Does it matter who is telling the truth?
January 28, 2005 by Ken
Filed under The Best of the Rest
EU Referendum carries a transcript of the John Humphrys interview with Richard Corbett MEP and Neil O’Brien, on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme this morning. But the following post “That defence question” is the one that is important, in the interview both parties made claims about the status of defence in the proposed constitutional treaty. “O’ Neil claims that: “there’s a commitment in the new constitution, for the first time, that the EU will move to a common defence.” Corbett, on the other hand, claims: that “it’s been in the treaty since the Maastricht Treatyâ€
The point at issue for me is the dispute shows some of the problems with the creeping EU, they first make an vauge outline suggestion and then this is added to or changed later but only in one direction because the Acquis prevents moves in the other.
As it turns out Corbett is right that “it’s been in the treaty since the Maastrichtâ€
However the real story emerges when you look at the development from Maastricht to the Constitution.
Maastricht (Art. J.4 (1)) actually states:
The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence.
In other words, is sets up a commitment, albeit vague, to move towards a common defence.
This is then modified by the Amsterdam treaty, renumbered to become Article
17 (1). This reads:
The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the Union, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy, which might… (deleted: in time) lead to a common defence.
The “eventual framing” now becomes the “progressive framing” – a little bit firmer, made stronger by the deletion of “in time”. The elision, incidentally, relates to a reference on the WEU, making it an integral part of the Union.
By the Nice Treaty, again Article 17 (1), the passage remains the same, with the removal of the reference to the WEU. That brings us to the proposed constitutional treaty, where the original passage now transmutes into Article I-41 (2), which reads:
The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.
From the very vague provision in Maastricht, this has firmed up substantially: “might” has become “will”, but it does need a unanimous decision of the European Council.
In the comments; Denis Cooper: gets to the heart of the matter when he says:
O’Neil should have pointed out that we won’t be voting on Maastricht or Nice, so it’s not really relevant what they say.
We’ll only be voting on the question on the ballot paper:
“Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?”
So please could Mr Corbett stick to the point?
The Constitution plans a common EU defence policy and even a common EU defence:
“The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.”
Do you want a common EU defence policy? If not, don’t vote for it.
The point is it is in the Constitution and it clearly has been tightened at each treaty, the direction is there for all to see. It is not in the constitution in its new wording for no reason, it is there because that is what is intended. The question is not that it is not ever going to happen the only way we can be sure of that is to remove the clause as our government have accepted the clause they must also accept the principal.
So it is a matter of deciding if you want a common EU defence policy and even a common EU defence:
If not vote against it.
Please note: “when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides” – it ain’t going to happen unless Britain wants it to happen.
For the record, I also reckon the defence clauses are entirely unecessary – we’ve already got NATO, which already commits us to common defence with a large range of other countries, including a number outside the EU. As this makes those clauses unecessary I don’t see why they were included. It just gets you anti lot even more worried.
But I also don’t really see what the fuss is about. British troops have already been under foreign command in times of crisis and emergency (WWII, Korea, Bosnia, Iraq), yet we retain final control over where they go and what they do. We also maintain control over defence spending and procurement. The EU is not planning to take over operational control of the British armed forces, simply to enable better co-ordination between the militaries of the various member states. Unlike NATO, which can demand operational control.
So, are you saying we should pull out of NATO? That’s already a loss of sovereignty, and arguably more so when it comes to defence than anything the EU is proposing.