eurealist.co.uk

This from Open Europe

Blair: “the argument in favour of an open Europe is winning”

Tony Blair will give a speech in Oxford this evening which will attempt to defend his EU policies as Prime Minister. It is reported that he will insist that he has achieved his ambition of enhancing Britain’s clout in the EU through his policy of “positive engagement”. He will argue that Britain is now in “a much better place” on Europe than when Labour took office, saying it is a “pivotal country” at the heart of a new consensus over the need to adopt economic reforms.

The Independent reports that he will say: “Europe has emerged from its darkened room. It has a new generation of leaders. A new consensus is forming. Yes, there is still a debate to be had, but the argument in favour of an open Europe is winning… there’s never been a better time to be optimistic in Europe or enthusiastic about Britain’s part in it.”

He will also signal that there is a “new generation” of European leaders, such as Angela Merkel, who are united around the need to pursue economic reform. The FT reports that Downing Street is confident that the two principal competitors for the French presidency in 2007 - Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique De Villepin - are increasingly focused on the economic reform agenda. The Times reports that Blair will claim today that Europe is now a “more comfortable place for Britain”, and that there is agreement on the new priorities of jobs, security, energy supply and migration.

Blair will, however, acknowledge that he has not secured the “big bang” change in Britain’s relationship with Europe that he aimed for but will blame this on Britain’s “Eurosceptic-dominated” newspapers.

Comment: It is pretty difficult to see how the current state of play in Europe can be spun into a success for Tony Blair or the Foreign Office: world trade talks in crisis because of EU protectionism; a budget deal under which Britain will pay £10.5 billion a year into a totally unreformed EU budget; an increase in the EU regulatory burden (on the Govt’s own figures) of at least £30 billion since mid-1998 alone; a disastrous drift to a single EU defence which has wasted more than £20 billion duplicating NATO assets and lost Britain access to US technology; and above all - no halt whatsoever in the EU drive towards deeper integration. The only argument in France and Germany about the EU Constitution is now when and how to bring it back – not if.

Blair’s suggestion that Sarkozy and Villepin are going to be “reform allies” in Europe calls to mind all the other people the FCO claimed were going to be our new partners: Angela Merkel, Romano Prodi, “The Blair-Berlusconi-Aznar axis” – even Jacques Chirac at first. Hopefully the team of Brown, Straw and Ed Balls are not under the comforting illusion that we are currently “winning the argument” in Europe…

The next big crunch in Europe is in 18 months’ time: the confluence of the French elections, the German Presidency of the EU, and a number of difficult decisions about enlargement. Hopefully Britain will have a new approach by then.

Times FT Telegraph Scotsman
Sarkozy on Europe Villepin on Europe

The Europhile spin put on the EU Constitution Exit Clause, would have us all belive that we can not leave the EU at the moment because there is no EU recognised legal apparatus for doing so. The implication being; if we wish to leave the EU then first we must ratify the EU Constitution, which contains an exit clause that will enable us to do so.

This argument, to be blunt, is arrant nonsense, this fact however does not stop this misunderstanding being pressed for all its worth.
Link to the earlier letters in this particular debate in the Scotsman, but Dr Cooper makes the correct case when he says;

“We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU”

This is the point which is missed; at present the EU derives its power form the member states, through their treaties, if (god forbid) the Constitution is ever ratified, then it will derive its power from that constitution.

Lord Justice Laws explains the difference between a treaty and a constitution

“There is a categorical difference between a treaty and a constitution. A treaty is an exercise of power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power.
This brings me, then, to the meaning of constitution. In what does a constitution
consist? Stripped to the bone, I think that a constitution’s minimum characteristics are twofold. (1) The constitution consists in the laws which define who shall be the ruler of the State, and what are the legal relationships between ruler and ruled; and (2) there are no laws superior to those which the constitution contains.”

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=140882006

Progressive erosion

Dr DR Cooper (Letters, 23 January) tells us the European Court of Justice exceeded its authority in 1962 in describing the loss of sovereignty of European Union members as permanent and that its view has been rejected by national courts where the question has been posed. He also quotes our joining the then Common Market as authorising its parliament to “contract out” in a succession of treaties practically all its own legislative powers.

However, at that time, the Foreign Office certainly believed the EEC to be “a single permanent coalition”. Hence, presumably, the inclusion in the now resurrected European constitution of a new clause providing for voluntary withdrawal by a member state.

MARY ROLLS, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire

Sir

Mrs Mary Rolls raised an important point about the “exit clause”, Article I-60, in the proposed EU Constitution.

(Letter, January 28th)

Clearly the Wilson government was undeterred by the lack of any such provision in the Treaty of Rome, as it held a referendum to decide whether the UK would withdraw from the EEC. Interestingly, 1975 Cabinet Office papers entitled “EEC Referendum: ‘No’ contingency planning; implications of withdrawal” have just been opened by National Archives.

The government leaflet for the referendum emphasised that even if we decided to stay in Parliament retained the right to take us out in the future, simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. That position has been re-stated by ministers in recent years, and was confirmed by Lord Justice Laws in the “Metric Martyrs” case. We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU - which by its crucial primacy claim, Article I-6, purports to become the supreme source of legal authority for our country.

Yours faithfully

Dr D R Cooper

Margot Wallstrom the EU propaganda commissioner says that the major goal of the communication activities by the commission is to try to “sell our message.” But then goes on to say “we can not do propaganda.. we shouldn’t be accused of it,”

This is obviously a new EU definition of “Propaganda” they shouldn’t be accused of. In the old definition of the word (The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause) this is exactly what they do!