Brussels Journal
By John Laughland
Created 2007-12-19 15:15
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2785
I have often compared the European Union to a cartel – a cartel of governments, engaged in a permanent conspiracy against their own electorates and parliaments. This analysis seems to have been dramatically confirmed by the Lisbon Treaty, signed last week, which replaces the defunct “constitution” rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
Although a lot of anti-EU rhetoric rightly concentrates on the overweening power of the unelected European Commission – which indeed generates far too many laws and has an institutional self-interest in augmenting its own power – what many Eurosceptics overlook is that European integration also, and crucially, favours the power of national governments over that of their respective national parliaments. Because laws in the EU are made by the Council of Ministers, i.e. the committee of 27 ministers for whichever subject is being voted on, EU integration means that governments receive wide-ranging law-making powers.
This is, of course, incompatible with the principle of the separation of powers. According to that principle, the executive power (the government) should be separate from, and accountable to, the legislature (the national parliament) and of course the judiciary. Dictatorship is precisely the form of government in which the executive is not so constrained, and this is also the case in the EU.
Because the EU represents a dramatic and constant transfer of legislative power from national legislatures to national executives (sitting in the Council of Ministers), it can also be dubbed “a permanent coup d’état” (to use the phrase François Mitterrand used in 1965 to attack the powers of the Fifth Republic, long before he was happy to wield them himself). The fact that the Council of Ministers, the EU’s legislature, meets and votes in secret only makes the fundamentally anti-democratic character of the European construction even clearer.
It is for this simple reason that all establishment politicians, whether of Left or Right, are in favour of the EU. It increases their power and their room for manoeuvre. How much easier it is to pass laws in a quiet and secret meeting with your twenty-seven colleagues, than it is to do so in front of a fractious parliament where there is usually an in-built opposition which will attack whatever you do! How much more comfortable to engage in a bit of mild horse-trading with like-minded politicians from other countries, than to have to argue your case in the glare of public criticism! How much better to be able to vote an unpopular law and then blame “Europe” for it instead!
For many decades, this conspiracy worked wonderfully, mainly because Europe adopted and stuck to the so-called “Monnet method”. Named after the European Community’s brilliant if vain founder, Jean Monnet, the Monnet method consists in sapping power away from national parliaments on the quiet. This is achieved by pretending that the powers thus alienated are non-political – technical things like coal and steel, the common market, the single currency. This impression that the powers transferred are merely technical is reinforced by the fact that the transfers are usually effected by means of impenetrable treaties written in a language no one can understand.
There have been only two occasions when this principle has been abandoned, and on both occasions it had led to failure. The first was after the signature of the Maastricht treaty in December 1991. That treaty was conceived as a geopolitical quid pro quo for German unification: France agreed to the reunification of Germany on the basis that it would subsume its deutsche mark hegemony into that of the euro. In other words, it was a big political project which was presented to the electorate as such and as a great leap forward for European unification in general. It was rejected by Danish voters in June 1992. France responded by declaring that she too would hold a referendum, which in turn was very nearly rejected in September of that year. The Danes were forced to vote again in 1993, and so Europe’s pet project, the euro, passed by only a whisker.
The second time that Europe announced a big political project was when it drew up the constitution. However little interest people took in the details of treaty law, the word “constitution” was politically resonant. It focussed attention on the federal vocation of the EU, hitherto hidden from view by the Monnet method. People understood that it meant the permanent alienation of power from their nation-states, but it also allowed people to project their other worries clearly onto the EU, especially about excessive deregulation, competition from cheap labour countries in Eastern Europe, and of course the prospect of a new wave of immigration from Turkey if ever that country is admitted as an EU member.
Voters in France and the Netherlands, two founder members of the EU, therefore rejected the proposed constitution.
As a result of that rejection, Europe’s leaders have now decided to put behind them their foolish flirtation with democracy and return instead to the tried and tested method of doing things behind closed doors.
Rather than announcing a big political project in a language which most people can understand, the new Lisbon Treaty goes back to the old method of formulating only amendments to previous treaties. You simply cannot understand the text unless you go back through the previous treaties to see what articles are amended, which few people have the time or the inclination to do. Whereas the constitution at least had the merit of clarity, the new treaty displays all the old EU vices of opacity and legalese. This is quite deliberate. Europe’s leaders know that such a difficult text will never attract the same hostility as the old constitution because it is simply too difficult to understand.
How do we know that this is deliberate? We know because the author of the defunct constitution, the former French president, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, has told us so. In an article in Le Monde in October, Giscard wrote that the new treaty had been composed “by jurists” who had taken the content of the old constitution and simply re-formulated it in terms of amendments to existing treaties.
“They started with the text of the constitution,” he wrote, “took its elements apart one by one, and made them correspond by means of amendments to the two existing treaties, Rome (1957) and Maastricht (1992) […] What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”
As I say, the EU is a cartel of governments and a conspiracy by them against their electorates. It is an affront to democracy and should be dissolved.
Showing posts with label constitutionalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitutionalism. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Playing Politics With Trade Policy is a Dangerous Game for the 110th Congressional Majority
Trade's fleeting high tide
Washington Times January 16, 2008
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080116/COMMENTARY/190864804/1012/commentary
By J.T. Young - As the 110th Congress comes back to Washington, it may not have free trade agreements on its agenda. This may seem surprising since Congress overwhelmingly approved America's free trade agreement with Peru less than two months ago. Yet it is likely that trade legislation will recede even more rapidly this year than it rose last year.
The makeup of Congress' Peru vote clearly show the issue's undercurrents and political obstacles below the surface. The largest pro-trade vote in years may well be the only one in this Congress. Despite 285 votes in favor — 88 percent of Republicans and the highest Democratic total since the 2004 vote on the Morocco FTA (free trade agreement) — the House remains trade's congressional chokepoint. In the last Congress, the House passed CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in 2005 by just 217-215.
Legislation granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations failed in November 2006 (under a special procedure, it needed two-thirds support and received just 228 of 435 votes). Comparatively, the Peru FTA was a landslide, but submerged beneath the swell of support remained the shoals threatening trade legislation.
Despite solid leadership support, only a minority of the majority Democrats supported it — 109 in favor and 116 against (8 not voting).Even more important, 30 of 43 freshman Democrats opposed it. This point is particularly important because the Democrats' majority rests on these first-term members and freshman are historically the most vulnerable incumbents.
White House politics is just as threatening as tight House politics. The current partisan presidential split on trade resembles the last Congress'. The top tier Republican candidates for most of last year — Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney — all support a conventional pro-trade agenda. Recent national polls show them with roughly 65 percent of Republican support.
The top tier Democrats — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — oppose a conventional trade agenda. Together they poll more than 80 percent of Democratic supporters.
Why would Democrat leaders want to invite another FTA to the House floor under these circumstances? Internally, these votes split their caucus and are particularly opposed by their most vulnerable members. Externally these are agreements that Republican candidates support, while their own candidates and likely nominee oppose them. This would hardly be an auspicious start to a relationship with their hoped-for Democratic president.
The results of such votes hold no better prospects. If successful, they give President Bush political victories and a legacy, neither of which the Democrats desire. If the votes fail, Congress looks dysfunctional and appears anti-trade and anti-international, at a time when Democrats want to appear to have better policies for international engagement. These arguments could lead some to theorize that the administration could gain an advantage by forcing these votes on the Democratic leadership.
While TPA procedure certainly presents the opportunity to force a vote with its 90-day legislative clock and simple up or down votes in both bodies, the White House has ample reason for hesitancy. FTAs constitutionally must originate in the House (if they adjust tariffs). This prevents the Senate from voting first and building political momentum with a strong level of support. More importantly, if an FTA fails in the House, it is lost forever. With Trade Promotion Authority expired, there is no chance to renegotiate an agreement, even if time remained for this administration.
In contrast, the pending FTAs forever retain their "fast-track" status even if — as in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) negotiated under President George H.W. Bush (the elder) and passed under Bill Clinton — these were held over for another administration to pursue. Forcing a vote would be a very high-risk game of chicken for the White House with the very real prospect of an irreplaceable loss. Both parties have their reasons for not bringing up any more trade agreements in this Congress.
Why would the Democratic leadership seek them when they are divisive within their caucus and distance them from their top presidential candidates?
Why would the administration that wants both FTAs and a legacy be willing to risk both on an ever-increasing long-shot? And these hurdles only heighten as 2008 progresses. Perhaps the best possibility would be for a lame-duck attempt, when both the Congress and the president are past the November election.
Tough votes are then sometimes seen as "free" votes where members can vote without such a focus on the political consequences. Yet even this hardly assures passage. As the defeat of the comparatively innocuous legislation granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations proved last year, there are few easy trade votes these days — even in the last days of a Congress.
Ironically, with this year's landmark May agreement on environment and labor standards, the administration and Democratic leadership came further than at any time in recent memory of reaching a bipartisan approach to move trade legislation. That agreement bore fruit in the large show of support for the Peru agreement.
Despite these best efforts and best results, the trade tide appears to have crested and begun receding simultaneously. It is unclear when it will come in again, but very likely it won't be in this Congress. J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget 2001-2004 and as a congressional staff member 1987-2000.
Washington Times January 16, 2008
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080116/COMMENTARY/190864804/1012/commentary
By J.T. Young - As the 110th Congress comes back to Washington, it may not have free trade agreements on its agenda. This may seem surprising since Congress overwhelmingly approved America's free trade agreement with Peru less than two months ago. Yet it is likely that trade legislation will recede even more rapidly this year than it rose last year.
The makeup of Congress' Peru vote clearly show the issue's undercurrents and political obstacles below the surface. The largest pro-trade vote in years may well be the only one in this Congress. Despite 285 votes in favor — 88 percent of Republicans and the highest Democratic total since the 2004 vote on the Morocco FTA (free trade agreement) — the House remains trade's congressional chokepoint. In the last Congress, the House passed CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in 2005 by just 217-215.
Legislation granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations failed in November 2006 (under a special procedure, it needed two-thirds support and received just 228 of 435 votes). Comparatively, the Peru FTA was a landslide, but submerged beneath the swell of support remained the shoals threatening trade legislation.
Despite solid leadership support, only a minority of the majority Democrats supported it — 109 in favor and 116 against (8 not voting).Even more important, 30 of 43 freshman Democrats opposed it. This point is particularly important because the Democrats' majority rests on these first-term members and freshman are historically the most vulnerable incumbents.
White House politics is just as threatening as tight House politics. The current partisan presidential split on trade resembles the last Congress'. The top tier Republican candidates for most of last year — Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney — all support a conventional pro-trade agenda. Recent national polls show them with roughly 65 percent of Republican support.
The top tier Democrats — Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards — oppose a conventional trade agenda. Together they poll more than 80 percent of Democratic supporters.
Why would Democrat leaders want to invite another FTA to the House floor under these circumstances? Internally, these votes split their caucus and are particularly opposed by their most vulnerable members. Externally these are agreements that Republican candidates support, while their own candidates and likely nominee oppose them. This would hardly be an auspicious start to a relationship with their hoped-for Democratic president.
