eurealist.co.uk

A new teaching pack on the EU has been introduced for use in Key Stage 3 and 4 “citizenship” classes that claims to offer a balanced view of the organisation and its role. Officials responsible for the pack say “The resources have been designed to offer a balanced introduction to the European Union and the European Parliament, to encourage students to take part in discussion and to form their own view on the subjects covered in the resources,”

The taxpayer-funded materials – available to schools in bulk and at no cost from the European Parliament’s UK office – hail the effectiveness of EU legislation on everything from smoking and workers’ rights to genetically modified organisms and food labelling

But many think this is nothing more than brainwashing propaganda akin to that used by the Soviet Union

The UK Independence Party, which blew the whistle on the pack, also attacked the way the Eurosceptic character featured in the pupil worksheets – “Portsmouth plumber Charlie Bolton” – is an ageing, white man who contrasts with other young, smiling, fresh-faced people. Below a chart showing how the various institutions of the EU, such as the European Parliament and European Commission, interact, Charlie Bolton says: “Europe – it’s just faceless bureaucrats – none of them elected.
“And they impose their laws on us from Brussels whenever they fancy. All that red tape to make our lives harder.”
It then guides pupils to reject the notion that the EU is anti-democratic by reminding them of the elected European Parliament.
“Do you agree with Charlie? What does the flow chart tell you about how laws are made?” it asks.
The teacher is also instructed to show pupils how to counter his argument and to lead the pupils to conclude that he is wrong and that the EU is democratic.

The lesson plan reads: “Discuss Charlie Bolton’s attitude to EU legislation. If Charlie knew that the Members of the European Parliament are elected and that the Council of Ministers represents our governments, do the students think that he would change his mind?”

Yorkshire’s UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom hit out last night at the pack, branding it “bias and propaganda, masquerading as neutral fact”.

Tory MP Philip Davies, spokesman for the Better Off Out campaign, added: “The EU gets more like the Soviet Union every day when it resorts to brainwashing children. “All it does is confirm my worst fears.”

Full Story the Yorkshire Post

How the EU uses education and academia to sell integration

Take Action on EU propaganda

The Brussels propaganda machine

Federalist Thought Control: The Brussels Propaganda Machine

Angela Merkel at Fogh.
The German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel is visiting an embattled Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen on Tuesday the 19th December 2006. Fogh has not been very informative about what was really going on in the democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Merkel now wants Fogh’s “yes” to a new democracy project in the EU. The rejected constitution will be awakened again and will be adopted in other terms.

First they will change the name from Constitution to Treaty. Constitution is “grundgestez” in German. Then Germany gets the rejected constitution with their own name and countries where this word is unpopular can sell it as a “mini-treaty”.

From part I some bombastic words have been removed without changing the contents. The Court of Justice has already used Part II in the Constitution concerning the common fundamental rights more than 200 times.
The Court of Justice has already moved the pillars between the present treaty of Rome and the judicial policy co-operation. The introduction of criminal law has also been handled by the judges.

The more the Court of Justice decides, the less the teatry needs to contain to give the same result.

But changes in the decision making from unanimity til qualified majority and the entry of new voting rules together with a smaller Commission can only happen at a government conference. And this is what Merkel now wants to negotiate during the German Presidency and get approved by the end of 2007.

The very comprehensive part III is being rewritten into a few amended sheets compared to the Treaty of Nice. Part III already contains 85% of the Treaty of Nice and 15% of it is new. By making the changes short, incomprehensible and without context you think that it’s possible to cheat the voters into believing that the issue at stake is something different from the rejected constitution.

But the core remains the same and it is by moving power from the voters and the popularly elected to the public servants and to ministers and from small countries to big countries.

The core is 44 new areas for decisions with so-called qualified majority. On these areas, the Danish parliament and other national parliaments in the EU will loose the opportunity to legislate independently and to use the veto power in the EU.

The main part of the laws will be decided by public servants in 300 secret working-groups under the Council of Ministers, after being prepared by 3000 other secret working-groups in the Commission.

The members of the European Parliament will have greater influence but they will win much less than the voters and the national elected will lose.

The democratic deficiency will increase. The legislative power will lose to the executive power. Montesquieu’s seperation of powers will lose to Machiavelli.

For Merkel the most decisive is the implementation of the so-called double majority, where you have to vote after population in the future. This will increase Germany’s power at the expense of the smaller countries. Today, Germany has 32% of the votes needed to block a decision. With the Constitution, they will have 51%. Similarly, Denmark have 7.8% at it’s disposal today - and only 3,4% with the Constitution.

From being necessary conversation partners we will now become superfluous for the pluralisation. That Danish members of the national parliament can agree on this, testifies their lack in the knowledge behind the decision making process in the EU.

For Denmark it is also a problem that the Constitution and it’s replacement will abolish the entitlement to an independent Danish commissioner. The Danish seat in the Commission and especially in the commissioner’s cabinet is important for the daily co-operation between Danish companies and municipalities and EU’s distant French organised authorities.

Fogh and the national parliament’s majority are also willing to sell the Danish Commissioner. In this matter, they should give a call to the leading law graduate from the Danish Council of Trademen., Peter Vesterdorf, who is a member of the Liberals and a strong federalist and who has written the first Danish educational textbook about the European Parliament.

He has been following thousands of EU-cases during Denmark’s entire membership of the EU and he is warning about the selling out of the Danish commissioner in the same way that I am.

The removal of a Danish commissioner is such a decisive change of the co-operation in the EU that the compressed Constitution should be put out to a referendum.

It would suit the opposition and the Danish People’s Party, if they use Merkel’s visit to announce that they do not want any changes sneaked in the EU-co-oeration without a referendum.

Bonde’s Briefing

House of Lords debates

Friday, 15 December 2006

European Union (Information, etc.) Bill [HL]

Lord Dykes (Liberal Democrat) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We have just had a most important and lengthy debate on a crucial subject, to be followed by an important but comparatively very modest Bill. If I timidly suggest to noble Lords that the debate need not take too long, it is not because the subject is unimportant but because it is relatively uncontroversial. I say that as I gaze at the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who has recently arrived in the Chamber, maybe to take part in the debate. He nods in affirmation. He is very welcome.

