eurealist.co.uk

EU CONSTITUTION NOT COMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY
“Indeed, it is only the fact that we have a veto that gives a proper bargaining power to the UK.” - Jack Straw, quoted in the Times May 23rd 2005.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1623972,00.html

DEMOCRACY MOVEMENT
http://www.democracymovement.org.uk

Media Release
24 May 2005

Embargo: none

EU CONSTITUTION NOT COMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY; JACK STRAW VETO CONFUSION

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has today introduced the European Union Bill in the House of Commons. The Bill will give effect to the EU Constitution, subject to the approval of the people in a national referendum.

Marc Glendening, campaign director of the Democracy Movement, comments:

“The EU Constitution will abolish the national veto in 69 new areas and will result in even more laws being imposed on Britain that have no electoral mandate here. That’s clearly not compatible with democratic government.

“The recent election showed that people want more responsive government, not more decisions taken by majority vote in remote institutions in Brussels. That the government is pressing ahead with implementing the EU Constitution shows clearly that they have not listened to the message people sent them just 19 days ago.

“In particular it seems strange that Jack Straw should be recommending this profound political change when only on Sunday he said that Britain would use its veto to stop the EU taking our £3billion rebate away.

“If the government is relaxed about giving away Parliament’s capacity to block unwelcome laws in these numerous new areas, why not give it away in relation to all policy areas, including the payments national governments have to hand over to the fraud- ridden Brussels budget?

“Jack Straw needs to make up his mind - either we need the ability to block unwelcome EU laws or not.”

Israeli officials told the European Union’s anti-terrorism coordinator Gijs De Vries on Monday that Israel is increasingly concerned about a growing European trend to want to either establish or strengthen ties with Hizbullah and Hamas.

De Vries met in Jerusalem Monday with Jeremy Issacharoff, the Foreign Ministry’s deputy-director general for strategic affairs. De Vries arrived in Israel to take part in a dialogue on fighting terror, the first of its kind.

Israeli diplomatic officials said Israel viewed gravely a European trend to take advantage of the increasing political profile Hizbullah and Hamas are putting forward in order to establish formal contacts with representatives of these organizations.

According to Israel’s assessments, this policy - which has gained strength in the run-up to the Lebanese elections - signals to terrorist groups a waning of the international community’s political resolve to fight international terrorism.

Israel’s view, as presented to De Vries, was that as long as these organizations continued to be involved in terror acts and in developing and procuring arms, they should not be viewed as political organizations but rather as terrorist groups.

Israel has made it clear to the EU that as part of its obligation to continue fighting terror, it rejects all attempts by the international community to see these organizations as legitimate political parties.

Diplomatic officials said Israel’s position was that the international community needed to demonstrate staying-power in this regard and needed to demand of the terror organizations to abandon violence before political contacts could be established.

Israeli attempts two months ago to get the EU to include Hizbullah on its list of terror organizations did not bear any fruit and concern was growing in Jerusalem that as Hamas takes a greater role in the political process in the PA, the voices in Europe calling for the EU to take Hamas off its list of terror organizations will only increase.

Getting ready for a “no2 Wouter Bos, head of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA), said in an interview. If the Dutch vote ‘no’ to the treaty, ‘we will have to see if the Netherlands stands alone, the Netherlands could then organize a second referendum. So vote yes this time or we will just keep on asking until you do as you are told.

The Hansard Society committee a team comprising MPs, academics and journalists headed by the Labour peer Lord Puttnam. The commission was set up after the 2001 election, when the turnout plunged to 59%.In a report out today says:

“There is an extraordinary confusion between the role of parliament and the role of government. People genuinely now see parliament and government as one and the same. “We’ve got an executive with increasing and enormous powers but we don’t have parliament with sufficient self-confidence or [a] sufficient relationship with the public at large to check those power the report makes a total of 39 recommendations aimed at making parliament more prominent and relevant to people’s lives.”

