship with the EU which would be in question - not the treaty. The British government would have no credible grounds for denying the right of the rest of the EU to proceed with implementation of the treaty.
Is there any plausible reason, why we as a nation would wish to remain bound to an organisation that would behave like this? The rules are clear. The constitution has to be ratified by all ( For the mathematically challenged at the European Policy Centre, that means 25 ) member states.

If the result is different from that wished for, that’s life. You can’t change the rules after the event.

We know that an end to your time at the teat would be painful John, but that teat is paid for by our taxes and we would like to spend our own money thanks. So be a good boy and no more tantrums.

More Posts

Why Eurosceptics should vote for the Constitution

Richard Corbett is a UK Labour MEP. He was also co-rapporteur for the European Parliament’s report on the European Constitution.

Richard Corbett, I find it sad that much of the debate about the proposed new EU constitution is couched in the usual hyperbole. Eurosceptic parts of the press are already conjuring up fears of an imminent centralised superstate.

A Constitution is the supreme law of a State, which has primacy over the laws of its provinces or regions in any case of conflict. It is the ultimate source of legal authority for the territory it
governs. It is enforced by a Supreme Court, in the EU’s case its Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Of course, it’s easy to see why those on the extreme right are opposed to the new constitution. There’s much in it to displease them – respect for human rights, respect for minorities, principles of non-discrimination. And so there should be. But what puzzles me is why genuinely moderate eurosceptics should object.

Trying again to define those of us against the Constitution as far right wing. The argument that a Constitution should set out socialist policies is totally flawed in any case, that this constitution does that, is to set in stone today’s thoughts on methods of acceptable government, to show how wrong that is we only need to do is set in stone the political mores of one hundred years ago, to see that if those people had believed they had the right to say all governments that were to follow must accept their definitions of social policy.

On the grand scheme of things, the new constitution doesn’t change much, but those changes it does make are almost exclusively aimed at addressing the most common eurosceptic complaints. It emphasises yet again that the European Union is a voluntary association of co-operating states, with only those responsibilities that its members unanimously choose to give it. Surely, not even the most ardent anti-Europeans could object to that!

The Constitution abolishes national control in nearly 30 new policy areas. They include civil and criminal law and procedures, asylum and immigration, Europol and Eurojust, energy, structural
funds, commercial treaties dealing with services, culture.

Actually the Constitution changes everything, it turns upside down the power flow, now it is from the member states to the Union when the EU is reformed its authority will not come from the members but from the constitution itself. In fact the constitution gives very little power to act independently to the member states and even in those areas of power that remain, the government must operate under the umbrella of the EU, and each area that the states have agreed not to allow the union to operate are under constant threat and are only temporary, as Gisela Stewartsaid and
It gives more power to the European institutions but does not make those institutions more accountable to voters It is also far from clear that the principle that national governments should continue to be in charge of policy-making unless these policies would be better handled at European level is being respected, 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.

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.

This Constitution is unusual in that it also initiates processes for future development with the aim of deeper and ever closer integration. 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. An example of this is defence and foreign policy.

Corbett has written a rebuttal of Stewarts claims (Same link as above) but as she, not him, was a member of the Presidium, I know who I would prefer to believe on what happened during their deliberations.

As far as his take on the Constitution itself well if the following is anything to go by then I thing a quick look at the document will show his views are just that views with no substance “It stokes up the hoary myth that the EU is about centralisation, but as she well knows, the draft constitution does not transfer any new fields of responsibility from national to European level. Rather, it increases the accountability of the European institutions to member states and to citizens”

In general, the new constitution contains a set of modest but worthwhile improvements to the current constitution of the EU (the existing set of overlapping treaties). It does three main things:
• streamline decision-making to prevent gridlock in an enlarged EU;
• introduce greater democratic safeguards;
• clarify the nature and aims of the Union.

It makes it easier for the EU to override any objections which of course does prevent gridlock,

“The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union’s Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.”