I hope that the Bill is uncontroversial. I remind the House that we have been members of the European Union for three decades and three years. There will be a major series of celebrations next year for the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, to which we adhered in 1973. In those days it was a much less elaborate Community than it is now as a European Union.

Disturbingly and partly because of the often very negative newspapers in this country, which sometimes seem to have a disease of chauvinism that is very distressing to the thinking reader, the public—that includes all members of the public, not just those who follow European subjects per se—are often unaware of the many complicated details of our membership of the European Union. Under the Bill the information would be freely available in public libraries, town halls and similar public buildings, as well as in central and regional government buildings. If this legislation were enacted, access both to the paper media and to the electronic media would be enormously increased, and the learning curve would be accelerated and enhanced. I say that not as a criticism of the public, who often lead busy lives with their busy families, and who do not have the opportunity for access that should have been created and which is, I believe, available in some member states.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Conservative) Link to this | Hansard source

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, intimated, I am happy to support most of this Bill, although I imagine that the noble Lord and his supporters may not agree with me on what information and statistics should be published. Indeed, I must ask the noble Lord, and, perhaps, the Minister, how and by whom that information would be compiled.

I do not agree that the European flag should be compulsorily flown on public buildings and elsewhere. Will the Minister remind the House of the current status of the European flag? Is it still regarded merely as advertising, requiring a local authority licence, or has some order gone through that now makes the circle of stars official, to be flown on our buildings?

The information that the Euro-sceptic movement would like to see result from this Bill would start with the claim that the fundamental principle of our democracy—that is, the hard-won right of the British people to elect and dismiss those who make their laws—has already been betrayed by our membership of the European Union. We want to put it in front of the people that the majority of our law is now imposed by Brussels under an innately undemocratic system. We think it important to explain that system: how the unelected and corrupt bureaucracy, the Commission, has the monopoly to propose new laws, with the process taking place in secret. Then the Commission’s legislative proposals are negotiated, also in secret, by the shadowy Committee of Permanent Representatives—COREPER—bureaucrats from the nation states. Decisions are then taken in the Council of Ministers from the member states, again by secret vote, where the UK now has about 8 per cent of those votes. The treaties ordain that the resultant laws must be enacted by Parliament here, often on pain of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg court. Finally, the Commission then executes all EU legislation.

We would put at least three other features of this unfortunate system in front of the people: there is no appeal against the judgments of the Luxembourg court; once an area of national life has been ceded to control from Brussels, it cannot be returned to national parliaments; and no changes can be made to the treaties unless they are unanimously agreed by all the member states in the Council of Ministers, so renegotiation of the treaties to reclaim our democracy is not realistic—the only way out is the door.

We would also want the public to know that membership of the EU is a heavy and increasing drain on our economy. Independent analyses put that cost at anything between 4 per cent and 10 per cent of GDP. I am aware that the Government refuse to conduct a cost benefit analysis of our membership, but that situation can happily be set straight soon by a Bill that I have tabled, which I trust the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and his friends will support in the same way that I have supported his Bill.

Finally, I want the people to be told that only 9 per cent of our economy trades with the European Union, that another 11 per cent is involved with trade with the rest of the world and that 80 per cent stays right here in the domestic economy. Yet the diktats from Brussels have to be obeyed by 100 per cent of our economy. Those are the sort of things that we would wish to be put in front of the people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that we would also want an honest appraisal of how the constitution is moving forward illegally.

I know a lot of Scots would take issue with that headline but I will try to explain why I belive it to be true.

But first I would like to explore why some Scots are calling for the break up of the United Kingdom.

Brian Adam is the MSP for Aberdeen North

Independence is a state of mind.

We can seek to be totally independent and reject any responsibilities for others. We can aspire to share rights and responsibilities, to be co-dependent and participate in society with others. Or we can be dependent and leave the responsibility with others, reserving the right only to complain.

I also want Scotland to accept its responsibilities, as well as assert its rights, by recognising that we share this world with others with whom we are co-dependent. Hence I want us to engage directly with other countries through membership of the EU and organisations such as the UN.

Dr Ian McKee is the SNP candidate for Edinburgh Pentlands.

The most successful nations in Europe are not the largest. The advantages of economy of scale are more than offset by other factors. But when you look at the reasons for success of small to medium size countries, you may at first be confused. This country is rich in oil, that country has few natural resources. One successful country levels high taxes whilst yet another prospers by providing a low tax, business friendly environment. The consistent formula for success does not seem to exist.

Yet it does. Because what all these countries have in common is their independence. They can speedily make decisions regarding tax, investment or social policy that suit their own circumstances. Norway invests its oil revenues in a fund for future generations because that is what its citizens wish to happen. The Republic of Ireland has invested heavily in the education of its people so that it now attracts hi-tech investment from overseas.

Graeme McCormick is the founder and senior partner of Conveyancing Direct and the SNP candidate for Dumbarton.

‘In 1974 I was a student at Edinburgh University when Gordon Brown was University Rector. Then, Norway and Scotland had a similar standard of living. At the 1974 elections, Scotland was within an ace of voting for Independence. Today Norway is internationally recognised as having the highest standard of living in the world. Scotland is 21st.

There is only one significant thing which separates us from Norway and Ireland: That is Independence. They have it; we haven’t!

It seems the idea is that Scotland feels independence will allow it to become co-dependent and participate in society with others, through membership of the EU, but that is not independence.

The SNP says it is a strongly pro-European party, but wants national governments to retain control over many key issues like their countries’ taxation, spending, and constitutions.

They argue that with Independence, Scotland will at last be able to represent itself to the world on international bodies like the United Nations.

The problem is that the SNP is painting a picture of the EU which is very far from the truth; “There is no comparison between the centralist structures of the UK, and those of the EU, where member states co-operate but retain their sovereignty”.