As one might expect in a committee led by a film producer the real problems of parliament are swamped in a plea for more and better media coverage, more angles to shoot from, more areas to shoot in, more freedom for the TV crews to wander about the place, more intrusive coverage, almost as if democracy depended on a TV produces power to interpret parliamentary process in a way that they feel makes it more exiting.

“Parliament should relax its rules on TV coverage to allow voters to see “reaction shots” of MPs, also calls for more interviews shot in and around the palace of Westminster - which are currently tightly restricted - and an end to the ban on still photography. The report says: “The rules of television coverage in the chambers should be relaxed to allow, for example, further reaction shots, appropriate use of close-ups, more panning shots of back benches and a wider range of options during division.”

Other recommendations include a new website to replace the current, confusing, parliamentary portal - which Lord Puttnam dubbed a “anoraks’ site” - a new specific communications service to publicise the activities of the Lords and Commons, headed by a joint committee of peers and MPs, and an increase in the number of media passes allowed.

The report calls on ITV and the commercial sector broadcasters to reassert their commitment to regional and national news and current affairs, while recommending that the BBC integrate its Parliament Channel better into mainstream broadcasting, and report to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport on how it will provide “engaging, innovative and accessible” coverage of parliament.
The report also demands more filming of non-chamber parliamentary proceedings, such as select committees. TV cameras were first allowed into the Commons chamber in 1989 - barely a decade after audio broadcasts of debates on the radio.”

How any of this enhancing the power of the media to show what they want to show, and not to show what they do not, will help in the battle to make government accountable to the people via their elected representatives is anyone’s guess. I would hesitantly suggest that the fall off in support for our political process has gone hand in hand with the broadcasting of parliament, although it would be churlish of me to suggest that is the cause.

The idea is sound, that we the people should see how our laws are made and become involved in the process through television, but as we have seen the only coverage we are offered, are the sound bites the TV producers wish us to see, often with a journalist using the recordings to make the point they wish to make. The coverage of Prime Minister Question Time on Radio 5 live has become a joke and made so, not by the politicians but by the commentators who see it a battle of who is top dog each week, who scores the best points against whom.

Perhaps if the politicians we elect did begin to hold the executive to account, then we would see a revival in the peoples interest in politics, but that of course depends on the ability of the government to make the laws in the first place, as it stands at the moment with over 70% of our laws emanating not from Westminster, but from Brussels, the MP`s we elect to Westminster have no power to influence those laws whether they hold the government to account or not.

Lord Puttnam and his team can suggest ways of making the parliament circus more acceptable to the media hacks, but that ain`t going to make the goings on in Parliament more relevant to peoples lives, unless you are one of those who consider soaps to be relevant, or alter the basic problem with either parliament or peoples perceptions of the place, which seems to be about right, that it is an expensive waste of time, that has become no more than an enabling committee for the European Union.

Iain Duncan Smith answers the arguments for changes in the Tory leader rules.