The results of such votes hold no better prospects. If successful, they give President Bush political victories and a legacy, neither of which the Democrats desire. If the votes fail, Congress looks dysfunctional and appears anti-trade and anti-international, at a time when Democrats want to appear to have better policies for international engagement. These arguments could lead some to theorize that the administration could gain an advantage by forcing these votes on the Democratic leadership.
While TPA procedure certainly presents the opportunity to force a vote with its 90-day legislative clock and simple up or down votes in both bodies, the White House has ample reason for hesitancy. FTAs constitutionally must originate in the House (if they adjust tariffs). This prevents the Senate from voting first and building political momentum with a strong level of support. More importantly, if an FTA fails in the House, it is lost forever. With Trade Promotion Authority expired, there is no chance to renegotiate an agreement, even if time remained for this administration.
In contrast, the pending FTAs forever retain their "fast-track" status even if — as in the case of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) negotiated under President George H.W. Bush (the elder) and passed under Bill Clinton — these were held over for another administration to pursue. Forcing a vote would be a very high-risk game of chicken for the White House with the very real prospect of an irreplaceable loss. Both parties have their reasons for not bringing up any more trade agreements in this Congress.
Why would the Democratic leadership seek them when they are divisive within their caucus and distance them from their top presidential candidates?
Why would the administration that wants both FTAs and a legacy be willing to risk both on an ever-increasing long-shot? And these hurdles only heighten as 2008 progresses. Perhaps the best possibility would be for a lame-duck attempt, when both the Congress and the president are past the November election.
Tough votes are then sometimes seen as "free" votes where members can vote without such a focus on the political consequences. Yet even this hardly assures passage. As the defeat of the comparatively innocuous legislation granting Vietnam permanent normal trade relations proved last year, there are few easy trade votes these days — even in the last days of a Congress.
Ironically, with this year's landmark May agreement on environment and labor standards, the administration and Democratic leadership came further than at any time in recent memory of reaching a bipartisan approach to move trade legislation. That agreement bore fruit in the large show of support for the Peru agreement.
Despite these best efforts and best results, the trade tide appears to have crested and begun receding simultaneously. It is unclear when it will come in again, but very likely it won't be in this Congress. J.T. Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget 2001-2004 and as a congressional staff member 1987-2000.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Europe Seeks its Own Identity Based on Three Central Fears: Climate Change, Energy Supplies & Unemployment???
How Will the Dream End?
Roger Boyes
The New Statesman
Published 19 March 2007
Over five decades the postwar European states have struggled to define a common purpose. But what exactly should the EU's mission be?
The Frenchman leaned across to the German and broke the news softly. "I am thinking of my two sons - they're 18 and 20," said Pierre Mendès France mournfully. "I don't want to see their lives sacrificed in another war between France and Germany."
Then the French premier came to the point: the National Assembly was about to reject the European Defence Community (EDC), a tentative step towards a European army in an attempt to bring West Germany back into the fold. It was the great integrationist project of the day, and it failed. Konrad Adenauer, the German chancellor, was thunderstruck. Europe had never seemed so weak. That was in 1954. Within three years the old man had overcome the setback: West Germany became one of the six signatories of the Treaty of Rome, which set out the terms for a European Common Market.
Now Europe is weak again, its institutions crippled by enlargement and bureaucratic overstretch. It makes no decisive contribution to putting out fires across the world. It is becoming a patchily efficient trading entity, significant only because of its bulk. Can it make a comeback?
Angela Merkel thinks it can, just as West Germany pulled itself out of the 1954 crisis. There is an Oskar Kokoschka portrait of Adenauer in her study and she means to live up to her Christian Democrat predecessor by exploiting the dialectic of the European Union: out of weakness comes strength. First, the crisis; then the reinvention.
The modern version of the EDC débâcle is the failure of the European constitution, its resolute rejection by the French and Dutch and the near-certainty that the British, Poles and Czechs would throw out any cosmetically enhanced treaty. It is an institutional breakdown that has left Europeans - the Rhinelanders of Cologne, the Calabrians, the Bohemians and all the Continent's many tribes - wondering about the purpose and the principles of the European Union.
I recently met the Hungarian prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány, who warned that a European crescent stretching from Poland to the Balkans was wrestling with a dilemma: whether to modernise quickly or whether to retreat into a regressive nationalism.
"Something horrible is happening," he said, and the implied question was: What is the EU going to do about it? If Europe, if the idea of Europe, is indeed to modernise society, then where do our responsibilities begin and end? Is the mission of the EU to shape a wealth-creation zone, to secure prosperity, or to redistribute it? We can all agree that the EU needs to deregulate - but many of those regulations were put in place to protect people as well as sectional interests. How far should the EU let people fall in its rush to overhaul and slim down the welfare state?
On New Year's Eve, I was travelling on a coach full of Romanians supposedly heading to London (in fact they all got off in Germany, which is a much easier country to invade). They were middle-class professionals - architects and engineers and teachers - who were willing to work as waiters and carers in the west because of the social upheaval in their country. The Romanian economy is growing by leaps and bounds and the gap between rich and poor has never been so frighteningly wide.
Do we accept this brain-drain migration as a healthy sign of an open Europe, or do we act out of solidarity to prevent a dumbing-down of the western Balkans? Ordinary Europeans are posing these existential questions, yet the EU does not even attempt an answer. As a result, immigration has become the only political passion in Europe and far-right groups are sprouting like weeds in the driveway.
The German-led presidency of the EU is therefore missing the point when it offers an agenda addressing what it identifies as the three central fears of Europeans: climate change, energy supplies and unemployment. These are indeed subjects of discussion over frothing beer in pubs in Bradford and Bochum, but the greening of Europe is likely to remain a sham.
Merkel may be leading the charge, but she does so on a steed that is buckling at the knees. She is a captive of Europe's increasingly powerful lobbies - the big petrol-guzzling car manufacturers, the aerospace industry - and her Social Democratic coalition partner, which is thwarting her hopes of reviving nuclear energy in Germany. As for energy security, it strikes a chord throughout Europe. The right to a warm room is something that most people can agree on. But Merkel, leading a government that cannot work out whether the Russians should be criticised or cuddled, is probably not the right person to develop an intelligent strategic relationship with Moscow, the primary supplier of Europe's energy. The EU, in other words, exposes itself by claiming solutions to problems that lie outside its control: it cannot hope to reverse climate change and it cannot stop Russia closing down its pipelines at whim.
Initiatives coming out of Berlin merely chip away at the credibility of the EU. A Europe-wide ban on light bulbs that give out too much heat? A proposed ban on the swastika? A creeping (and rather sinister) extension of the European arrest warrant?
Yet Merkel is certainly correct that the EU has to have a more pronounced political identity if it is to justify itself, and make itself useful to its citizens. There simply has to be a proper calibration between what the EU can do with its current powers and the needs of the inhabitants of its 27 member states. Until this has been sorted out, there is no real point in reaching for the skies. The founders of the Common Market - Schuman, Spaak, Monnet - were a small elite who imposed a vision on a shattered continent. It worked because West Germany actively surrendered itself to Europe.
As the historian Tony Judt points out, Germany was the only country that stood to recover its sovereignty by joining the Common Market. So it is absurd for Merkel to talk up a European energy policy as the modern version of the European Coal and Steel Community. The ECSC was a historic compromise between France and Germany, devised by a handful of mandarins. An EU energy-security policy would involve a compromise with Vladimir Putin: not the same thing at all.
Punchy, vague and proud
And so, unable to identify the true issues facing Europe, unable to agree on a basic constitutional credo, unable to give Merkel her Adenauer moment, the EU resorts to operetta. In the coming week, the 27 leaders and their courtiers will gather in the German capital to celebrate the 50th birthday of the Treaty of Rome. A declaration so simple that it can be published in full by Bild and the Sun will be released, declaring Europe's achievements, values and goals.
"It will be punchy, it will be vague, it will make us proud," said a German official, not spotting the obvious contradictions. The aim will be to stir popular interest in a new constitution, to tip the mood. So the French, Dutch and English translations had better be very punchy indeed. And vague. In truth, the Declaration of Berlin will just be an oversized birthday card.
The celebrations are unlikely to impress anyone apart from the lumpenproletariat of Berlin, which has not hosted such a circus since the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Then, Bismarck, Disraeli and company could be seen bumping into each other in mirrored cafés and the lobby of the Hotel Kaiserhof. Chancellor Merkel can match that spectacle in only one respect: the 27 leaders have been instructed to bring along two birth-day cakes per country, displaying the very best of their confectionary talent. It is a frightening contribution to a continent that already boasts some of the world's worst coronary heart disease statistics. If federal Europe means boosting cholesterol values to such astronomic levels, maybe the Polish Eurosceptics (slogan: "The Nice Treaty or Die!") had a point.
It would be churlish to begrudge Merkel her cream cake. The Congress of Berlin was about restraining Russian expansion. This month's summit is both less and more important than that. Less, because no borders are being changed; no countries are being sliced up; and Russia is off-stage. More, because we are embarking on what can only be clumsily called a "period of definition" for this strange semi-imperial postmodern agglomeration. The cakes are misleading because they are suggestive of a club or, at worst, a bring-and-buy sale. That kind of intimacy may have existed half a century ago; it has long since gone.
Besides, the declaration is misleading, because you could be lulled into believing that the EU knows what it wants. Yet it is at a turning point: the EU, at 50, is affirming that there is more to life than money - that it is once again permissible to entertain a political dream that goes beyond endless enlargement.
Making wars impossible
If a new mission is to be properly defined, however, the current cohort of leaders has to shed the old idea that the EU is quintessentially about preventing war. Mendès France irritated Adenauer when he talked about his sons, but he was sincere. Helmut Kohl justified the introduction of the euro by saying it was a matter of war and peace - the only argument that could trump German fears of inflation.
In 30 years of covering Europe, east and west, I have accumulated a number of ornithological sightings. One, from when I was a young correspondent in Moscow in the 1970s, was of an old apparatchik, crippled with arthritis, being carried up the steps of Gosplan, the Soviet planning ministry. He was a crucial figure, I later found out, in manipulating the budget: a man with a broken body called in to rig the stats.
Later, in 1989, I saw a Romanian rebel literally shoot himself in the foot while giving an interview on live television. I realised then that we were dealing not with a revolution, but with a coup, a handover of power between two sections of the communist elite. The people (as in: "We, the People!") were extras, unpaid and incompetent.
And then there was the Kohl sighting. François Mitterrand had crossed the Rhine to see his "cher ami Helmut" and was hamming it up in a speech about the humanity of his German wartime captors. No one believed a word of it. Suddenly I saw Kohl's eyes fill with tears. His vast, fleshy body seemed to be made of glass. Every physical inflection, his round, tense shoulders, his quivering thighs, showed that Mitterrand had scored an emotional bull's-eye. Kohl really believed that his Europe was about making wars impossible. You cannot fake that kind of response.