The SNP are ignoring the EU Constitution, the EU claim to represent its members in international bodies like the United Nations, the WTO and Council of Europe. They are, by claiming that Scotland would have a greater voice in the EU, ignoring the fact that the EU is not about retaining the sovereignty of Nation States, everything it does takes it in the opposite direction towards a centralised structure.

The SNP claim that Scotland would have seven votes in the Council of Ministers and would be able to nominate a European Commissioner. Just exactly what power they think seven votes would give them they do not say, but with the increase of QMV within the EU councils seven is not a very big number and the Scots will find themselves outvoted on every occasion. Working together is all very fine but it only assists a nation if the working together is in the direction it wants to go, if not, then working together forces it to accept rules a and regulations that do not benefit the nation. Their Commissioner would of course have to swear allegiance to the EU so would not be representing Scotland, in any event in the EU Constitution there are plans to reduce the size of the Commision and Scotland like the rest of us would find they were only represented on a rotational basis.

The main problem with the SNP argument is that they are pointing to dissatisfaction of rule from the south, from the Westminster Parliament. Even ignoring the fact that for the last three parliaments the Scots have dominated Westminster with every major position of power in the British state being filled with Scotsmen and the majority of the British Cabinet being Scottish. Dissatisfaction with rule from Westminster is misplaced because most of the powers of Westminster has now been passed to the EU level, so if the Scots find themselves dissatisfied the way forward cannot be through the same institutions that have created that dissatisfaction. If they were calling for independence so that Scotland could take more power back from the EU it would make a great deal more sense than their present position. What exactly are they hoping to achieve by breaking apart the union.

The SNP points to two countries they see Scotland aspiring to emulate, Norway and Ireland, yet Norway is not a member of the EU, it has retained its independence and therefore its sovereignty, Ireland on the other hand has given away both its independence and its sovereignty, but has been and still is, the recipient of massive EU subsidies. The Scots might like to contemplate the fact that as Britain is a major contributed to EU funding they have contributed to Irelands success because it is their taxes that have been and are being spent in Ireland to make it the success it is.

Ireland is a dependant state of the EU, the Scots say they do not want to be dependant yet a recent calculation estimates that just 163,000 Scottish taxpayers, from a population of 5m, make any net contribution to the British exchequer. The rest receive more than they pay out in reliefs, subsidies and benefits.

Even Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, admits that Scotland has the highest unemployment, the highest proportion of income support claimants and the lowest business survival rate in Britain. Of course he blames the UK for Scotland’s poverty.

Scotland is not just dependent on the UK state; it is state-dependent full stop. A full 50% of Scottish GDP is spent by government. The state employs one Scot in four. To have any hope of creating the thriving independent economy of which they dream, an SNP government would have to impose economic policies Scotland has rejected at every election since 1945 and which the party dare not even propose, Scotland has not voted for a party prepared to cut taxes since 1955.

I would argue that Scotland far from wanting independence is prepared to become a minor actor within the United States of Europe, with less power than it presently has to determine its direction, and it will remain a dependant state within that union. None of the SNP arguments hold up to scrutiny because they are not addressing the real cause of their problems which are basically the same problems we all face and that is we can no longer determine who will be our rules who will make the laws and what direction the laws or our country should take, those decisions and that power has been transferred to the EU. If they really do want independence and really do not want to be dependant, they should address this real problem and then face up to the fact that without support for either the British Taxpayer or the EU Taxpayer Scotland and the Scottish people will have to make their own way in the world, and that will require doing a lot more than pumping oil out of the sea and waiting for the support cheque to arrive.

Members of the European Parliament have stepped up pressure on the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to give them more say in rewriting implementing legislation.

The Parliament is withholding funding from the so-called comitology committees - the groups of national experts who are brought to Brussels to draft implementing rules, which are often highly technical.

“Unless these credits are released the committees will not be able to continue their work,” a senior member state official said.

The move comes as part of a significant trial of strength between the three institutions that could yet precipitate legislative deadlock.
Last September the UK presidency formed an ad hoc Council working group, known as a ‘Friends of the presidency’ committee, to negotiate an agreement on rebalancing the powers of the Commission, Council and Parliament to write implementing legislation. The group has been meeting every two weeks and will meet again next Wednesday (22 March).

The talks are aimed at putting the Parliament on “an equal footing” as co-legislator when deciding the shape of implementing legislation.

At present, once the Parliament agrees to delegate the power to write implementing legislation to the Commission, it has no further chance to shape the legislation or decide whether or not it can come into force, whereas the Council can reject it by a qualified majority vote.

The three institutions are now trying to find a way of bringing the comitology procedures into line with the greater powers of co-decision over legislation that the Parliament was given by the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty. Specifically, they want to correct what one participant described as “a democratic disequilibrium”.

“How can it be right that the Parliament and the Council together decide on framework laws but it is effectively only the member states which can block [implementing] legislation?” one official asked.

The imbalance would have been corrected by the EU constitution, which would have given the Parliament an equal say with the Council in drawing up implementing legislation.

European Voice

EU driving licence “an identity card by the back door”

According to the Daily Telegraph, transport ministers are expected to approve a single EU driving licence at talks next week, with the document expected to be phased in between 2012 and 2032.

Scottish MEP Ian Hudghton fears it could be “an identity card by the back door” on an EU-wide level. The crucial issue is whether non-driving related information could be allowed to be included on licence chips. “There are very real civil liberties concerns about data protection and about precisely who would have access to exactly what information about individuals” said Hudghton who also called for safeguards to prevent the licence becoming, in effect, part of a Europe-wide identity card system.

At the same time a report in the European Voice

(Moves towards EU-wide DNA database) says that a Council of Ministers paper recommending “direct automated access” to DNA databases across Europe could lead to an EU-wide integrated data sharing agreement. A working group, comprising representatives of justice and interior ministries of member states, is to be set up to make a report on the practicalities of DNA sharing. The group will also look into similar arrangements concerning other personal details, such as fingerprints and car registration data.