Two main arguments have been advanced against the current membership-based democracy. The first is that it elected me. I am happy to take this on the chin. But let’s face it: the parliamentary party controlled the election of Margaret Thatcher, John Major and William Hague, yet each of those three leaders suffered from attacks from the very MPs who installed them.
The second argument is one against the membership. High-ups who have criticised grassroots activists appear to have quickly forgotten the sacrificial efforts of members to elect MPs. Members have been caricatured as unrepresentative of the country at large, extreme in their opinions, and uninformed about the qualities necessary in a leader.
The Conservative grassroots may be “unrepresentative” insofar as any organisation made up of people who are interested in politics will be unrepresentative. Most Britons are not interested in politics. But the voluntary party may turn out to be more representative than the MPs. It is rooted in every walk of life, comprising soldiers, teachers, doctors, businesspeople, full-time and working mothers, churchgoers and students. They staff advice centres, deliver meals on wheels, volunteer for local charities. They are certainly older than the average age - but so are the people who vote. The party has more women than men, just like British society. The male-dominated parliamentary party is composed overwhelmingly of lawyers, bankers and career politicians.
In the days when the party had MPs in every corner of the country, it might have been reasonable to argue that they should elect their leader. It is questionable whether that argument is as appropriate today. Our seats are overwhelmingly in the shires and suburbs of England. If Conservative MPs have the final say, Scotland will have one vote in the election. Wales will have three. England will have 97 per cent of the electorate. Even more importantly, none of the electors will represent Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham. Furthermore, constituencies we must win at the next election will have no voice.
The second criticism made of the membership is that it is ”too extreme”. This is often code for ”Euro-sceptic” - as Michael Heseltine made clear at the weekend when he urged a change of rules. That is not the impression I get from meeting local activists. While there is no doubt that the membership is anxious about the drift towards the European superstate, that anxiety is shared by the country at large. And the membership shares the country’s other anxieties, too.
Whenever I attend constituency events I am as likely to be asked about schools, crime or the NHS as about Europe. My guess is that the membership has more exposure to public service failure than the Westminster political class.
The final criticism is that Conservative grassroots are “uninformed” about the qualities required in a leader. I gently remind those critics that, two weeks ago, ”uninformed” members of the public were trusted with the election of our government, not Westminster insiders.
Moreover, the criticism is an argument for the wholesale centralisation of the party. Why should the volunteers choose parliamentary candidates, if they cannot choose the leader? The 2005 intake of new MPs is the best I can remember.
The fundamental problem with public institutions is their centralisation, and the degree to which unaccountable elites accrue power at the expense of people. The victims of this centralisation are children trapped in failing schools, pensioners trapped in failing hospitals, and families suffering the debilitating effects of over-bureaucratic policing and a welfare state that discourages personal responsibility. The country needs more local democracy - and so does the Conservative Party.
I am concerned that this debate about the leadership will be seen in the narrowest of terms. In fact it should be part of a bigger debate about the direction for the party - and how we go about our politics. Yesterday I published a paper that urges the party to look beyond the Westminster village and adopt a commitment to social justice.
This commitment is all about making politics work for the hardest-hit communities. We need to be seen to be on the side of Britain’s conservative majority. The people that Australia’s John Howard calls the battlers - the hard-working people who suffer most from the political establishment’s failure to tackle pensioner poverty, drug addiction, violent crime and family breakdown.
These people have suffered from an overcentralised welfare state oblivious to their aspirations, needs and experiences. A welfare state that has too often damaged the social cohesion of the welfare society upon which our wellbeing depends.
Being on their side will broaden and complete our Conservatism so that we are seen once again as a party that cares for the whole nation. So people see a Conservative Party that is good for them and also for their neighbour. Polls show a hunger among the electorate for a party that embraces an agenda of social justice. Only when our policies are seen to work for every member of society will we break through the glass ceiling that has kept our support below a third of the electorate at three successive elections.
Whatever the party decides to do with the rules, I will support the outcome, just as I supported Michael Howard throughout his leadership. But we must have a vigorous debate before we decide those rules and before we decide who will be our next leader and what party strategy should be. Members must not be cowed into abdicating their powers. It is they, in unison with my parliamentary colleagues, who are the future of the Conservative Party.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he is “extremely concerned” about the latest polls both in the Netherlands and France, where 52 percent of voters are set to vote against the constitution on 29 May.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said “The government is very motivated, we are in the final phase and we will do what we can to get the ‘yes’.

This includes a government’s allocation of EUR 3.5 million to the ‘yes’ campaign for the 1 June referendum.

The provision has caused annoyance in the No campaign who are taking the government to court because they say this allocation breaks the Dutch referendum legislation which states that only EUR 1 million may be allocated to government campaigns and that the independent referendum commission must divide the funding between the pro and anti-campaigns.

The No campaign will request the court ban the State from using the extra funding, prevent the distribution of a new information brochure and order the removal of pro-constitution television, radio and press commercials.
If the court rules that the committee should be granted equal means to conduct a ‘no campaign’, it will not demand the aforementioned bans.