However, to move forward, we have to forget the war as a legitimising factor. In fact, we have to mentally discard the obsession with uniting two arch-enemies, France and Germany, and all the nervous fretting of the European pioneers from Schuman to Kohl. It has served its purpose. We have reunited Europe, with Germany at its centre, with very little bloodshed.
Clinging on to the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and the old statecraft has given us the wrong focus. We have become preoccupied with external borders, when the true concern of citizens across Europe is the internal divisions - the social boundaries that have created immigrant ghettoes, windy cavernous no-go areas on the fringes of our cities. How many riots have there been, from Oldham and Bradford to Paris and beyond? We know the causes - the discrimination, the friction with police, the hidden blockades against immigrants - and we know some of the side effects, from street gangs to Koranic schools.
Europe should heal its cities before it starts to sell itself as an endearing alternative to red-raw American capitalism and corrupt Chinese capitalism. Yet there is no European strategy for dealing with migrant disaffection. The European migrant has become a dynamic part of society in some cities; in others, he is the most frustrated. Integration begins at home, not on the Rhine. The European Union, to be worthy of its name, needs to become more active in its minority policies; it has to target urban youth.
This is not, obviously, the only challenge facing Europe, but it does help order the priorities. If the EU is to assert its political primacy (indeed, if it is to survive another 50 years), it has to build on the principle of intercommunal and international solidarity. We don't all have to develop at the same speed, or even march in step, but we have to prevent a situation where there are more losers than winners within the EU.
Everything else - a credible European foreign policy, further expansion, an intelligent use of resources - follows from that sense of social cohesion. Here is a suggestion: some time in June, Gordon Brown, Merkel and the new French president should take a walk in the woods and talk about what is really important in Europe.
And when they come back, their hiking boots clogged with mud, they should use the word once copyrighted by the Poles: solidarity.
Roger Boyes is the Times Berlin correspondent
Roger Boyes
The New Statesman
Published 19 March 2007
Over five decades the postwar European states have struggled to define a common purpose. But what exactly should the EU's mission be?
The Frenchman leaned across to the German and broke the news softly. "I am thinking of my two sons - they're 18 and 20," said Pierre Mendès France mournfully. "I don't want to see their lives sacrificed in another war between France and Germany."
Then the French premier came to the point: the National Assembly was about to reject the European Defence Community (EDC), a tentative step towards a European army in an attempt to bring West Germany back into the fold. It was the great integrationist project of the day, and it failed. Konrad Adenauer, the German chancellor, was thunderstruck. Europe had never seemed so weak. That was in 1954. Within three years the old man had overcome the setback: West Germany became one of the six signatories of the Treaty of Rome, which set out the terms for a European Common Market.
Now Europe is weak again, its institutions crippled by enlargement and bureaucratic overstretch. It makes no decisive contribution to putting out fires across the world. It is becoming a patchily efficient trading entity, significant only because of its bulk. Can it make a comeback?
Angela Merkel thinks it can, just as West Germany pulled itself out of the 1954 crisis. There is an Oskar Kokoschka portrait of Adenauer in her study and she means to live up to her Christian Democrat predecessor by exploiting the dialectic of the European Union: out of weakness comes strength. First, the crisis; then the reinvention.
The modern version of the EDC débâcle is the failure of the European constitution, its resolute rejection by the French and Dutch and the near-certainty that the British, Poles and Czechs would throw out any cosmetically enhanced treaty. It is an institutional breakdown that has left Europeans - the Rhinelanders of Cologne, the Calabrians, the Bohemians and all the Continent's many tribes - wondering about the purpose and the principles of the European Union.
I recently met the Hungarian prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsány, who warned that a European crescent stretching from Poland to the Balkans was wrestling with a dilemma: whether to modernise quickly or whether to retreat into a regressive nationalism.
"Something horrible is happening," he said, and the implied question was: What is the EU going to do about it? If Europe, if the idea of Europe, is indeed to modernise society, then where do our responsibilities begin and end? Is the mission of the EU to shape a wealth-creation zone, to secure prosperity, or to redistribute it? We can all agree that the EU needs to deregulate - but many of those regulations were put in place to protect people as well as sectional interests. How far should the EU let people fall in its rush to overhaul and slim down the welfare state?
On New Year's Eve, I was travelling on a coach full of Romanians supposedly heading to London (in fact they all got off in Germany, which is a much easier country to invade). They were middle-class professionals - architects and engineers and teachers - who were willing to work as waiters and carers in the west because of the social upheaval in their country. The Romanian economy is growing by leaps and bounds and the gap between rich and poor has never been so frighteningly wide.
Do we accept this brain-drain migration as a healthy sign of an open Europe, or do we act out of solidarity to prevent a dumbing-down of the western Balkans? Ordinary Europeans are posing these existential questions, yet the EU does not even attempt an answer. As a result, immigration has become the only political passion in Europe and far-right groups are sprouting like weeds in the driveway.
The German-led presidency of the EU is therefore missing the point when it offers an agenda addressing what it identifies as the three central fears of Europeans: climate change, energy supplies and unemployment. These are indeed subjects of discussion over frothing beer in pubs in Bradford and Bochum, but the greening of Europe is likely to remain a sham.
Merkel may be leading the charge, but she does so on a steed that is buckling at the knees. She is a captive of Europe's increasingly powerful lobbies - the big petrol-guzzling car manufacturers, the aerospace industry - and her Social Democratic coalition partner, which is thwarting her hopes of reviving nuclear energy in Germany. As for energy security, it strikes a chord throughout Europe. The right to a warm room is something that most people can agree on. But Merkel, leading a government that cannot work out whether the Russians should be criticised or cuddled, is probably not the right person to develop an intelligent strategic relationship with Moscow, the primary supplier of Europe's energy. The EU, in other words, exposes itself by claiming solutions to problems that lie outside its control: it cannot hope to reverse climate change and it cannot stop Russia closing down its pipelines at whim.
Initiatives coming out of Berlin merely chip away at the credibility of the EU. A Europe-wide ban on light bulbs that give out too much heat? A proposed ban on the swastika? A creeping (and rather sinister) extension of the European arrest warrant?
Yet Merkel is certainly correct that the EU has to have a more pronounced political identity if it is to justify itself, and make itself useful to its citizens. There simply has to be a proper calibration between what the EU can do with its current powers and the needs of the inhabitants of its 27 member states. Until this has been sorted out, there is no real point in reaching for the skies. The founders of the Common Market - Schuman, Spaak, Monnet - were a small elite who imposed a vision on a shattered continent. It worked because West Germany actively surrendered itself to Europe.
As the historian Tony Judt points out, Germany was the only country that stood to recover its sovereignty by joining the Common Market. So it is absurd for Merkel to talk up a European energy policy as the modern version of the European Coal and Steel Community. The ECSC was a historic compromise between France and Germany, devised by a handful of mandarins. An EU energy-security policy would involve a compromise with Vladimir Putin: not the same thing at all.
Punchy, vague and proud
And so, unable to identify the true issues facing Europe, unable to agree on a basic constitutional credo, unable to give Merkel her Adenauer moment, the EU resorts to operetta. In the coming week, the 27 leaders and their courtiers will gather in the German capital to celebrate the 50th birthday of the Treaty of Rome. A declaration so simple that it can be published in full by Bild and the Sun will be released, declaring Europe's achievements, values and goals.
"It will be punchy, it will be vague, it will make us proud," said a German official, not spotting the obvious contradictions. The aim will be to stir popular interest in a new constitution, to tip the mood. So the French, Dutch and English translations had better be very punchy indeed. And vague. In truth, the Declaration of Berlin will just be an oversized birthday card.
The celebrations are unlikely to impress anyone apart from the lumpenproletariat of Berlin, which has not hosted such a circus since the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Then, Bismarck, Disraeli and company could be seen bumping into each other in mirrored cafés and the lobby of the Hotel Kaiserhof. Chancellor Merkel can match that spectacle in only one respect: the 27 leaders have been instructed to bring along two birth-day cakes per country, displaying the very best of their confectionary talent. It is a frightening contribution to a continent that already boasts some of the world's worst coronary heart disease statistics. If federal Europe means boosting cholesterol values to such astronomic levels, maybe the Polish Eurosceptics (slogan: "The Nice Treaty or Die!") had a point.
It would be churlish to begrudge Merkel her cream cake. The Congress of Berlin was about restraining Russian expansion. This month's summit is both less and more important than that. Less, because no borders are being changed; no countries are being sliced up; and Russia is off-stage. More, because we are embarking on what can only be clumsily called a "period of definition" for this strange semi-imperial postmodern agglomeration. The cakes are misleading because they are suggestive of a club or, at worst, a bring-and-buy sale. That kind of intimacy may have existed half a century ago; it has long since gone.
Besides, the declaration is misleading, because you could be lulled into believing that the EU knows what it wants. Yet it is at a turning point: the EU, at 50, is affirming that there is more to life than money - that it is once again permissible to entertain a political dream that goes beyond endless enlargement.
Making wars impossible
If a new mission is to be properly defined, however, the current cohort of leaders has to shed the old idea that the EU is quintessentially about preventing war. Mendès France irritated Adenauer when he talked about his sons, but he was sincere. Helmut Kohl justified the introduction of the euro by saying it was a matter of war and peace - the only argument that could trump German fears of inflation.
In 30 years of covering Europe, east and west, I have accumulated a number of ornithological sightings. One, from when I was a young correspondent in Moscow in the 1970s, was of an old apparatchik, crippled with arthritis, being carried up the steps of Gosplan, the Soviet planning ministry. He was a crucial figure, I later found out, in manipulating the budget: a man with a broken body called in to rig the stats.
Later, in 1989, I saw a Romanian rebel literally shoot himself in the foot while giving an interview on live television. I realised then that we were dealing not with a revolution, but with a coup, a handover of power between two sections of the communist elite. The people (as in: "We, the People!") were extras, unpaid and incompetent.
And then there was the Kohl sighting. François Mitterrand had crossed the Rhine to see his "cher ami Helmut" and was hamming it up in a speech about the humanity of his German wartime captors. No one believed a word of it. Suddenly I saw Kohl's eyes fill with tears. His vast, fleshy body seemed to be made of glass. Every physical inflection, his round, tense shoulders, his quivering thighs, showed that Mitterrand had scored an emotional bull's-eye. Kohl really believed that his Europe was about making wars impossible. You cannot fake that kind of response.
However, to move forward, we have to forget the war as a legitimising factor. In fact, we have to mentally discard the obsession with uniting two arch-enemies, France and Germany, and all the nervous fretting of the European pioneers from Schuman to Kohl. It has served its purpose. We have reunited Europe, with Germany at its centre, with very little bloodshed.
