eurealist.co.uk

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.”