Issues of Misdirection
February 12, 2005 by Ken
Filed under The Best of the Rest
Sir – In your leading article (Feb 10), you should have made clear that, in opposing two particular parts of the EU constitutional treaty – the primacy of EU law and the “mutual solidarity” clause – you are in fact objecting to existing terms of British membership.
The primacy of EU law in those areas of policy conferred by member states was an explicit commitment made by Parliament in advance of Britain joining the EEC in 1973 – and it was at the heart of the argument in the 1975 referendum. Indeed, the official booklet of the “No” campaign at that time said that “laws of the Common Market… will take precedence over our own laws”.
As for the “mutual solidarity” clause, this has been part of the EU rules since John Major and Michael Howard signed up to the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990s.
It is a pledge between all member states to support policies on which we have all agreed. But it in no way prevents Britain from pursuing a separate foreign and defence policy if it wishes to do so.
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, London SW1
In fact this is the first time that the primacy of EU law has made an appearance in a treaty no other treaty has such a clause, as Jack has referred to the 1975 “No†campaign booklet perhaps I could refer to the 1975 Governments Official “Yes†campaign booklet. Which says “The minister representing Britain can veto any new law or new tax if he considers it to be against Britain interestâ€, i.e. arguing against the concept.
Where has that veto gone now and what good has it done the voters of Britain when we find that our own government is fully on board with the internationalists.
In fact the booklet confirms the line taken by the government, the BBC, all political parties and practically all the media were strongly arguing against the assertions made by the “No†campaign.
Does no one else find it strange that our present Foreign Sectary has to use the argument made by the “No†campaign in 1975 rather than the official information being released by the government, who by the way sold their agenda as “Facts†in the same way that the present FOC is doing.
It really does not matter if something is new, it is in the Constitution and we are being asked give our verdict on that Constitution.
Mr Straw should really read the Constitution.
When the Constitution confers on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of acts adopted by the Union.
When the Constitution confers on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States shall have the power to legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence.
The Union shall have competence to promote and coordinate the economic and employment policies of the Member States. The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy.
The Union shall have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union, is necessary to enable the Union to exercise its competence internally, or affects an internal Union act.