A relevant point here is that EU governments accepted the ECJ’s assertion of the primacy of EU law in the 1960s, when the then EEC dealt with a far narrower range of issues than the EU does today. It is one thing for Member States go along with a principle established by the EU Court and applied to a restricted range of matters like customs duties or tariffs. It is quite another to
concede national sovereignty to an EU Constitution whose writ covers everything from tax policy to criminal law to foreign policy and fundamental human rights.

So much for the broad outline, which is hardly controversial. It’s when you look at the detail of these provisions that it becomes clear just how many traditional eurosceptic criticisms are addressed.

They complain about apparent lack of democracy. So the constitution now gives the directly elected European Parliament control over all aspects of the EU budget. The adoption of EU legislation will be subject to the prior scrutiny of national parliaments and the dual approval of both national governments (in the Council) and the directly elected European Parliament - a level of parliamentary scrutiny that exists in no other international structure. The exercise of delegated powers by the Commission will be brought under a new system of supervision by the European Parliament and the Council, enabling each of them to call back Commission decisions to which they object.

Directly elected but on what mandate? Richard North has already blown a great big hole in this particular argument…

“mandate” in this context is interesting. It is generally held to mean the sanction given by electors to members of parliament to deal with a question before the country. In other words, the candidates for the election set out their stalls, the electors look at the rival offerings and choose between them.

Furthermore – and this strikes at the heart of the concept of a supranational parliament – there is no commonality of interest in the peoples of the member states that would enable discrete blocs to emerge that could be adequately represented by a multi-national coalition of MEPs. In other words, there is no European demos and, without that, there can be no European democracy.

An ‘emergency brake’ is introduced, enabling national governments to block majority decisions in certain sensitive areas if they consider it to be of national importance.

No such power exits there is no blocking power available to the Member states.

They complain about lack of transparency. So the constitution now insists that the Council of Ministers should always meet in public when legislating, meaning that no laws will be enacted behind closed doors.

But there is no openness about the Commissions proposals no way of opposing them.

They complain about inefficiency. So the constitution introduces several new measures to streamline and improve decision-making. It increases the areas in which governments take decisions by qualified majority voting rather than by unanimity – a vital factor if the enlarged Union is to be able to function without being blocked by vetoes, though the veto is of course retained for sensitive subjects such as tax and foreign affairs. The voting system in the Council is changed so that votes tally with population size. Greater continuity is provided for by replacing the current six-monthly rotating presidency of the European Council with a two-and-a-half-year chair. The size of the Commission is reduced, and the size of Parliament is capped.

I do not complain about the union being inefficient in fact it is counter to my argument. If the EU was more efficient we would have more EU, I want less EU, however The Constitution does make the EU more efficient because it passes more power to the union to act by the methods described by Corbett however that only increases my condemnation of the EU because for every increase in power there is a corresponding decrease in the Government power and our ability to vote for the government and the policies we want.

I have never accepted that weighting votes in the Council, was needed as a method of producing either democratic control or efficiency. To explain this the EU System is supposed to be built on the following concept
1 The Parliament represents the people
2 The Council represents the governments
3 The Commission represents the EU

Therefore by reducing the size of the Commision i.e. removing a commissioner for each state, the power of the commission is increased, because half the time a state will have to obey law they have had no hand in forming. By the changes to the way the Commision is selected the power of the Commision president is increased to the detriment of the member states that will no longer have the ability to select their own commissioner, but must supply the names of three, the president will choose whom he wants and the president will have the power to dismiss whom he wants. By allowing the larger state to hold greater voting power only sets in stone the powers of the larger states, who will have the ability to dictate what is acceptable and what is not acceptable so we will find that three large states will have blocking power over all the other 22 states this cannot be democratic because it is based on the population of the state yet the Council does not represent the people the parliament does and the parliament is already loaded in favour of the larger state as is right. So not only is greater power for France Germany and Britian expressed in the parliament it is also expressed in the Council.