The rules on DNA storage vary between member states. The UK has the largest DNA database in the world. Formed in 1995, it contains the DNA profiles of more than 2.5 million people.
While UK law allows police to take and keep DNA samples from all individuals arrested on suspicion of a recordable offence, police in France have no powers to take the DNA of suspects without their consent.

Gus Hosein from Privacy International said that since there were no provisions for deleting DNA records of people arrested in the UK who are proven not guilty in court, an exchange of DNA across the EU, could lead to “a database of people who have done nothing wrong”.

Technorati Tags: british-democracy, EU-law, EU-regulations, further-integration, id-cards

The Two Courts
The European Court of Human Rights ECHR
The European Court of Justice ECJ

Confusingly we have two European courts witch our governments have allowed to hold sway over our domestic national laws. As a point of fact no government should allow any other court to make any laws which our courts must obey, we are within the British Constitution supposed to be ruled only by our Laws. However that is a different story, for the purposes of this post I will not go into the rights and wrongs of allowing any other system of law that we the British people do not have influence over to dominate our system.

I am surprised at how many times people often people who should know better, get the two courts muddled, often one court is accused of making laws which the other has made, it is often the ECJ which finds itself on the receiving end of bad press, when it has in fact had nothing to do with the case at all. This was brought home when I was looking at the EU Commission UK web site there they have a section of Euromyths (more of which later) Some of those were not the responsibility of the EU at all and were not the subject of any EU or ECJ intervention at all they were rulings from the other court the ECHR

The ECHR is the Court of the Council of Europe which has 46 member states, and the ECJ is the court of the European Union which has 25 Member States.

The Council of Europe is the continent’s oldest political organisation, founded in London 1949. the first major convention was drawn up: the European Convention on Human Rights, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and coming into force on 3 September 1953.
Shortly after the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Schuman, French Foreign Minister approached all the Council of Europe countries with a proposal for a European Coal and Steel Community, to be provided with very different political and budgetary means.
The six countries most attached to the ideal of integration - Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany - joined, and on 9 May 1951 signed the very first Community treaty. Strengthened by the experience and commitment which had brought the “Greater Europe” into existence, the “Smaller Europe” was now making its own “leap into the unknown” of European construction.
So the European Union was begun from the exiting members of the European Council who wished to pursue the path of closer union. From this stage there are two European organisations however the investigation of one or the other, begins to become somewhat muddled, because all members of the European Union are even to this day, also members of the Council of Europe in fact to become a member of the EU it is necessary for a state to first be a member of the COE. This also means that a ruling by the ECHR would apply to all 25 members of the EU but a ruling of the ECJ would not apply to all 46 members of the COE.
The flag we accept as being the flag of the EU the ring of stars on a blue background is in fact the flag of the COE. On 8 December 1955 the Committee of Ministers adopted this as the European flag. It has only been used by the EU/EC since 1986.
As we now have two linked organisations, it is important to differentiate between them as to often even professional writers and politicians who should know better get them muddled.

Council of Europe:
An international organisation in Strasbourg which comprises 46 democratic countries of Europe.

European Council:
Regular meeting (at least twice a year) of the heads of state or government from the member states of the European Union for the purpose of planning Union policy.

Council of Ministers:
Ministers representing the governments of the Member States which ministers attend which meeting depends on what subjects are on the agenda.

Parliamentary Assembly: The deliberative body of the Council of Europe, composed of 315 representatives (and the same number of substitutes) appointed by the 46 member states’ national parliaments.

European Parliament :
The parliamentary body of the European Union which comprises 786 European Members of Parliament of the 25 European Union countries, elected by universal suffrage.

European Commission of Human Rights:
Until November 1998, this international body examined the admissibility of all individual or state applications against a member state in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights; it expressed an opinion on the violation alleged in applications found to be admissible in cases in which no friendly settlement is reached.

European Commission :
The executive organ of the European Union, based in Brussels, which monitors the proper application of the Union treaties and the decisions of the Union institutions.

European Court of Human Rights :
Based in Strasbourg, this is the only truly judicial organ established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is composed of composed of one Judge for each State party to the Convention and ensures, in the last instance, that contracting states observe their obligations under the Convention. Since November 1998, the Court has operated on a full-time basis.

Court of Justice of the European Communities:
Meets in Luxembourg and ensures compliance with the law in the interpretation and application of the European Treaties of the European Union.

International Court of Justice :
Judicial body of the United Nations which meets in The Hague.

European Convention on Human Rights :
Treaty by which the member states of the Council of Europe undertake to respect fundamental freedoms and rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights :
Adopted by the United Nations in 1948 in order to strengthen the protection of human rights at international level.

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights
approved by the EU Presidents and Prime Ministers at the Nice summit in 2001, The EU Constitution provides
should be made binding in EU law, and therefore become superior to national law.

So not only do we have two Europe’s we have two European courts, two European councils, two European Parliaments two European sets of human rights and if the EU Constitution is ratified we will have two European Constitutions and two European Constitutional courts. On top of that we have the International Court of Justice from the UN and their Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the World Trade Organisation, NATO and a myriad of other international organisations. It would appear that we are really well represented on the Human rights front. The only thing that perhaps should concerns a little is that we have to pay for all of this through our taxes and of course the other thing is that it is quite clear that we the people no longer have the power to elect those people who make our laws, because those we do elect no longer have the power to make our laws without ensuring the laws and regulation they do make are within all the various confines of all the various international agreements they have signed up to.

Anne Palmer has been trawling through the archives of Hansard, what were the politicians saying about our proposed entry into the Common Market.

European Economic Community. 1st December 1970. Col 1075

Q1. Mr Kaufman asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for further discussions with the Prime Ministers of the countries of the European Economic Community.

The Prime Minister (Mr Edward Heath): Various arrangements are now in train, but no dates have yet been fixed.