Clinging on to the spirit of the Treaty of Rome and the old statecraft has given us the wrong focus. We have become preoccupied with external borders, when the true concern of citizens across Europe is the internal divisions - the social boundaries that have created immigrant ghettoes, windy cavernous no-go areas on the fringes of our cities. How many riots have there been, from Oldham and Bradford to Paris and beyond? We know the causes - the discrimination, the friction with police, the hidden blockades against immigrants - and we know some of the side effects, from street gangs to Koranic schools.
Europe should heal its cities before it starts to sell itself as an endearing alternative to red-raw American capitalism and corrupt Chinese capitalism. Yet there is no European strategy for dealing with migrant disaffection. The European migrant has become a dynamic part of society in some cities; in others, he is the most frustrated. Integration begins at home, not on the Rhine. The European Union, to be worthy of its name, needs to become more active in its minority policies; it has to target urban youth.
This is not, obviously, the only challenge facing Europe, but it does help order the priorities. If the EU is to assert its political primacy (indeed, if it is to survive another 50 years), it has to build on the principle of intercommunal and international solidarity. We don't all have to develop at the same speed, or even march in step, but we have to prevent a situation where there are more losers than winners within the EU.
Everything else - a credible European foreign policy, further expansion, an intelligent use of resources - follows from that sense of social cohesion. Here is a suggestion: some time in June, Gordon Brown, Merkel and the new French president should take a walk in the woods and talk about what is really important in Europe.
And when they come back, their hiking boots clogged with mud, they should use the word once copyrighted by the Poles: solidarity.
Roger Boyes is the Times Berlin correspondent
11/6/07 E-mail Correspondences Between Roger Helmer UK Member of European Parliament & Lawrence Kogan, ITSSD CEO
The following reflects a series of e-mail correspondences between Roger Helmer, UK Member of the European Parliament and ITSSD CEO/President Lawrence Kogan during November 6, 2007:
The Context:
The correspondences arose as the result of a recent UK Telegraph article entitled "Giscard: EU Treaty is the Constitution Rewritten". See: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/destaing-french-father-of-europe-admits.html .
The ITSSD believes it is critical to emphasize to the American people how the EU Brussels institutions and leadership tried to get the renegotiated EU treaty past the electorate without a referendum.
According to ITSSD CEO Lawrence Kogan,
"If, as is apparent, the EU governmental apparatus in Brussels, which includes representatives of the EU member states, would endeavor to deceive its own citizens in this fashion, what do you think it would endeavor to do to the United States as the result of entering into the Faustian bargain it appears to have concluded with the White House concerning the trade-off of EU support for PSI in exchange for US support of UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - See: "UNCLOS Alchemy" at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/11/unclos-alchemy.html ] and other environmental treaties?"
In response to the UK Telegraph article and to this point delivered by an intermediary, Roger Helmer made the following Nov. 6 comment:
"...[A]ny number of EU leaders have been falling over themselves to say that the Treaty is 90%, or 95%, or 98% of the Constitution. It is quite extraordinary that Gordon Brown and his ministers can go round insisting that the Treaty is "a totally different document" in the face of all this publicity. You may like to know that the London think-tank Open Europe has done an excellent line-by-line comparison of the two documents, which makes the case beyond denial.
E-Mail Correspondences:
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 15:10
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: FW: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Helmer:
I was recently forwarded your note in response to our concern about the D'Estaing article appearing in a recent issue of the Telegraph. It is fascinating how, in this day and age of interconnectedness and immediate information that politicians would try to 'pull a fast one' over on the electorate as they seemingly have tried to do on both sides of the pond - the EU as concerns the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution; the White House as concerns the UNCLOS.
We have been tracking the EU constitutional debate most recently since at least June and have concluded that the failure to resolve the constitutional conundrum in the manner desired by the 'fathers of Europe' would deal a death-knell blow to the federalism concept and preserve England's national sovereignty.
We also found that the UN climate change debate which now focuses on preserving the marine environment with the US ratification of UNCLOS serves as another diversion from this constitutional dilemma. It seems that the Brussels' institutions need to 'project outward' their environmental concerns and proposed solutions in order to cure the failings within the union, even if it means infringing on fundamental human/constitutional rights, 'negative' exclusive private property rights chief among them. Please see:
http://www.itssd.org/White%20Papers/Europe_sWarningsonClimateChangeBelieMoreNuancedConcerns.pdf
Lastly, we are curious to know why D'Estaing 'outed' Brussels on the Treaty/Constitution. Was it merely an exercise of 'damage control' given that the information had been publicly 'leaked', or is there more to his confession???
We will soon highlight the parallel of these two situations to the American public.
Thank you for your consideration and interest.
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:13 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Thanks for this: good to hear from you. Thanks also for your interesting comments, and for the link.
On your question about Giscard: we have a bizarre situation where European politicians not under pressure to hold referenda are actually proud of their achievement in retaining most of the failed Constitution. They feel they have solved a problem. On the Open Europe web-site you will find a whole series of comments from them, many containing numerical estimates. They seek to outbid each other, claiming 90%, 95%, 98% of the Constitution "saved". You will also find a point-by-point comparison of the clauses in the Constitution and in the "Treaty".
Giscard himself has a lot of personal capital invested in the Constitution, and its rejection was a huge set-back for him personally. So he is intensely proud that virtually every line has been saved.
But at the same time politicians facing pressure for referenda, like our own Gordon Brown, have no option but to insist that it's a quite different document. Indeed in terms of technical structure they have a point. It is an amending treaty, in kind like earlier treaties. It is not a Constitution, which would have swept away the confused dog's breakfast of the early sequence of treaties, while codifying all their substance into a single text.
But this is a minor technical point. In terms of practical effect, the governance of the EU and the independence of member states, it is identical.
Best regards.
ROGER HELMER
www.rogerhelmer.com
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 16:24
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Thank you for your most thorough reply.
Is there a way to create public demand in Europe for more referenda considering that the 'fundamental' right of Europeans 'to be heard' is being trampled on?
Perhaps we could coordinate some type of campaign on this bringing in an assortment of organizations to expose the old 'form over substance' shenanigan being employed at the expense of individual rights??? Will this be their future under a Brussels-driven technocracy of philosopher kings??
Would this hold any sway with the electorate at this point in history?
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:33 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
I really appreciate your offer of help, but we already have a series of campaigns focussed on demanding referenda both in individual countries and more widely. Anything you can do to raise awareness of the cynical and deceitful disregard of the European élites for public opinion and democratic values would be much appreciated.
Meantime you are right to point out to an America audience how quickly democracy can tip over into authoritarianism.
I never thought I would say this, but there is a fundamental flaw in our democratic process. Because the EU is a cross-cutting issue for our major political parties, it can leave the voter with no clear way of expressing dissent (except in euro-elections, where the share of vote for rejectionist fringe parties goes shooting up).
That is why various non-party organisations and movements are involved in the campaign. See www.tfa.net; www.betteroffout.co.uk .
Best regards. R.
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 18:23
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Would you be willing to permit me to quote any passage within your correspondence to me to show the authenticity of the democratic deficit in the EU and Britain?? If not, I understand and will respect your wishes to keep my comments general as to the issue without reference to you by name or position.
This may help to drive home the seriousness of what is occurring on both sides of the pond.
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger
Sent: Tuesday, 06 November 2007 12:47 PM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Absolutely. Go for it. And also feel free to quote from my blog, which covers these matters in more detail, or to offer a link to the blog.
Best regards. Roger.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/
The Context:
The correspondences arose as the result of a recent UK Telegraph article entitled "Giscard: EU Treaty is the Constitution Rewritten". See: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/destaing-french-father-of-europe-admits.html .
The ITSSD believes it is critical to emphasize to the American people how the EU Brussels institutions and leadership tried to get the renegotiated EU treaty past the electorate without a referendum.
According to ITSSD CEO Lawrence Kogan,
"If, as is apparent, the EU governmental apparatus in Brussels, which includes representatives of the EU member states, would endeavor to deceive its own citizens in this fashion, what do you think it would endeavor to do to the United States as the result of entering into the Faustian bargain it appears to have concluded with the White House concerning the trade-off of EU support for PSI in exchange for US support of UNCLOS [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea - See: "UNCLOS Alchemy" at: http://itssd.blogspot.com/2007/11/unclos-alchemy.html ] and other environmental treaties?"
In response to the UK Telegraph article and to this point delivered by an intermediary, Roger Helmer made the following Nov. 6 comment:
"...[A]ny number of EU leaders have been falling over themselves to say that the Treaty is 90%, or 95%, or 98% of the Constitution. It is quite extraordinary that Gordon Brown and his ministers can go round insisting that the Treaty is "a totally different document" in the face of all this publicity. You may like to know that the London think-tank Open Europe has done an excellent line-by-line comparison of the two documents, which makes the case beyond denial.
E-Mail Correspondences:
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 15:10
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: FW: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Helmer:
I was recently forwarded your note in response to our concern about the D'Estaing article appearing in a recent issue of the Telegraph. It is fascinating how, in this day and age of interconnectedness and immediate information that politicians would try to 'pull a fast one' over on the electorate as they seemingly have tried to do on both sides of the pond - the EU as concerns the Lisbon Treaty/Constitution; the White House as concerns the UNCLOS.
We have been tracking the EU constitutional debate most recently since at least June and have concluded that the failure to resolve the constitutional conundrum in the manner desired by the 'fathers of Europe' would deal a death-knell blow to the federalism concept and preserve England's national sovereignty.
We also found that the UN climate change debate which now focuses on preserving the marine environment with the US ratification of UNCLOS serves as another diversion from this constitutional dilemma. It seems that the Brussels' institutions need to 'project outward' their environmental concerns and proposed solutions in order to cure the failings within the union, even if it means infringing on fundamental human/constitutional rights, 'negative' exclusive private property rights chief among them. Please see:
http://www.itssd.org/White%20Papers/Europe_sWarningsonClimateChangeBelieMoreNuancedConcerns.pdf
Lastly, we are curious to know why D'Estaing 'outed' Brussels on the Treaty/Constitution. Was it merely an exercise of 'damage control' given that the information had been publicly 'leaked', or is there more to his confession???
We will soon highlight the parallel of these two situations to the American public.
Thank you for your consideration and interest.
Sincerely,
Lawrence A. Kogan, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Trade, Standards and Sustainable Development (ITSSD)
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:13 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Thanks for this: good to hear from you. Thanks also for your interesting comments, and for the link.
On your question about Giscard: we have a bizarre situation where European politicians not under pressure to hold referenda are actually proud of their achievement in retaining most of the failed Constitution. They feel they have solved a problem. On the Open Europe web-site you will find a whole series of comments from them, many containing numerical estimates. They seek to outbid each other, claiming 90%, 95%, 98% of the Constitution "saved". You will also find a point-by-point comparison of the clauses in the Constitution and in the "Treaty".
Giscard himself has a lot of personal capital invested in the Constitution, and its rejection was a huge set-back for him personally. So he is intensely proud that virtually every line has been saved.