They complain about inflexibility. So there are enhanced provisions for flexible arrangements when not all Member States are willing or able to go ahead with certain policies at the same time.

The principle of “enhanced cooperation,” This is a further major step towards a two-tier, two-class EU and a further break with the notion of the EU as a partnership of legal equals that prevailed up to the Treaty of Nice. The EU Minister for Foreign Affairs will
take part in the deliberations of this inner group and in effect will be able to present the other Member States that are not involved in “structured cooperation” with continual foreign policy
and military faits accomplis, using the collectively provided EU resources that have been financed by all, to do so.

The “flexibility clause,” states that if the Constitution has not given the EU sufficient power to attain one of its very wide objectives, the Council of Ministers, acting unanimously, “shall take the appropriate measures.” Originally Article 235 of the 1957
Treaty of Rome, this provision was seldom used before the 1980s, but since then it has been the basis of a major extension of EU policy-making and legislation into areas that were not
specifically provided for in the treaties, and which some authorities regard therefore as quite illegal. Certainty of provision and precision of expression are the foundations of legality. This article effectively permits the EU to do what it likes, as long as the Council of Ministers acts unanimously. It has enabled the EU to take extra powers to itself without further treaty renegotiation. It offers wide scope to the EU to implement policy in whatever way it wishes, without constitutional control, in pursuit of its very wide objectives. Moreover, this Article I-17
replaces the existing Article 308, which applies to the single market, and extends its scope to everything in the Constitution. Such a provision has no place in any democratic Constitution.

They complain about complexity and jargon. So the constitution replaces a dozen overlapping treaties with a single clear document, spelling out the objectives of the Union, its powers and their limits, its policy instruments and its institutions. It simplifies and clarifies legal acts: ‘European laws’ and ‘European framework laws’ replace the existing regulations, directives, framework decisions and so on. And it spells out the Union is based on a set of shared values: freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, respect for human rights and minorities, pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and gender equality.

But not democracy!
And one of the big Europhile arguments is that we will not understand the document, so we should leave it to our betters supposedly the likes of Mr Corbett who so far has in everything he has said about the document managed to miss-represent the constitution.

And they complain about what they see as some kind of slide towards a powerful centralised superstate. So the constitution stops such debate in its tracks, enshrining the principle of conferral, under which the Union only has those responsibilities that its member states agree to give it. It also reinforces subsidiarity – that the Union should never act except where local or national action is agreed to be insufficient.

Subsidiarity is an illusion it gives no power to the member states was never intended to.

“Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted
by the Union in this area.

Perhaps it’s still too much to expect the more blinkered eurosceptics to see this – after all, it has the word “Europe” in the title, which for some people is bad news in itself. Sadly, they will continue to oppose dogmatically a document which does little more than simplify and democratise.

simplify and democratise? Repeating the same rubbish as before

It’s easy to forget, too, that the constitution is no more than a vehicle, setting out the principles and procedures for adopting policies. The policies themselves are the interesting part. People just aren’t turned on by arguments about institutions, and one of the reasons for having the new constitution is to provide a lasting settlement.

Nice one Mr Corbett the Constitution sets up the Union as a state in its own right, it gives that state its own authority to act for its citizens it from the Constitution

“Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the Union’s
common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain from action contrary to the
Union’s interests or likely to impair its effectiveness.”

“The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies” and “the Union’s budget shall be financed wholly from its own resources.”

“Where the Constitution provides in Part 3 for the Council of Ministers to act unanimously in a given area, the European Council can adopt, on its own initiative and by unanimity, a European decision allowing the Council of Ministers to act by qualified majority in that area.” This provision enables a summit meeting of EU Presidents and Prime Ministers to move policy areas from unanimity to majority voting without having to draw up new treaties and get them ratified by parliamentary vote or referendum.

“The Union shall have competence to promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States.”

“The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.”