Mr Kaufman: When the Prime Minister takes part in such talks, will he take the opportunity of discussing with the Prime Ministers of the Six the curious anomaly which would arise under Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome if we were to enter the Common Market; namely, that workers from the Six would have freedom of movement into Great Britain, whereas workers in Great Britain would have to have a work permit to go and work in Northern Ireland? Will he further take- [Hon. MEMBERS: “Speech.”] –the opportunity of denying circumstantial Press reports that his Government intend to create a further anomaly by imposing restrictions on workers from the Republic of Ireland coming into this Country?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with the last point in last week’s debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an anomaly of which I was not aware. I am perfectly prepared to look into it, but these are matters which should be dealt with by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the negotiations them-selves, rather than at Prime Ministerial level during an official visit.

Mr Pentland: In the Prime Minister’s discussions, will he take note of the recent declaration of intent by the leaders of the Community to move towards full political unification with a federal union and a supra-national parliament? Does he not therefore think that the time has now arrived when he should state what would be the Government’s position towards these long-term objectives of the six?

The Prime Minister: The six have stated that they are now preparing for a series of discussions about political subjects in which they can co-ordinate their own affairs mote closely. They have already had a meeting about that, and tomorrow there will be a meeting of the Six and the four applicants for membership to discuss international affairs and related matters. We believe that this is a helpful development. I have always said that I should like to see this carried further. As for future policies, if we became a member of the community we should have a full voice in its development and exactly the same rights as any other member country.

Mr Chichester-Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the word “anomaly”, used by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr Kaufman), was a wrong description of the position, and that in Northern Ireland we should be glad to see it go once full employment was established?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend.

*****************************

20th January 1971. Col 1188.
Mr Mackintosh: ……Once we are in Europe and are a member of the common market we shall influence the total agricultural policy. As I think my hon. Friend knows, the policy in Europe is to reduce the area under production. The Mansholt plan is a gradual programme to take areas out of production. I remember pointing out to farmers in my constituency that the Mansholt plan intended to take out of production an area the size of Belgium. A farmer at the back of the hall shouted, “That’s damned bad luck for Belgium, isn’t it”? We appreciate that a cut in the area under production is made necessary by the improved productivity for farming and the inelastic demand for agricultural produce and that the situation will change as the Common Market develops, once we are members of the larger organisation.

What interests me is that, after the mid 1970’ when the Common Market becomes self-sufficient in temperate food products, the present agricultural policy simply will not work because there cannot be an import levy if there are no imports. The common agricultural policy will have to be re-thought and re-adapted to a self-sufficient pattern,..Etc

*******************************
21st January 1971 Col 1348.
Sir D Walker-Smith: ……It cannot be maintained that British sovereignty, particularly the sovereignty of Parliament, would not be seriously eroded by entry. Of course it would. That is what the Community is for—to substitute Community law and government for national law and government over a wide range of economic and social life. That is what Lord Denning, with the great authority of the Master of the Rolls, has said. He stated that entry would mean that

“our constitutional law must be re-written so as to show that the sovereignty of these Islands is not our alone but shared with others.”

That has become more clearer over the years with the steady flow of regulations, nearly 10.000 to date, which, in words of Article 189 of the Treaty, are binding in every respect and directly applicable in each Member State. It has become clearer too with the final evolution of a rigid supranational common agricultural policy. For the future it will be the same. There is no requirement of unanimity under Article 189 and consequently no possibility of veto. Under that Article, regulations made in Brussels would be enforceable in this country even if every Member of Parliament would wish to vote against them if he had the opportunity.

Col 1355. Mr Ginsburg: ……The big issue is whether Britain should go into a wider Community and it is much more vital than—I was about to say—the price of potatoes, but one is now tempted to say than the price of Cox’s applies; however, at the risk of being quoted, I am prepared to stand by that. Equally, I accept that the surrender of British sovereignty is a much bigger issue than any possible minor improvements in living standards which may result from joining the Community.
**************************
27th January 1971 Col 145.
Rev Ian Paisley asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the public statement by Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Ireland that entry into the Common Market will result in the Border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland withering away was made with his authority.

Mr Anthony Royal: This remark by Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Irish Republic was part of his response in the course of a newspaper interview published last November, to a question about economic and social harmonisation should both countries join the European community. The context makes quite plain that he was thinking in the very long term, and was pointing to the fact that the divisive effect of national frontiers was diminishing between the present members of the Community. It is Her Majesty’s government’s policy that there should be no change in status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
*****************************
9th June 1971 Col 1055
Mr Bruce-Gardyne………..Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us on this side of the house do not share the atavistic views of my hon, and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr Ronald Bell) on the subject of sterling and congratulate him on the admirable settlements he has reached on sterling and sugar? However, is he aware that it is not altogether easy to understand why the Foreign Office chose to abandon the 12-mile fisheries limit before the negotiations were even joined? Does he agree that the fisheries position announced by the Foreign Office spokesman last week is the extreme limit of negotiation on this point?

Mr Rippon : I think that we have made our position clear. As I explained, there never was an absolute right to a 12-mile limit because of the historic rights. But it will be understood when the matter is finally dealt with that we have had that point very much in mind and that we intend to seek arrangements which will safeguard the inshore fishing interests.

Mr Hugh Jenkins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the suspicion is a beginning to form in many minds that when he is unable to obtain what he asks for in the negotiations the tactic is that a form of words is agreed and it is said that the matter will be settled after the event, which means that we have conceded the point before the event? Is it not bound to cause considerable dissatisfaction on both sides of the House? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the house will want something very different before he comes before us with his White Paper?

Mr Rippon: It means the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

*****************************
16th Feb 1972 Col 449
Mr John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the impact upon individual citizens in the United Kingdom will only be indirect, through matters applying to the country and not directly falling upon any individual. Is it not rather strange that this major change, which will directly affect the livelihood and the future prospects of every steel worker in this country, should be hidden away in this general Clause? Is it not absolutely essential that this should be subject to special legislation?

Mr Davies: The Hon Gentleman will perhaps recognise that I have not sought to conceal the means by which this is to be attained, but it is attained perfectly effectively within the framework of the law as put before these provisions before the House. What I said earlier was that these provisions were of a general economic kind which might indeed have an impact upon individuals, but that they were not of a specific and social kind which affected them in the normal conduct of their lives. I am sure that is correct.
************************8
16th February 1972 Col 455
Sir Elwyn Jones: Many anxious questions were raised yesterday, not only about constitutional and legal matters, to which I shall come, but about matters like the Government’s intention on policy for the regions, if and when we enter the Community………..