But at the same time politicians facing pressure for referenda, like our own Gordon Brown, have no option but to insist that it's a quite different document. Indeed in terms of technical structure they have a point. It is an amending treaty, in kind like earlier treaties. It is not a Constitution, which would have swept away the confused dog's breakfast of the early sequence of treaties, while codifying all their substance into a single text.
But this is a minor technical point. In terms of practical effect, the governance of the EU and the independence of member states, it is identical.
Best regards.
ROGER HELMER
www.rogerhelmer.com
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 16:24
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Thank you for your most thorough reply.
Is there a way to create public demand in Europe for more referenda considering that the 'fundamental' right of Europeans 'to be heard' is being trampled on?
Perhaps we could coordinate some type of campaign on this bringing in an assortment of organizations to expose the old 'form over substance' shenanigan being employed at the expense of individual rights??? Will this be their future under a Brussels-driven technocracy of philosopher kings??
Would this hold any sway with the electorate at this point in history?
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger [mailto:roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 10:33 AM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
I really appreciate your offer of help, but we already have a series of campaigns focussed on demanding referenda both in individual countries and more widely. Anything you can do to raise awareness of the cynical and deceitful disregard of the European élites for public opinion and democratic values would be much appreciated.
Meantime you are right to point out to an America audience how quickly democracy can tip over into authoritarianism.
I never thought I would say this, but there is a fundamental flaw in our democratic process. Because the EU is a cross-cutting issue for our major political parties, it can leave the voter with no clear way of expressing dissent (except in euro-elections, where the share of vote for rejectionist fringe parties goes shooting up).
That is why various non-party organisations and movements are involved in the campaign. See www.tfa.net; www.betteroffout.co.uk .
Best regards. R.
************************************************************************************
From: lkogan [mailto:lkoganlaw@msn.com]
Sent: 06 November 2007 18:23
To: HELMER Roger
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Roger,
Would you be willing to permit me to quote any passage within your correspondence to me to show the authenticity of the democratic deficit in the EU and Britain?? If not, I understand and will respect your wishes to keep my comments general as to the issue without reference to you by name or position.
This may help to drive home the seriousness of what is occurring on both sides of the pond.
Best Regards,
Lawrence
************************************************************************************
From: HELMER Roger
Sent: Tuesday, 06 November 2007 12:47 PM
To: lkogan
Subject: RE: the Giscard D'Estaing's comment on EU treaty
Dear Lawrence,
Absolutely. Go for it. And also feel free to quote from my blog, which covers these matters in more detail, or to offer a link to the blog.
Best regards. Roger.
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/
Roger Helmer - UK Member of EU Parliament - "Straight Talking" Newsletter Nov. 2007
STRAIGHT TALKING November 2007
Roger Helmer's electronic newsletter from Brussels
roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu
Quote of the Month
"(If we came to power after the EU Treaty was ratified) we would be in a situation where we had a new treaty in force that lacked democratic legitimacy ..... this would not be acceptable to a Conservative government, and we would not let matters rest there". William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary, quoted in the Indy of Nov 13th. Well said William. I'll drink to that.
Pro Referendum Rally
Saturday Oct 27th saw public and politicians converge on Westminster to demand a referendum on the Renamed Constitution (pictures on the web-site). Addressing the crowd from an open-topped double-decker bus were Bob Spink MP (Con); Dan Hannan MEP (Con); myself; Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP); and Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish sceptic MEP.
Parliamentarians representing around 30 million people placed voting papers in a symbolic Ballot Box. The message was clear: we demand a referendum. Is Gordon listening? It seems that only he and a few of his ministers still pretend that there's any material difference between the new Treaty and the failed Constitution.
I have recently made a submission to the House of Lords on this issue on behalf of The Freedom Association. See the text here.
Village referenda
Meantime we've been using the 1972 Local Government Act to force village polls demanding a national referendum. I helped at Loughton (Milton Keynes, just over the regional border) where Conservative Councillor Don Hoyle had set up a poll (95% voted in favour). Meantime in Broughton Astley, England's largest village, in Leicestershire, Ron Clements set up a poll on Nov 1st.
CO2 emissions from cars
The EU Commission has been proposing legislation to require average emissions from each car manufacturer to be reduced to 120 gms/km by 2012. I recorded a piece on the national BBC1 Politics Show on Oct 28th.
This proposal would do huge damage to the industry. But it's also rotten value for money. The European Climate Change Panel has established a series of cost effective measure that could more than achieve our Kyoto targets for less than €20 per ton of CO2. But the cost of the Commission's auto proposal is calculated to be between €132 and €233 a ton. It is amazingly wasteful, damaging and inefficient.
There will be those who say that this issue is so important, we should ignore the cost. But put it like this: if you have €200 to spend on the environment, would you rather stop one ton of CO2 with auto legislation, or 10 tons through more efficient projects? Energy conservation is a less glamorous but much more cost effective approach.
There are even initiatives which would save CO2 and money. For example, if we consolidated the European parliament on one site in Brussels, we would save €200 million a year, and 90,000 tons of CO2! If we built more nuclear power stations, we would save CO2 and save money -- because nuclear electricity is now significantly cheaper than power from fossil fuels.
Chris scores a big hit
Before a recent vote in plenary on pesticide legislation, Chris Heaton-Harris got up on a point of order and remarked that we MEPs had all received a flood of lobbying material from an outfit called Pesticide Watch -- an umbrella group for a bunch of environmental NGOs including Friends of the Earth (acronym "FoE", and rightly so!), most of which receive substantial EU funding.
So here we have the Commission spending tax-payers' money to lobby the European parliament to support the Commission's own legislation! How weird and wasteful and incestuous is that? Chris got some good press coverage on the back of it.
Environment spokesman Stavros Dimas responded that in order to remedy the admitted "democratic deficit" in the EU, it was necessary to support NGOs who could represent the public. Trouble is, they don't represent the public. They are mostly run by single-issue zealots whose first objective is to ensure their own future by exaggerating problems. If we're out to cure the democratic deficit, these NGOs are part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is more to democracy that having the Commission talk to pressure groups that it funds itself.
...Book Choice:
THE SKY'S NOT FALLING: Why it's OK to Chill about Global Warming.
By Holly Fretwell. ISBN 9780 9767 26944. Published by "Kids Ahead Books"
This is a great book for kids, if you want to counter the insidious climate hysteria propaganda in our schools. Described as "fact-filled, fun, apolitical, and optimistic about the future of our magnificent planet", it's aimed at the bright 8 to 12 year old -- but it looks like a good read for grown-ups too. See www.worldahead.com
Two other books...
Stuart Clark, a respected science journalist, has written "The Sun Kings". It raises the intriguing story of astronomer William Herschel, who noticed that the cycle of sunspots correlated with the price of wheat -- but was ridiculed because no one could see a connection. We now know that sunspots drive the Sun's magnetic field, which in turn affects the cosmic ray flux in Earth's upper atmosphere, cloud formation, cloud cover, climate, grain crop yields -- and hence the price of wheat. See link.
Meantime Christopher Booker and Richard North have written "Scared to Death", which deals with the psychology of the repeated media scares that emerge. Remember the Millennium Bug? Of course their big target is global warming, but they have fascinating chapters on other subjects -- including the reason why the rise of the speed camera seems to correlate with a rise in traffic accidents and road deaths. See link.
Roger Helmer's electronic newsletter from Brussels
roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu
Quote of the Month
"(If we came to power after the EU Treaty was ratified) we would be in a situation where we had a new treaty in force that lacked democratic legitimacy ..... this would not be acceptable to a Conservative government, and we would not let matters rest there". William Hague MP, Shadow Foreign Secretary, quoted in the Indy of Nov 13th. Well said William. I'll drink to that.
Pro Referendum Rally
Saturday Oct 27th saw public and politicians converge on Westminster to demand a referendum on the Renamed Constitution (pictures on the web-site). Addressing the crowd from an open-topped double-decker bus were Bob Spink MP (Con); Dan Hannan MEP (Con); myself; Nigel Farage MEP (UKIP); and Jens-Peter Bonde, a Danish sceptic MEP.
Parliamentarians representing around 30 million people placed voting papers in a symbolic Ballot Box. The message was clear: we demand a referendum. Is Gordon listening? It seems that only he and a few of his ministers still pretend that there's any material difference between the new Treaty and the failed Constitution.
I have recently made a submission to the House of Lords on this issue on behalf of The Freedom Association. See the text here.
Village referenda
Meantime we've been using the 1972 Local Government Act to force village polls demanding a national referendum. I helped at Loughton (Milton Keynes, just over the regional border) where Conservative Councillor Don Hoyle had set up a poll (95% voted in favour). Meantime in Broughton Astley, England's largest village, in Leicestershire, Ron Clements set up a poll on Nov 1st.
CO2 emissions from cars
The EU Commission has been proposing legislation to require average emissions from each car manufacturer to be reduced to 120 gms/km by 2012. I recorded a piece on the national BBC1 Politics Show on Oct 28th.
This proposal would do huge damage to the industry. But it's also rotten value for money. The European Climate Change Panel has established a series of cost effective measure that could more than achieve our Kyoto targets for less than €20 per ton of CO2. But the cost of the Commission's auto proposal is calculated to be between €132 and €233 a ton. It is amazingly wasteful, damaging and inefficient.
There will be those who say that this issue is so important, we should ignore the cost. But put it like this: if you have €200 to spend on the environment, would you rather stop one ton of CO2 with auto legislation, or 10 tons through more efficient projects? Energy conservation is a less glamorous but much more cost effective approach.
There are even initiatives which would save CO2 and money. For example, if we consolidated the European parliament on one site in Brussels, we would save €200 million a year, and 90,000 tons of CO2! If we built more nuclear power stations, we would save CO2 and save money -- because nuclear electricity is now significantly cheaper than power from fossil fuels.
Chris scores a big hit
Before a recent vote in plenary on pesticide legislation, Chris Heaton-Harris got up on a point of order and remarked that we MEPs had all received a flood of lobbying material from an outfit called Pesticide Watch -- an umbrella group for a bunch of environmental NGOs including Friends of the Earth (acronym "FoE", and rightly so!), most of which receive substantial EU funding.
So here we have the Commission spending tax-payers' money to lobby the European parliament to support the Commission's own legislation! How weird and wasteful and incestuous is that? Chris got some good press coverage on the back of it.
Environment spokesman Stavros Dimas responded that in order to remedy the admitted "democratic deficit" in the EU, it was necessary to support NGOs who could represent the public. Trouble is, they don't represent the public. They are mostly run by single-issue zealots whose first objective is to ensure their own future by exaggerating problems. If we're out to cure the democratic deficit, these NGOs are part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is more to democracy that having the Commission talk to pressure groups that it funds itself.
...Book Choice:
THE SKY'S NOT FALLING: Why it's OK to Chill about Global Warming.
By Holly Fretwell. ISBN 9780 9767 26944. Published by "Kids Ahead Books"
This is a great book for kids, if you want to counter the insidious climate hysteria propaganda in our schools. Described as "fact-filled, fun, apolitical, and optimistic about the future of our magnificent planet", it's aimed at the bright 8 to 12 year old -- but it looks like a good read for grown-ups too. See www.worldahead.com
Two other books...
