eurealist.co.uk

Telegraph opinion “A No vote is a vote for repatriation of power” I saved this last week intending a comment but got to busy at the time, I still think it is worth considering the argument, although basically wrong it does put into context the idea that Blair and co advance, that a No vote in the referendum, if we ever get one, is a vote to leave the EU. This is an attempt to frighten the children, by offering only the vision of a Britain sidelined in Europe with no say in the direction of the EU and no alternative on the table, the Pro-Constitutionites hope that we will vote to accept their vision of a United Europe because we have nowhere else to go.
The real case is that if we vote “No”, we will still be in the EU, and the present treaties will still stand, the only problems created by a no vote would be problems for the EU elites, who have failed to communicate their desire for an integrated United States of Europe to the people, and would then have no alternative other than to ratify the constitution anyway over the heads of the people, or to go back to the drawing board.
The Telegraph makes the point that the constitution is not simply the latest in a series of treaties: it alters the legal basis of the EU. On the day it enters into force, all existing treaties will be dissolved. The EU will cease to be an association of states, deriving its authority from its constituent members, and instead draw its legitimacy directly from its own founding charter. It will acquire almost every attribute recognised by international law as a feature of statehood: legal personality, treaty-making powers, a head of state, external frontiers, accredited diplomats.
So we are not simply being asked to vote yes to a new treaty, but the change of our own constitution the basic way in which we will be governed in the future.
Anyone who thinks that we exaggerate should read the text (available online at www.euabc.com). You need only look at the first dozen or so clauses to get a sense of what the constitution is about: “The Constitution shall have primacy over the law of the Member States” (Article I-6); “The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence” (Article I-12). Then comes the list of areas where Brussels is to have jurisdiction: transport, energy, agriculture, fisheries, trade competition, asylum, immigration, social policy, employment law, foreign affairs, defence, space exploration, justice and home affairs. No wonder Tony Blair spent the election blathering about schools and hospitals: they’re pretty much all he’ll have left.
This point is not made flippantly. European integration was a malign if unremarked presence throughout the recent campaign. There it sat like Banquo’s ghost, invisible to most voters, but shaking its gory locks at the party leaders, who knew that they had to draw up their manifestos within the parameters allowed by EU law. There was a spectacular illustration of this when Michael Howard pledged that a future Conservative government would set an upper limit for immigrants and a separate quota for refugees, only to be told that such a policy was not compatible with the EU’s “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice” (1984-style nomenclature is very much a feature of Brussels life).
Equally, no party could promise to revive our countryside (because of the CAP), rescue our fishing communities (because of the CFP) or deregulate our labour markets (because of the social chapter). No party could take up this newspaper’s proposal to replace VAT with a local sales tax.
Ah yes, say the supporters of the constitution, but these are not new grievances: they mainly derive from past treaties. Perhaps so. But the fact that the constitution entrenches a number of things that we already disliked is hardly an argument for voting “yes”. When Mr Blair says that this is a referendum on the wider question of Britain’s relationship with Brussels, he is right. Since this is the first time that we have been asked our opinion in 30 years, it is only natural that we should wish to express a view on the various transfers of power to the EU that have happened over that period. But having thus defined the contest, Mr Blair must accept the logic of his own position. A “no” vote would not simply be a vote for the status quo: it would be a vote for the wholesale repatriation of power from Brussels and the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. If he cannot bring himself to accept this, Mr Blair will surely have to make way for someone who can.