One of my main objections to the Bill-and there are many-is that it conceals more than it exposes. Unlike much contemporary fashion, it hides more than it discloses. Entry into the Community will undoubtedly affect seriously the individual lives of every citizen. I thought the right hon. Gentleman rather underestimated that factor in his speech, not only because it will affect the citizen’s economic fate but because in certain respects, as I shall indicate shortly, it will affect him personally, and his rights and indeed, his freedom. There are provisions for criminal sanctions in the Bill to be introduced by a minister acting by Statutory Instrument. The measure of the failure of the Bill (European Communities Bill) to tell the House and the people of this Country what the government are doing and what is involved was perhaps the most graphically illustrated by the Hon, and learned Gentleman for Darwin (Mr Fletcher-Cooks) who supports the Bill. He said yesterday;

“I hope that during this debate…the Government will devote a long time to explaining exactly not merely what obligations we are undertaking but what opportunities we may insist upon, and for whom.”

That is a remarkable statement that needs to be made by a supporter of the Bill, that he does not know what obligations we are undertaking and what provisions and opportunities we may insist on. He went on to say:
“because unless this is done much as I approve of the price we are paying”-
and we on this side of the house, of course do not-
“I do not think it has been sufficiently spelt out. Let there be no hypocrisy, no misunderstanding and no vagueness”
[Official report, 15th February 1972; Vol831, c 342]
There is room for all those things, the hypocrisy, the misunderstanding and the vagueness, as a result of the content and the form of the Bill.

The Bill (the European Communities Bill) is of revolutionary importance so far as both the constitutional structure and the law of the country are concerned. The heart of the Bill, Clause 2 (1), is dismissed in a few words in the Explanatory Memorandum, yet the Clause not only adopts the Community treaties, hook, line and sinker, the lot of them, but it does not even trouble to list them all, least of all make them annexes to the Bill. I do not know whether the Government hoped that that would reduce Parliamentary discussion of them-we shall see. No fewer than 41 or 42 volumes of law, whatever the number may be, are to be domesticated into the law of England. While most of them, it is true, are small, some are very big and important.

Column460.
Sir Elwyn Jones: But we are moving into a whole new field where there is a massive transfer of decision making, affecting the whole pattern of our economic lives, to an immensely bureaucratic machine making its decisions in secret in the Council of Ministers. That is the reality of what we face. It under lines the importance of Parliament having an effective means of keeping these matters in check and under proper supervision.

********************************************

AND FINALLY.
1ST Feb 1972 col 232
Q1.Sir A Mayer asked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to organise an exhibition to celebrate British entry into the European Economic Community.
Q2. Mr David Watkins asked the Prime Minister if he will announce a day’s national holiday to celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.

The Prime Minister (Mr Edward Heath): Her Majesty’s Government are considering ways in which entry into the European Community might be celebrated. It is too early for me to be specific about the form the celebrations might take: but I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman for their suggestion.

Sir A. Mayer: Does my right hon., Friend agree that such an exhibition would be by far the best way of arousing the interest and enthusiasm of the man in the street for the great opportunities that will open to this country when we join the Common Market? In choosing a site, will my right hon. Friend consider a place that really needs cheering up. Like North Battersea or South West Wolverhampton?

The Prime Minister: There have been a number of proposals for such an exhibition to be held so that Britain should be able to demonstrate the products of British industry in the most effective way to our European colleagues, and those proposals are being examined by the Government.

Mr Watkins: In view of the nature of the terms to which the right hon. Gentleman has appended his signature, might not it be more appropriate to consider a day of national mourning?

AND THAT IS WHERE I WILL LEAVE THESE JOTTINGS.
I decided to put down these words because of the death of Sir Edward Heath. Even the Regions are mentioned. Anne.

Leader stakes job on vote to revive EU constitution
The Times By Anthony Browne, Europe Correspondent
IT IS either the most futile referendum in the history of the European Union or the most cynical.

France and the Netherlands have both rejected the European constitution, and countries from Britain to Poland have shelved theirs, but Luxembourg — with an electorate the size of Croydon — will go to the polls tomorrow to give its verdict.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the Grand Duchy’s chain-smoking Prime Minister, hopes that his 218,000 voters — just 0.05 per cent of the EU population — will demonstrate such overwhelming enthusiasm for the treaty that they can raise it from the dead.

But if Luxembourg says no, even M Juncker, Europe’s last arch-federalist, admits that the constitution will be dead and he has promised to resign.

Until recently, the idea that Luxembourg could reject an EU treaty was risible. This bastion of “Old Europe” has grown rich off the fat of the EU. It receives €1,700 per head per year from Brussels, five times more than any other member state. Its capital, Luxembourg City, is packed with EU institutions, from the European Court of Justice to the European Court of Auditors, and parts of the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.

It has made support for European integration a cornerstone of its national identity, and being a member of the EU means that its political class can take breaks from organising traffic schemes to hob-nob with President Bush and other world leaders. But the EU has plunged into such a deep crisis that even in Luxembourg support for the constitution is now likely to be tepid at best.

The “no” campaign has no figurehead and virtually no funds, but it is has doubled its support. The last opinion poll — they are banned during the month before the vote — showed that the “yes” camp’s lead had slipped to 8 per cent.

As in France, it is fear of “Anglo-Saxon economics” that seems to be fuelling opposition. Anne Marie Speltz, the “no” campaign co-ordinator, said: “We do not want a treaty that dictates its ultra-liberal orientation, with completely free markets.”

M Juncker, president of the EU until July, earned hoots of derision by standing up after each referendum defeat and insisting that in the Alice in Wonderland world of the EU, the overwhelming “no” votes really meant “yes”. As if determined to prove Eurosceptics right about the anti-democratic nature of the EU, the doyen of EU politics insisted that any country that voted “ no” would have to vote again until it gave the “right answer”.