Stuart Clark, a respected science journalist, has written "The Sun Kings". It raises the intriguing story of astronomer William Herschel, who noticed that the cycle of sunspots correlated with the price of wheat -- but was ridiculed because no one could see a connection. We now know that sunspots drive the Sun's magnetic field, which in turn affects the cosmic ray flux in Earth's upper atmosphere, cloud formation, cloud cover, climate, grain crop yields -- and hence the price of wheat. See link.
Meantime Christopher Booker and Richard North have written "Scared to Death", which deals with the psychology of the repeated media scares that emerge. Remember the Millennium Bug? Of course their big target is global warming, but they have fascinating chapters on other subjects -- including the reason why the rise of the speed camera seems to correlate with a rise in traffic accidents and road deaths. See link.
Will America Follow the UK Down the 'Slippery Slope' of Unaccountable EU-Driven Global Governance? UK 'I Want a Referendum' Campaign Instructive
IWR Campaigning Across the Country
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/PRDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1137
Press releases
16/10/07
...Why we need a referendum
EU leaders admit the new treaty is the same as the old EU Constitution
In the 2005 election the Government promised to hold a referendum on the proposed EU Constitution. Later that year, French and Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the Constitution in their own referendums.
But EU leaders refused to listen. They are now trying to reintroduce the rejected Constitution in the form of a new treaty. Although they have changed the name, the contents are almost exactly the same. This is a deeply dishonest process.
The author of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, says: “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero admits: “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel says simply: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
To find out more about what people across Europe are saying about the revised EU Constitution download our pamphlet: "They said it".
[ http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf ].
Only 10 out of 250 proposals in the “new” treaty are different from the proposals in the original EU Constitution. In other words, 96% of the text is the same as the rejected Constitution. Of the few changes there are, very few are of any significance – for example, the new version of the Constitutional Treaty no longer mentions the symbols of the Union, like its flag and anthem. However, of course these symbols already exist.
The think-tank Open Europe has produced a side-by-side textual comparison of the old and new versions of the Constitution. You can download a copy here.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case.aspx
They said it: What people are saying about the new EU Constitution
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(2) Weakening our ability to say “no” to EU laws we don’t want
A new voting system would cut Britain’s power to block EU laws it opposes by 30%. The UK’s veto - our right to say no - would be given up in 60 new areas covering everything from employment law to energy policy.
This could mean, for example:
Higher fuel bills. The European Commission has proposed a huge increase in oil reserves, which would have cost the UK up to £3 billion to implement. Previously the UK was able to veto this proposal, but under the Constitution it could go ahead.
The Government was able to water down some of the most damaging aspects of the EU’s Financial Services Action Plan by forming a blocking minority with a number of small member states. Many of the proposals were purely intended to favour other EU countries over the UK, and could have cost the UK billions. With our power to block legislation cut this would not have been possible.
Inevitably even more regulation would be passed. According to the Government’s own figures EU regulation since 1998 has cost the UK £40 billion. The Constitutional Treaty would mean even higher costs. No wonder that polls show that 81% of UK firms want the EU to do less, not more.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case3.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(1) Making it harder to fight crime
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/PRDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1137
Press releases
16/10/07
...Why we need a referendum
EU leaders admit the new treaty is the same as the old EU Constitution
In the 2005 election the Government promised to hold a referendum on the proposed EU Constitution. Later that year, French and Dutch voters overwhelmingly rejected the Constitution in their own referendums.
But EU leaders refused to listen. They are now trying to reintroduce the rejected Constitution in the form of a new treaty. Although they have changed the name, the contents are almost exactly the same. This is a deeply dishonest process.
The author of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, says: “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero admits: “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional Treaty go… It is, without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe.”
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel says simply: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”
To find out more about what people across Europe are saying about the revised EU Constitution download our pamphlet: "They said it".
[ http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf ].
Only 10 out of 250 proposals in the “new” treaty are different from the proposals in the original EU Constitution. In other words, 96% of the text is the same as the rejected Constitution. Of the few changes there are, very few are of any significance – for example, the new version of the Constitutional Treaty no longer mentions the symbols of the Union, like its flag and anthem. However, of course these symbols already exist.
The think-tank Open Europe has produced a side-by-side textual comparison of the old and new versions of the Constitution. You can download a copy here.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case.aspx
They said it: What people are saying about the new EU Constitution
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/publication/theysaidit.pdf
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(2) Weakening our ability to say “no” to EU laws we don’t want
A new voting system would cut Britain’s power to block EU laws it opposes by 30%. The UK’s veto - our right to say no - would be given up in 60 new areas covering everything from employment law to energy policy.
This could mean, for example:
Higher fuel bills. The European Commission has proposed a huge increase in oil reserves, which would have cost the UK up to £3 billion to implement. Previously the UK was able to veto this proposal, but under the Constitution it could go ahead.
The Government was able to water down some of the most damaging aspects of the EU’s Financial Services Action Plan by forming a blocking minority with a number of small member states. Many of the proposals were purely intended to favour other EU countries over the UK, and could have cost the UK billions. With our power to block legislation cut this would not have been possible.
Inevitably even more regulation would be passed. According to the Government’s own figures EU regulation since 1998 has cost the UK £40 billion. The Constitutional Treaty would mean even higher costs. No wonder that polls show that 81% of UK firms want the EU to do less, not more.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case3.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(1) Making it harder to fight crime
EU judges would gain power over justice and policing for the first time. The European Court of Justice would become the highest court in the land and would begin to set the UK's substantive criminal law. The Government has admitted that this would be a fundamental transfer of “national sovereignty”.
It would become illegal under EU law to try someone twice for the same crime. This would mean that criminals like Billy Dunlop, who was successfully convicted of murdering Julie Hogg when new evidence came to light 15 years after he was originally acquitted, would not have been convicted.
The Constitutional Treaty also states that “the severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence”, which could undermine the discretion of British judges to keep infamous killers like Rosemary West in jail permanently.
EU officials have already told a BBC reporter that they will use their new powers to pass judgement on the UK’s anti-terror laws. The BBC’s Europe Editor reported: “A Commission spokesman was telling me, “Well we’d want to look at things like Belmarsh, can you hold foreign suspects indefinitely?” The Commission don’t like it, so Britain could get hammered.”
The EU would gain other new powers over criminal justice. The EU’s police force, Europol, would be able to initiate investigations on British soil for the first time, making it more like a European version of America’s FBI.
This could have worrying implications. Unlike British police forces, Europol’s officers are largely unaccountable. They cannot be compelled to testify in court and are immune from prosecution for acts performed in the course of their duties. Europol also has its own problems with corruption – for example its offices were raided by Belgian police as part of a fraud investigation.
The European Prosecutor “Eurojust” will also get sweeping new powers. Johannes Thuy, a spokesman for Eurojust, confirmed that “We could compel the British police to make a prosecution.”
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case2.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(3) Less control over asylum and migration
The European Court of Justice would gain substantial new powers to determine the rights of migrants. There would be far more rulings like the recent Chindamo case, in which the UK Government found itself powerless to deport the convicted murderer of school headmaster Philip Lawrence.
The Government has admitted that the proposals in the Constitutional Treaty will mean even more costly asylum and immigration appeals. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon said: “there is clearly a risk that adding what is in effect an avenue of appeal at a very early stage in the process might be an opportunity of further complicating our existing asylum and immigration processes.”
The Charter of Fundamental Rights, which would become legally binding under the Constitution, could also complicate attempts to deport terror suspects and other foreign criminals. This could lead to increased costs for UK taxpayers as migrants claim benefits while they wait for their case to be heard. It currently takes two years before the ECJ even begins to hear an appeal.
New rights set out in the Constitution are likely to erode the current strict limits stopping EU migrants from claiming benefits in the UK if they have not worked. A new “burden sharing” requirement means that UK taxpayers will have to pay for the upkeep of migrants even in other countries. The UK Government initially opposed most of these new EU powers – but it later gave way.
While there are a range of views about all these issues, most people think they should be decided in the UK by accountable politicians. But under the Constitutional Treaty the European Court of Justice would end up making what are essentially political decisions. If British politicians disagreed with these judges, it would be impossible to get the rulings overturned.
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case4.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(4) More EU powers over our foreign policy and defence
The Constitution sets up an EU Foreign Minister, an EU Diplomatic Service, and gives the EU the right to sign treaties – just like a single country. It introduces majority voting into all kinds of foreign policy questions.
The Spanish Prime Minister has predicted that “We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service. We will see Europe with a single voice in security matters. We will have a single European voice within NATO. We want more European unity.” The British Government opposed many of these proposals, including the automatic right of the new EU Foreign Minister to speak on our behalf in the UN Security Council, but later gave in.
The Constitutional Treaty also sets up a “structured cooperation” group, in which the UK will participate. It states that members will have to achieve “approved objectives concerning the level of investment expenditure on defence equipment” and “bring their defence apparatus into line with each other”. A research paper by the European Federalists notes that “Structured Co-operation in the field of Defence is a significant step towards a Single European Army.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel also said earlier this year that “Within the EU itself, we will have to move closer to establishing a common European army.”
Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi has said “When I was talking about the European army, I was not joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it ‘Margaret’, you can call it ‘Mary Ann’, you can call it any name.”
The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero has said that “Europe must believe that it can be in 20 years the most important world power… The Constitution is an important step in this direction.”
What this grandiose vision means in practice is that while British soldiers are being undermined in Iraq and Afghanistan for want of basic equipment, the EU wants us to divert billions of pounds to wasteful projects like the Galileo satellite system - because of its desire to play the role of a “superpower”. Regardless of what you think about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is bad for our armed forces.
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case5.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(5) New EU powers over our public services
Health and education:
The Constitutional Treaty puts the EU in charge of public health, and ends the right of veto in this area. The EU would in future regulate medical standards. A new “right to preventative healthcare” could open the NHS up to a slew of costly ambulance-chasing lawsuits. The Constitution ends the veto over trade agreements in public services like health and education. So our Parliament would no longer have a say over deals which determine how these services are managed.
Public spending rules:
The UK Government has rightly criticised the EU’s public spending rules for discriminating against long term investment. But instead of fixing this problem the Constitution means that the EU’s guidelines on public spending would be more tightly enforced, as no member state will be able to vote against being censured under the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines.
Transport:
Under the Constitution, Britain gives up the veto in transport. Jacques Barrot, EU Transport Commissioner, recently said that the EU wants to run EU wide road-pricing operations. The AA have warned that this would lead to a loss of privacy.
Public service management:
Equally importantly, the Constitutional Treaty does nothing to rein in the European Court of Justice, which in recent years has produced a string of rulings which make it difficult to prioritise NHS spending, and allows those who are willing to threaten legal action to jump the queue.