Lord Owen writing in the Times suggests three ways to limit the damage of the EU Constitution in the event of a yes vote, the three methods he proposes are at the behest of our own government. The opportunity for improvement is presented by the Government’s European Union Bill. Intended to pave the way for a referendum, it can be amended to do much more.
Lord Owen accepts the reluctance of those who are opposed to the constitution to do anything to make it more palatable. “They may prefer to leave it as it is, feeling that unchanged it is more likely to be rejected by voters.” But he says “against the temptation to do nothing is the responsibility to do everything to ensure that the self-governing, democratic nature of this country is not put at risk by the constitution’s hotchpotch of new commitments and extensions of EU power.”

Democrats need to prepare themselves not only for a referendum, but also for the possibility of a British “yes”. It is important that we do whatever we can now to limit any damage the constitution might do.

Lord Owen says, “Sadly, we cannot change the words that have been negotiated in the Treaty of Nice but there are democratic safeguards which Parliament can insist on by amending the European Union Bill.”

Firstly, an amendment to the Bill to ensure that no decision to move to a common European Union defence policy — which has far-reaching consequences for Nato — could be taken unanimously in the European Council without there first being a specific Act passed by the British Parliament. This would mean that parliamentary approval would be required before a British Government could exercise its voting rights in the European Council on this vital issue.
Secondly, we need an amendment to ensure that no British minister could agree changes to the constitution without going through the full existing ratification procedure in the UK involving primary legislation and, on occasions, a referendum. This would include such matters as the substitution of qualified majority voting for unanimity, such as in the area of taxation.

This amendment would overturn the effect of the simplified revision procedure, the new form of “passerelle” clause — which gives the right to the Council of Ministers acting unanimously to abolish national vetoes — without changing the text of the Treaty. Instead of only ministers deciding, Parliament, as at present, would have to pass legislation before any ministerial agreement in the councils of the EU.

Thirdly, the Government should add an “interpretative declaration” to the European Union Bill. This would, among other things, include an explicit wording that ruled out the new post of President of the European Council being held by the same person who is President of the Commission. It is important that this is ruled out because bringing together the executive powers of the President of the Commission with the intergovernmental power of the European Council (the heads of government) would be a big step towards integration.

The Government’s explanatory memorandum to the EU Bill deals with this, but it has no legal force. An interpretative declaration, by contrast, would have the full force of British law, indicating the Westminster Parliament’s understanding of the meaning of the words in the Treaty. A breach could thereby be appealed to the newly established UK Supreme Court. That court would then be able to uphold Parliament’s understanding of the specific words in the constitution, as set out at the time of passing the legislation. The court would not be imposing its own interpretation of the words — an important distinction for those who do not want our Supreme Court to develop along American lines.

Only by adding an interpretative declaration would the British courts be able to negate a judgment of the European Court of Justice, if the ECJ ever ruled in favour of double-hatting these two presidencies at some future date. Without this power the UK would be unable to stop a qualified majority vote for what would be a major move towards integration, one which the Dutch Government and others want and believe is allowed for in the text of the constitution.

There are many other instances where the wording of the proposed constitution is unclear, as has been shown by experts in the recent House of Commons European scrutiny committee report. Some of these hazy wordings could be clarified in the interpretative declaration — for example, stating Parliament’s understanding that all aspects of a common foreign and security policy are outside the power of the European Court of Justice.

Lord Owen “I do not pretend that these suggested amendments would make the constitution acceptable to so many people that it would prevent a “no” vote in any referendum, but they would make it easier for the UK to prevent some of the constitution’s more damaging aspects being realised. Parliamentarians, irrespective of their views on the European constitution, have a duty to introduce these democratic safeguards.”

Lord Owen has pointed out some of the dangers in the Constitution and has suggested some reasonable democratic safeguards, which would have the effect of maintaining the power of our own elected MP`s in the face of intergrationalist policies emanating from the EU. It will now be interesting to see what Tony Blair’s real intentions are based on Lord Owens benchmark. If Blair does not include these safeguards then we will know for certain that he intends to use the powers the EU Constitution grants him to undermine the authority of the British Parliament.