Europe’s longest-serving prime minister will not treat his voters with the same contempt that he has shown towards those of France and the Netherlands. Although he has always insisted that the project is still alive, he said that if his own country rejected it, it would be dead.

M Juncker’s 11-year career as Prime Minister would also be dead, since he has promised to resign if he loses. He is an extremely popular leader, and putting his job on the line was aimed at boosting support, but it has also angered those who see it as a form of blackmail.

Lucien Kayser, one of Luxembourg’s most respected intellectuals, pleaded in an open letter to M Juncker: “Don’t take voters hostage; let them have a really free choice on what they are being asked.”

But if Luxembourg supports the constitution, M Juncker insists that the entire project would be brought back to life. “In the case that Luxembourg did say yes, this could be the signal that the process is still alive,” he said.

The idea of reviving the constitution may seem far-fetched but that is what some European capitals are plotting.

Karel de Gucht, the Belgian Foreign Minster, said that France and the Netherlands must be made to vote again. “We can create a climate in which the treaty could finally be adopted in France and the Netherlands. We have to proceed with a second vote.”

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.

An article in Die Welt by Professor for public law at Ludwig-Maximilian University Munich Peter M. Huber

The parliaments of the member states must control the Council of Ministers better.

In the article Huber suggests that the EU Constitution will lead to a further disempowerment of the member states”, and will cause a major constitutional problem in Germany. He says, “Individual voters, as well as the Federal Constitutional Court will lose influence in the democratic decision-making process.

Huber suggests that it is urgently required also from the point of view of the Basic Law to markedly extend the influence of the Bundestag on the law-making in the European Union. So far the Basic Law regulated procedures was not sufficient, in order to prevent the continuous deprivation of power of the parliament.

The democratic endorsement level drops, the constitutional basic choice of the people’s sovereignty and democracy would be under pressure. There needs to be a stronger participation of the national parliaments in the law-making process of the European Union it is the most important vehicle, in order to solve the authentication and problems of acceptance.

EU Referendum: deconstructs the seventh FOC Myth “Qualified Majority Voting hands power to Brussels”

Once again, however, we are not dealing with facts, but lies. National governments do not make the decisions. As the FCO says, the Council does… in this case the Council of Ministers.

What the FCO is doing is eliding the two, but the Council is an EU institution, bound by the rules of the constitution, acting within the framework of EU law and subject to the European Court of Justice.
…..
“Now, herein lies the problem. The assertions are easily made. Their deconstruction has taken a considerable volume of text. Brevity, in this instance, favours the liar”
EU Referendum:

Europhiles try to confuse the issue

The Telegraph letters page today, has Richard Corbett MEP self-selected defender of the EU Constitution, taking to task Dr Peter Gardner, Ukip, who wrote a letter suggesting that Dennis MacShane should offer “Less fudge and more facts about the EU Constitution” As usual with the Europhile argument, instead of addressing the point of the letter Corbett selects one part to misinterpret and Euspin. The point Mr Corbett is that Dennis MacShane is not being honest with the British people, not how many other sovereign nation states are giving up the veto, but how the EU constitution is affecting the rights of the British voter to elect their own government. It was also notable the Mr Corbett did not mention the other letter on the same day from Harry Randall which made the same point.

Hurrah, we can’t say no

Sir – Rather than complaining over the fact that the new EU Constitution removes the national veto in about 60 areas (Letters, Jan 31), surely this is something we should celebrate?

These are all areas in which Britain supported the removal of the veto. It is retained in every single area where we wanted it retained - treaty changes, security, foreign policy, tax and so on.

After all, the veto is a double-edged sword. If we have one, so does each of the other 24 countries around the table. Policies that we want can then be blocked by others.

Indeed, if Britain has 60 fewer vetoes, then there are 1,440 vetoes (60 x 24) lost by other countries, giving them fewer opportunities to block the decisions that we want.

Richard Corbett MEP, Labour spokesman on EU constitutional affairs, Brussels

Less fudge, more facts about EU constitution

Sir – Denis MacShane’s letter (Jan 29) contains one statement magnifying something of no importance and one statement downplaying something of great importance. His reference to a greater role for national parliaments presumably refers to the new measures under subsidiarity contained in protocol two of the treaty. This provides that, if a third of national parliaments object to a proposed EU measure, the relevant EU institution must “review” the measure. Having done this, they can carry on regardless. All they need to do is say why they disagree with the objections.

Mr MacShane’s “simpler decision-making” sounds good, perhaps. What he did not say is that this will happen because the veto will be removed in around 60 areas – according to the British Management Data Foundation’s analysis. In addition, the treaty contains six new “passerelle” clauses allowing the Council of Ministers to vote by unanimity to remove the unanimity requirement in a particular area. As Mr MacShane says, the EU under the new treaty would be more flexible. But the price would be a vice-like grip on the member states.

Dr Peter Gardner, Ukip PPC Oxford East, Oxford

Sir – Mr MacShane will need to support his rhetoric with facts if he is to succeed as the minister responsible for selling the EU to a sceptical British public in the run-up to a referendum on the constitution. The contrast between his letter and the editorial on the issue is striking.

Mr MacShane fails to include even one article from the treaty in support of his case as to the reason why we should not reject the treaty. He believes that the British people will support it in a referendum “when provided with the facts”.

Given the opportunity to do so in his letter, he fails. In an interview he gave to The Telegraph last year (News, Aug 7, 2004) he said: “There are more myths about Europe than you can find in Harry Potter”. Now is your opportunity, Mr MacShane, to expose those myths about the treaty.

Harry Randall, Dorchester

Times Online - Comment

Democracy in the EU
From Mr Richard Nice
Sir, Miss Paula Volkmer (letter, Jan-uary 14) claims that the EU is democratic and disputes that we are governed by officials who are “unelected and unaccountable”. As only the European Commission can initiate and implement law, it is the true seat of government; there can be no dispute that it is unelected. In a democracy, the executive must be accountable to a sovereign parliament or to the ballot box; the Commission is neither.