Next page
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case6.aspx
The Constitutional Treaty – what does it mean in practice?
(6) It doesn’t sort out the EU’s chronic problems: cost and waste continue
Cost:
Britain is paying £10.5 billion a year into the EU – more than we spend on the police. We have to pay in roughly twice as much as we get back, while countries that are richer than Britain take more out than they put in.
High prices:
The EU’s farm subsidies and trade barriers cost the average family of four £1,500 a year in higher prices and tax. The Constitution could make reform even more difficult by giving the European Parliament new powers over spending.
Fraud:
The new treaty does nothing to sort out the EU’s chronic problems with fraud. According to its own figures, the EU loses £1 million every working day to fraud. Its budget has not been signed off by its own auditors for twelve years in a row.
Hurting poor countries:
The EU’s protectionist trade barriers and farm subsidies cost the poorest countries in the world billions every year.
Waste:
The EU now has 63,000 civil servants working full time churning out new laws. It spends £200 million a year just ferrying euro-MPs back and forth between its two parliament buildings in Strasbourg and Brussels every month.
Help us make politicians keep their promises
Gordon Brown is determined to stop you having a vote on the EU Constitution – despite being elected on a manifesto that promised the British people a referendum. If we are going to persuade him to change his mind, we need your help. This is your last chance to have a say…
Unlike previous treaties, the Constitutional Treaty would be self-amending. This means that in future the powers of the EU could be increased further without the need for any new treaty. Further vetoes could be given up by the Government without the permission of our Parliament.
Because EU leaders could vote to incrementally give the EU more powers, the constitutional treaty would reduce the level of scrutiny of future changes. If the Constitutional Treaty goes through, this could be the last ever opportunity to call for a referendum.
... so sign up to support us.
Your support is vital to us. Please register your details with us and email your friends, family and colleagues to tell them about the campaign. If you can help by getting involved with our campaigns at a local level please go to the get involved page and email your local organiser.
http://www.iwantareferendum.com/case7.aspx
German Court Affirms Existence of Only Positive Rights in Germany: Support Governments Denial of Public Referendum on EU Constitution
German Bid for EU Vote Rejected
BBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, 28 April, 2005
Germany's highest court has rejected an attempt by a centre-right politician to stop the German parliament ratifying the EU constitution next month.
Peter Gauweiler of the opposition Christian Social Union wanted a German referendum on the EU constitution.
But the court threw out his challenge, clearing the way for the upper house to conclude the ratification on 27 May.
Germany, like many EU states, will vote on the EU treaty in parliament. Its own constitution prohibits referendums.
Mr Gauweiler argued that the EU constitution - which is aimed at streamlining decision-making in the enlarged EU - would supersede important elements of the German constitution.
But referendums are banned in Germany because of the way they were abused by the Nazis. All 25 member states must approve the EU treaty for it to become law.
Six countries have backed it so far, with only Spain using the referendum method.
There are concerns within the Yes campaign that the French referendum on 29 May could prove a stumbling block, as opinion polls suggest the majority of voters will say No.
Germany's conservatives are broadly in favour of the EU treaty and the lower house of parliament is expected to ratify it on 12 May. It would then go to the upper house, or Bundesrat, on 27 May.
BBC News
Last Updated: Thursday, 28 April, 2005
Germany's highest court has rejected an attempt by a centre-right politician to stop the German parliament ratifying the EU constitution next month.
Peter Gauweiler of the opposition Christian Social Union wanted a German referendum on the EU constitution.
But the court threw out his challenge, clearing the way for the upper house to conclude the ratification on 27 May.
Germany, like many EU states, will vote on the EU treaty in parliament. Its own constitution prohibits referendums.
Mr Gauweiler argued that the EU constitution - which is aimed at streamlining decision-making in the enlarged EU - would supersede important elements of the German constitution.
But referendums are banned in Germany because of the way they were abused by the Nazis. All 25 member states must approve the EU treaty for it to become law.
Six countries have backed it so far, with only Spain using the referendum method.
There are concerns within the Yes campaign that the French referendum on 29 May could prove a stumbling block, as opinion polls suggest the majority of voters will say No.
Germany's conservatives are broadly in favour of the EU treaty and the lower house of parliament is expected to ratify it on 12 May. It would then go to the upper house, or Bundesrat, on 27 May.
By Preventing Public Referendum on EU Constitution, Berlin Government Denied German People their Constitutional Right to Public Accountability
German MP Calls for EU Referendum
By Kate Connolly in Berlin
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:13am BST 22/04/2005
The European Union constitution faces a legal challenge in Germany's highest court after an MP questioned the Berlin government's refusal to call a treaty referendum.
Peter Gauweiler, of the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union, who will make his case to the constitutional court in Karlsruhe on Monday, claimed that a referendum rather than a vote in parliament should decide the issue.
According to Mr Gauweiler, whose case is being brought by a constitutional expert, Karl Albrecht Schlachtschneider, a bundestag vote on the charter, rather than a vote by the people, contravenes Germany's ''basic law'' or constitution.
"The bundestag cannot give away to the EU more rights than it has itself. Such a far-reaching constitutional law can only be based on a referendum of the German people," he said yesterday in a statement, which he claimed had the backing of many other MPs.
Prof Schlachtschneider has be reported as saying that the EU charter goes beyond the limits set by Germany's constitutional court in a ground-breaking 1993 ruling on the institution's Maastricht treaty.
The German government, has ruled out a referendum, arguing that Germany's basic law does not allow for one. Referenda are banned in Germany due to the perception that they allowed Hitler to change the law in his quest for power.
• French opposition to the European Union constitution soared to its highest point yesterday as a new poll showed that 58 per cent of prospective voters in a referendum next month would reject the treaty.
- AFP
By Kate Connolly in Berlin
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:13am BST 22/04/2005
The European Union constitution faces a legal challenge in Germany's highest court after an MP questioned the Berlin government's refusal to call a treaty referendum.
Peter Gauweiler, of the Bavarian-based Christian Social Union, who will make his case to the constitutional court in Karlsruhe on Monday, claimed that a referendum rather than a vote in parliament should decide the issue.
According to Mr Gauweiler, whose case is being brought by a constitutional expert, Karl Albrecht Schlachtschneider, a bundestag vote on the charter, rather than a vote by the people, contravenes Germany's ''basic law'' or constitution.
"The bundestag cannot give away to the EU more rights than it has itself. Such a far-reaching constitutional law can only be based on a referendum of the German people," he said yesterday in a statement, which he claimed had the backing of many other MPs.
Prof Schlachtschneider has be reported as saying that the EU charter goes beyond the limits set by Germany's constitutional court in a ground-breaking 1993 ruling on the institution's Maastricht treaty.
The German government, has ruled out a referendum, arguing that Germany's basic law does not allow for one. Referenda are banned in Germany due to the perception that they allowed Hitler to change the law in his quest for power.
• French opposition to the European Union constitution soared to its highest point yesterday as a new poll showed that 58 per cent of prospective voters in a referendum next month would reject the treaty.
- AFP
German Parliament Denied Citizens Right to Public Referendum on EU Constitution: Issue Deemed too Important for the People
Germany Rejects EU Constitution Referendum
Deutsche Welle
DW.World.de
Germany 28.05.2004
Germany's parliament rejected a plan to put the draft of the EU Constitution up for a public referendum, sending a strong message to other countries two weeks before EU leaders are to adopt the treaty.
Politicians from the ruling Social Democratic and Green party as well as the opposition Christian Democratic Union rejected a proposal by the liberal FDP party to change Germany's constitution to allow the referendum.
The liberals had argued that a plebiscite would spark interest in the European Union among Germans and support for the European Constitution.
"We should work to make Europe not only an issue for heads of governments but for the people on the ground," FDP head Guido Westerwelle said.
The draft of the treaty, which serves as a rough blueprint on the course the EU will take, is set to be adopted in its final form at an EU summit on June 17-18.
Referendums could doom constitution draft
Following the summit attended by the EU's 25 member states, Britain, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic will put the treaty to a public referendum in their own countries before ratifying the treaty. France is reportedly mulling a similar move.
The decisions have reaped criticism from some European leaders, among them German leaders, who fear national referendums would reject the constitution, scuttling two years of painstaking work. France and Germany were reportedly planning to go ahead with the current draft even if it wasn't ratified by every EU member, according to reports.
Peter Hintze of the conservative Christian Democratic Union said Germans would most likely use such a referendum as an occasion to voice their anger at Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's domestic reforms rather than make a sober decision on the EU's future.
"The problem with plebiscites is that people virtually never vote on the issue in question," Hintze said.
A growing number of politicians in Germany are coming out in favor for an EU-wide referendum rather than separate national referendums. Bundestag president Wolfgang Thierse said the concept of the EU's 450 million citizens voting was a "fascinating idea," and could produce a "new, and possibly emotional sense of community."
But Denmark has already come out against such a referendum, and other countries are expected to follow.
"I do not want to initiate a Europe-wide poll, because it is a national Danish decision," Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said recently.
DW staff (dre)
Deutsche Welle
DW.World.de
Germany 28.05.2004
Germany's parliament rejected a plan to put the draft of the EU Constitution up for a public referendum, sending a strong message to other countries two weeks before EU leaders are to adopt the treaty.
Politicians from the ruling Social Democratic and Green party as well as the opposition Christian Democratic Union rejected a proposal by the liberal FDP party to change Germany's constitution to allow the referendum.
The liberals had argued that a plebiscite would spark interest in the European Union among Germans and support for the European Constitution.
"We should work to make Europe not only an issue for heads of governments but for the people on the ground," FDP head Guido Westerwelle said.
The draft of the treaty, which serves as a rough blueprint on the course the EU will take, is set to be adopted in its final form at an EU summit on June 17-18.
Referendums could doom constitution draft
Following the summit attended by the EU's 25 member states, Britain, Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal and the Czech Republic will put the treaty to a public referendum in their own countries before ratifying the treaty. France is reportedly mulling a similar move.
The decisions have reaped criticism from some European leaders, among them German leaders, who fear national referendums would reject the constitution, scuttling two years of painstaking work. France and Germany were reportedly planning to go ahead with the current draft even if it wasn't ratified by every EU member, according to reports.
Peter Hintze of the conservative Christian Democratic Union said Germans would most likely use such a referendum as an occasion to voice their anger at Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's domestic reforms rather than make a sober decision on the EU's future.
"The problem with plebiscites is that people virtually never vote on the issue in question," Hintze said.
A growing number of politicians in Germany are coming out in favor for an EU-wide referendum rather than separate national referendums. Bundestag president Wolfgang Thierse said the concept of the EU's 450 million citizens voting was a "fascinating idea," and could produce a "new, and possibly emotional sense of community."
But Denmark has already come out against such a referendum, and other countries are expected to follow.
"I do not want to initiate a Europe-wide poll, because it is a national Danish decision," Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said recently.
