eurealist.co.uk

Patricia Hewitt, Mansion House Wednesday, 23 February, 2005

In the speech Hewitt claims “We listened very carefully to the views of business, trade unions and others before we negotiated the Constitution. We set out our objectives. And we achieved every one of them.”

With 275 amendments suggesting changes to the draft by the British government at the convention and only 10 of them accepted, Ms Hewitt has a very strange way of assessing achievement.

Limits on the powers of the European Union. Member states firmly in control. Qualified majority voting in areas where we would make no progress at all without it – like agricultural policy and enforcement of the single market. But the national veto retained in every area where we want it – tax, defence, foreign policy, the financing of the EU.

Hewitt must be reading a different Constitution there is no limit to the power of the Union member states are not in control, QMV removes the power to block regulations in over 60 new areas of authority all of the areas claimed as a veto are under attack and none can be relied on to maintain

British independence. Britain’s ability to block EU legislation will be decreased. Because the threshold number of votes needed to pass legislation falls, the number of votes needed to block legislation increases, so Britain has less of the votes needed to block legislation. When the UK joined the EEC in 1973 it controlled 56 percent of the total number of votes needed to block legislation. We currently have 39 percent of the votes needed. Under the Constitution our share would fall to 31 percent.

A smaller European Commission. More power for national Parliaments. And respect for established liberties of our citizens rather than an open door to create new ones.

From 2009 we will not always have a commissioner but will have to obey all the new laws without any hand in agreeing them in the Commision, There is no new power for national parliaments with the one exception the new power to be ignored. The Charta of Fundamental Rights will enable the ECJ to decide on our basic rights, and the Union has retained the right to removes any rights in the interest of the Union. If the union finds it does not have the power it want it has the right in the constitution to take it, and it also removes the power of our elected parliament to have a say in changes to either QMV or to the constitution itself.

The Treaty means not more Europe, but a better Europe.

More power to the Union less power in the UK and less power to elect our government

the language in the Treaty committing members to support the EU’s common foreign policy in “a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity” is lifted straight from the Maastricht Treaty and for ten years has not prevented Britain from acting unilaterally with the United States where we have wanted to.

That was a treaty this is a constitution and will be defined differently apart from that the Constitution has other clauses that require Britain to support the EU Foreign policy The EU will gain more powers over foreign and defence policy, and the ECJ will have new powers to make judgements about the legality of British foreign and defence policy. There are provisions for the new EU Foreign Minister to represent Britain and France at the UN.
The ECJ will become Britain’s de facto Supreme Court with its reach extended in various ways: sometimes clearly but, perhaps more dangerously, it will have a greater role because it is so badly defined in the text. For example, it is explicitly extended to cover some elements of foreign policy but these are badly defined, and it is possible that it will be able to extend its competence: eg. to cover the “solidarity clause” in I-15. It appears that it is not excluded from jurisdiction over the entire Part I of the Constitution which establishes the fundamental basis of the new EU. The Maastricht “pillar structure” is abandoned in the Constitution so home affairs and foreign policy are in principle treated the same way as the Single Market, with EU law explicitly given “primacy” over national law and the ECJ given jurisdiction. Further, Article III-274 says explicitly that the ECJ is responsible for interpreting the Constitution so the ECJ would be responsible for determining its own power – a situation damaging to the rule of law in Europe.

Hewitt also restates the lies about the situation should we leave the Union
a move that would be disastrous for investment, for the City,
for the 3 million jobs directly linked to our membership,
for our influence in the world.
Withdrawal would leave us – like Norway or Switzerland – still trading with Europe. Still paying contributions to Europe. And still bound by all Europe’s single market rules – yet with no say in the rules that Europe adopts.

All of which are either outright lies or subject to negotiation should we leave there will be no loss of jobs because we would still trade with the EU, out influence in the world will be diminished by giving further powers to the Union its influence will be increase British interest will not. There nothing to say we would agree to the same arrangements that Norway or Sweden have our contribution would, even if we did our contribution would not be anything like the amount we pay at present and that is not even counting the increases the Commission wants or the likely loss of our rebate.

There isn’t going to be a renegotiation because no other country wants it.

If they want their Constitution and British does not then they will have to negotiate because we have a veto if we say no then there is nothing the other can do other than negotiate.

Withdrawal from any of our international treaties would require the unanimous support of all other signatories. But no other government, no other political party in Europe is interested in renegotiating a dozen Treaties stretching back thirty years, every one under different Governments endorsed by the British Parliament

But not the British people, we do not need agreement for withdrawal, this power was retained in the British parliament when we entered the Union in 1972. To suggest that we no longer have that power is mendacious but if it were not this would mean that we had in fact given power of the British government to the union and not loaned it this would mean that at some point the British government had acted illegally because they do not own sovereignty they cannot give it away.

A No vote would leave Britain isolated and weakened. Our European partners, understandably puzzled, even angry, that we had rejected a Treaty in which we got everything we wanted, would one way or another move forward without us.

275 suggested amendments to the draft 10 accepted is not getting everything we want. The argument that a no vote would leave us isolated and weakened is ridiculous we will never be isolated other than the continuing trade with the EU we would be free to pursue any agreement we wished and trade with whom we wished, on our terms not those imposed by the union, and we would, far from being weekend be strengthened as we take back the powers to the British government.

What a contrast between the humanity and the idealism of these European leaders, their courage and commitment to the hard slog of economic reform – and the cynicism, the pettiness, the xenophobia of the anti-European movement in Britain.

Xenophobia is a disgusting slur on those who do not want Britain to be submerged in a United States of Europe. This speech is so full of lies misinterpretations and scare tactics it is an insult to the intelligence, but is shows the way the government is going to try to gain a yes vote for the EU Constitution. A Constitution which will pass even more power to the unelected unaccountable EU, Setting that organisation up with its power flowing not from the member states but it own constitution, making that constitution superior to the our constitution and EU law superior to our law.