Perhaps, as she claims, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament do have equal powers, but only to accept or reject what is on offer. The Council conducts its business in secret and a national position can just disappear. MEPs are distant because they are nominated by parties and have constituencies several times larger than those of MPs. And the citizen cannot vote out the Commission, his real government.

To make matters worse for us in Britain, although 60 per cent of our legislation comes direct from Brussels, it is reported that “British ministers are EU part-timers” (headline, November 19, 2004); and when Parliament’s scrutiny committee on EU legislation “calls for a debate on the floor of the House, this is invariably refused by ministers” (Bill Cash’s Comment, August 25, 2004).

Comparing this position with that in 1973, when political parties began transferring powers to Brussels, there is no doubt that our lawmakers are now more remote and unaccountable, and that democracy is greatly diminished.

Yours faithfully,
RICHARD NICE,

Why Eurosceptics should vote for the Constitution

Richard Corbett is a UK Labour MEP. He was also co-rapporteur for the European Parliament’s report on the European Constitution.

Richard Corbett, I find it sad that much of the debate about the proposed new EU constitution is couched in the usual hyperbole. Eurosceptic parts of the press are already conjuring up fears of an imminent centralised superstate.

A Constitution is the supreme law of a State, which has primacy over the laws of its provinces or regions in any case of conflict. It is the ultimate source of legal authority for the territory it
governs. It is enforced by a Supreme Court, in the EU’s case its Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Of course, it’s easy to see why those on the extreme right are opposed to the new constitution. There’s much in it to displease them – respect for human rights, respect for minorities, principles of non-discrimination. And so there should be. But what puzzles me is why genuinely moderate eurosceptics should object.

Trying again to define those of us against the Constitution as far right wing. The argument that a Constitution should set out socialist policies is totally flawed in any case, that this constitution does that, is to set in stone today’s thoughts on methods of acceptable government, to show how wrong that is we only need to do is set in stone the political mores of one hundred years ago, to see that if those people had believed they had the right to say all governments that were to follow must accept their definitions of social policy.

On the grand scheme of things, the new constitution doesn’t change much, but those changes it does make are almost exclusively aimed at addressing the most common eurosceptic complaints. It emphasises yet again that the European Union is a voluntary association of co-operating states, with only those responsibilities that its members unanimously choose to give it. Surely, not even the most ardent anti-Europeans could object to that!

The Constitution abolishes national control in nearly 30 new policy areas. They include civil and criminal law and procedures, asylum and immigration, Europol and Eurojust, energy, structural
funds, commercial treaties dealing with services, culture.

Actually the Constitution changes everything, it turns upside down the power flow, now it is from the member states to the Union when the EU is reformed its authority will not come from the members but from the constitution itself. In fact the constitution gives very little power to act independently to the member states and even in those areas of power that remain, the government must operate under the umbrella of the EU, and each area that the states have agreed not to allow the union to operate are under constant threat and are only temporary, as Gisela Stewartsaid and
It gives more power to the European institutions but does not make those institutions more accountable to voters It is also far from clear that the principle that national governments should continue to be in charge of policy-making unless these policies would be better handled at European level is being respected, the draft document from my experience at the Convention it is clear that the real reason for the Constitution – and its main impact – is the political deepening of the Union.

It will be difficult to amend and will be subject to interpretation by the European Court of Justice. And if it remains in its current form, the new Constitution will be able to create powers for itself. It cannot be viewed piecemeal; its sum is more than its parts.

This Constitution is unusual in that it also initiates processes for future development with the aim of deeper and ever closer integration. Where integration can be deepened no further, this text has rigid rules as for example in the list of exclusive competences of the Commission. Power at the centre cannot be returned to Member States. Where the political climate means that certain ideas for further integration are not yet acceptable, the Draft Constitution creates the structure for a process to develop later. An example of this is defence and foreign policy.

Corbett has written a rebuttal of Stewarts claims (Same link as above) but as she, not him, was a member of the Presidium, I know who I would prefer to believe on what happened during their deliberations.

As far as his take on the Constitution itself well if the following is anything to go by then I thing a quick look at the document will show his views are just that views with no substance “It stokes up the hoary myth that the EU is about centralisation, but as she well knows, the draft constitution does not transfer any new fields of responsibility from national to European level. Rather, it increases the accountability of the European institutions to member states and to citizens”

In general, the new constitution contains a set of modest but worthwhile improvements to the current constitution of the EU (the existing set of overlapping treaties). It does three main things:
• streamline decision-making to prevent gridlock in an enlarged EU;
• introduce greater democratic safeguards;
• clarify the nature and aims of the Union.

It makes it easier for the EU to override any objections which of course does prevent gridlock,

“The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union’s Institutions in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.”

A relevant point here is that EU governments accepted the ECJ’s assertion of the primacy of EU law in the 1960s, when the then EEC dealt with a far narrower range of issues than the EU does today. It is one thing for Member States go along with a principle established by the EU Court and applied to a restricted range of matters like customs duties or tariffs. It is quite another to
concede national sovereignty to an EU Constitution whose writ covers everything from tax policy to criminal law to foreign policy and fundamental human rights.

So much for the broad outline, which is hardly controversial. It’s when you look at the detail of these provisions that it becomes clear just how many traditional eurosceptic criticisms are addressed.

They complain about apparent lack of democracy. So the constitution now gives the directly elected European Parliament control over all aspects of the EU budget. The adoption of EU legislation will be subject to the prior scrutiny of national parliaments and the dual approval of both national governments (in the Council) and the directly elected European Parliament - a level of parliamentary scrutiny that exists in no other international structure. The exercise of delegated powers by the Commission will be brought under a new system of supervision by the European Parliament and the Council, enabling each of them to call back Commission decisions to which they object.

Directly elected but on what mandate? Richard North has already blown a great big hole in this particular argument…

“mandate” in this context is interesting. It is generally held to mean the sanction given by electors to members of parliament to deal with a question before the country. In other words, the candidates for the election set out their stalls, the electors look at the rival offerings and choose between them.