“The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union hasnot exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.”

“Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union,” this new and re-founded EU that is now constitutionally separate from its Member States. One can only be a citizen of a State. The Article goes on: “Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in this Constitution.”

On this point alone I would vote “No” to this Constitution, because I do not want to be a citizen of the EU, I do not want to pay taxes to the EU, I do not want to owe allegiance to the EU, I do not want this undemocratic unaccountable system of government that would not be out of place in the old USSR.

“The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives set out in the Constitution.”

“Following the principle of loyal cooperation, the Union and the
Member States shall … assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Constitution.”
The word “loyal” is significant.

If it fails to be adopted, we can look forward to several years of bitter wrangling on the future structure of the enlarged EU. That might keep those politicians happy who make their careers out of euroscepticism – but it’s hardly a prospect for the rest of us to relish.

If this is unacceptable then obviously the EU will have to rethink its way forward that is no argument for asking us to agree to this Constitution. It ill become Richard Corbett who makes a career and good living and can look forward to a good pension from the EU, to complain about people who do not share his views, that is the nature of democracy and even though the EU is not democratic I am sure that mr Corbett can read up about somewhere!

France’s President de Gaulle once described the EU Commission as “A conclave of technocrats without a country, responsible to nobody.”

The EU Big Bash as reported elsewhere was interrupted by about 100 anti Constitution MEP`s who carried placards saying “Not in my name”

According to the Telegraph the “Eurosceptic group said it was protesting at the use of £230,000 of taxpayers’ money on a “lavish party” in Strasbourg to launch the constitution and promote a Yes campaign.”

“It is perhaps a little premature - to say nothing of distasteful - for the champions of this grandiose scheme to be quaffing champagne before the people of Europe have had their say,” said the North-East Conservative MEP Martin Callanan.

But the Cheshire/Merseyside Liberal Democrat Chris Davies was clear about the reasons for the “Big Spend” which he made clear when he said “How far does £238,000 go in informing 455 million people? Five pence per person over two years is a fraction of the daily cost of the newspapers that force-feed the British people a diet of nonsense about the EU,”

The party was to celebrate the fact that two totally committed EU MEP`s produced a totally one sided report on the Constitution, that was then accepted by the majority of the other totally committed MEP`s. But the fact is that the EU parliament has no place in this debate at all, it is up to the member states to decide if they wish to pass more powers to the EU intuitions they are the members of the union not the MEPs` which are part of the union government structure so their vote has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

All of this before even one single member of the EU public which are going to be allowed, have even cast a vote on the constitution. At the same time the Eurocrats are moving ahead with as many parts of the constitution as they can get away with before any state has placed their documents of ratification which requires all 25 to do so before the EU has the legal authority to take these moves. To even suggest that this is democratic is to fly in the face of all reason.

So these Europhiles do not believe in democracy, and why should they be expected too, it is after all, the EU that keeps them in the style they believe they are entitled to. All they have to do vote the way they are told and all will be well “Democracy in the European Parliament only works if you say yes all the time,” said Conservative MEP Chris Heaton-Harris, who represents the East Midlands. Well that is a strange interpretation of democracy, but is true of the EU system which has been purposefully designed to deny the people a voice in their own government, and arranges everything in order to keep that voice silent.

Yet when they decide they want to take more power than the treaties allow and want to force their constitution on all the people of Europe, they firstly encourage all the governments to ignore their own people and ratify without a popular mandate, when it is evident that the EU constitution will conflict with some state constitutions which require those states to consult the people. They do everything they can to undermine the people’s rights, and then complain if some of us have the temerity to stand up and say we do not want them to become our government. A Constitution is an agreement between the people and their government, it sets out the rules for that Government and gives that government the authority to act for the people.

Without the Constitution they have no democratic mandate, all these people are attempting is to manipulate the result, that in it-self should warn us all that this system of government is unacceptable to any democratic person.

EU Referendum