DW staff (dre)
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Pushes His Pen Through the Heart of Democracy & Economic Freedom
Today Gordon Brown Signs the EU Treaty - Britain Joins the EU Superstate
Daily Referendum Blogspot
December 13, 2007
Today, out of sight of the cameras Gordon Brown will break a manifesto promise made by his party. A promise that facilitated Labours victory in the last General Election. Gordon does not want to be photographed signing the EU Treaty, which for all intents and purposes IS the same EU Constitution that was rejected by the people of France and Holland in 2005. If Gordon Brown is so sure that this Treaty will be beneficial for Britain, then he should have no problem being photographed signing it. His claims that he can't make the signing due to being double booked are just pathetic - the Commons liaison committee have said they don't mind re-appointing the hearing he is to attend instead.
Why am I so opposed to Britain signing the EU Treaty? Well first an foremost is the fact that we were promised a referendum. Gordon Brown has stated that we don't need a referendum because this Treaty is not the same as the rejected Constitution. Well I'm afraid that is simply not true. In a leaked letter penned by German Chancellor to the other EU heads, Angela said that wanted to push through a Treaty. To achieve this Merkel tells her fellow EU heads of government that they will have to: "use different terminology without changing the legal substance".
There can be no doubt that the proposed Treaty is the same Constitution we were not given a Referendum on. Merkel makes this crystal clear when she wishes to preserve intact the content of the constitution, making only "the necessary presentational changes."
"The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained," says Angela Merkel."The great part of the European Constitution is in the new treaty," agrees José Luis Zapatero. "Thankfully they haven’t changed the substance; 90 per cent of it is still there," echoes Bertie Ahern.
I say: If a Beefburger only contains 90% Beef, it is still a bloody Beefburger.
William Hague pointed out the following facts to show the public why this EU Treaty is the same as the EU Constitution we were promised a referendum on:
. 240 of the 250 provisions are exactly the same.
. The creation of permanent President of the European Council.. The appointment of an EU foreign minister in all but name.
. The abolition of 60 of our national vetoes.. For the first time, provision for the abolition of almost every remaining veto without any further treaty negotiation or proper ratification by parliament.
The following is taken from the European Scrutiny Committee's conclusions:
"We wish to emphasise that the proposals in the Reform Treaty raise a serious difficulty of a constitutional order in as much as they appear to impose, whether by accident or design, a legal duty on national parliaments "to contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by taking part in various described activities. National parliaments, unlike the European Parliament, are not creations of the Treaties and their rights are not dependent on them. In our view, the imposition of such a legal duty on the Parliament of this country is objectionable as a matter of principle and must be resisted." Committee member James Clappison told David Miliband that: "The red lines are in tatters - somewhere along the line someone has been, quite frankly, asleep at the wheel."
Today a man who has not been elected to the position of Prime Minister will sign a Treaty that the people of Britain do not want. He will skulk away from the cameras, and in some shady Portuguese corner he will put his traitorous mark upon a document that will steal Britain's sovereignty.
There is only one reason that Gordon Brown does not want us to have a referendum:WE WILL VOTE NO. When Gordon Brown signs that Treaty today, he will be pushing his pen through the heart of democracy.
Daily Referendum Blogspot
December 13, 2007
Today, out of sight of the cameras Gordon Brown will break a manifesto promise made by his party. A promise that facilitated Labours victory in the last General Election. Gordon does not want to be photographed signing the EU Treaty, which for all intents and purposes IS the same EU Constitution that was rejected by the people of France and Holland in 2005. If Gordon Brown is so sure that this Treaty will be beneficial for Britain, then he should have no problem being photographed signing it. His claims that he can't make the signing due to being double booked are just pathetic - the Commons liaison committee have said they don't mind re-appointing the hearing he is to attend instead.
Why am I so opposed to Britain signing the EU Treaty? Well first an foremost is the fact that we were promised a referendum. Gordon Brown has stated that we don't need a referendum because this Treaty is not the same as the rejected Constitution. Well I'm afraid that is simply not true. In a leaked letter penned by German Chancellor to the other EU heads, Angela said that wanted to push through a Treaty. To achieve this Merkel tells her fellow EU heads of government that they will have to: "use different terminology without changing the legal substance".
There can be no doubt that the proposed Treaty is the same Constitution we were not given a Referendum on. Merkel makes this crystal clear when she wishes to preserve intact the content of the constitution, making only "the necessary presentational changes."
"The fundamentals of the Constitution have been maintained," says Angela Merkel."The great part of the European Constitution is in the new treaty," agrees José Luis Zapatero. "Thankfully they haven’t changed the substance; 90 per cent of it is still there," echoes Bertie Ahern.
I say: If a Beefburger only contains 90% Beef, it is still a bloody Beefburger.
William Hague pointed out the following facts to show the public why this EU Treaty is the same as the EU Constitution we were promised a referendum on:
. 240 of the 250 provisions are exactly the same.
. The creation of permanent President of the European Council.. The appointment of an EU foreign minister in all but name.
. The abolition of 60 of our national vetoes.. For the first time, provision for the abolition of almost every remaining veto without any further treaty negotiation or proper ratification by parliament.
The following is taken from the European Scrutiny Committee's conclusions:
"We wish to emphasise that the proposals in the Reform Treaty raise a serious difficulty of a constitutional order in as much as they appear to impose, whether by accident or design, a legal duty on national parliaments "to contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union" by taking part in various described activities. National parliaments, unlike the European Parliament, are not creations of the Treaties and their rights are not dependent on them. In our view, the imposition of such a legal duty on the Parliament of this country is objectionable as a matter of principle and must be resisted." Committee member James Clappison told David Miliband that: "The red lines are in tatters - somewhere along the line someone has been, quite frankly, asleep at the wheel."
Today a man who has not been elected to the position of Prime Minister will sign a Treaty that the people of Britain do not want. He will skulk away from the cameras, and in some shady Portuguese corner he will put his traitorous mark upon a document that will steal Britain's sovereignty.
There is only one reason that Gordon Brown does not want us to have a referendum:WE WILL VOTE NO. When Gordon Brown signs that Treaty today, he will be pushing his pen through the heart of democracy.
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Fails to Honor Promises Made to British Citizens for Public Referendum on EU Constitutional Treaty
British Treaty Snub Fuels PM's Eurosceptic Image
13 December 2007, 18:35 CET
AFP
(LONDON) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown voiced hope Thursday that the European Union can put institutional wrangling behind it, but faced more charges of euroscepticism for his failure to sign a new treaty with EU allies.
Brown cited diary conflicts for his delayed arrival in Lisbon, meaning he could not join fellow EU leaders at a grand signing ceremony for the new Reform Treaty, which replaces the defunct EU constitution.
The British premier eventually signed the treaty, but hours later than his EU counterparts after he spent much of the morning grappling with questions from lawmakers at a parliamentary committee meeting in London.
"There is no better manifestation of his lack of interest in Europe than his thinking that missing the signature would not be a big deal," said Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank.
"It's a piece of very ham-fisted diplomacy on the part of Brown," he added.
The Financial Times commented: "The prime minister's half-in, half-out appearance in the Portuguese capital is an apt metaphor for the government's approach to the EU."
"It recalls the behaviour of an observer, not a player, at Europe's top table," the FT added, condemning the "muddle-headed ambivalence of a man who doesn't know which gallery to play to."
Brown, who has resisted growing pressure for a referendum on the new treaty, rejected criticism that his late-show in Lisbon was a cowardly attempt to distance himself from the EU pact, widely unpopular here.
"I think you can see the priority I attach to attending this committee," he told the House of Commons' Liaison Committee, laughing off suggestions that he was snubbing the EU meeting.
Brown defends the EU treaty by noting that Britain negotiated opt-outs in key policy areas, meaning its sovereignty is not threatened by what the eurosceptic press says is an increasingly powerful "EU superstate."
But as finance minister, which he was until June, Brown had a reputation for being less keen on Europe than prime minister Tony Blair and reportedly vetoed Blair's plans to take Britain into the European single currency.
At regular meetings with his EU counterparts in Brussels, he was notorious for giving them lectures on the benefits of British-style free market reform -- that is, if he bothered to turn up at all.
Even before Thursday's awkward handling of the Lisbon treaty signing, commentators had already noted that Brown has not yet travelled to Brussels, nearly six months after taking office.
Brown maintains that a popular vote on the treaty is unnecessary as Britain has secured opt-outs, or "red lines" in key areas, safeguarding the country's rights and laws from Brussels.
But critics say the document is virtually identical to the EU constitution, which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Blair promised a referendum on the constitution in Labour's 2005 general election manifesto.
Brown's "refusal to offer the people of this country a referendum on the Reform Treaty flies in the face of the electorate's wishes and his manifesto commitment," said Ruth Lea of eurosceptic group Global Vision.
In an interview with the Times newspaper Thursday, Brown said he hoped the signing of the new EU treaty will shift the bloc's focus away from an "institutional debate". "I think you'll find on the debate about global Europe, we are leading the way," he said.
He voiced hope "for the foreseeable future that the focus of Europe is now on economics, security, trade, economic reform, climate change and not on institutional debate."
Copyright 2007 AFP.
13 December 2007, 18:35 CET
AFP
(LONDON) - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown voiced hope Thursday that the European Union can put institutional wrangling behind it, but faced more charges of euroscepticism for his failure to sign a new treaty with EU allies.
Brown cited diary conflicts for his delayed arrival in Lisbon, meaning he could not join fellow EU leaders at a grand signing ceremony for the new Reform Treaty, which replaces the defunct EU constitution.
The British premier eventually signed the treaty, but hours later than his EU counterparts after he spent much of the morning grappling with questions from lawmakers at a parliamentary committee meeting in London.
"There is no better manifestation of his lack of interest in Europe than his thinking that missing the signature would not be a big deal," said Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think tank.
"It's a piece of very ham-fisted diplomacy on the part of Brown," he added.
The Financial Times commented: "The prime minister's half-in, half-out appearance in the Portuguese capital is an apt metaphor for the government's approach to the EU."
"It recalls the behaviour of an observer, not a player, at Europe's top table," the FT added, condemning the "muddle-headed ambivalence of a man who doesn't know which gallery to play to."
Brown, who has resisted growing pressure for a referendum on the new treaty, rejected criticism that his late-show in Lisbon was a cowardly attempt to distance himself from the EU pact, widely unpopular here.
"I think you can see the priority I attach to attending this committee," he told the House of Commons' Liaison Committee, laughing off suggestions that he was snubbing the EU meeting.
Brown defends the EU treaty by noting that Britain negotiated opt-outs in key policy areas, meaning its sovereignty is not threatened by what the eurosceptic press says is an increasingly powerful "EU superstate."
But as finance minister, which he was until June, Brown had a reputation for being less keen on Europe than prime minister Tony Blair and reportedly vetoed Blair's plans to take Britain into the European single currency.
At regular meetings with his EU counterparts in Brussels, he was notorious for giving them lectures on the benefits of British-style free market reform -- that is, if he bothered to turn up at all.
Even before Thursday's awkward handling of the Lisbon treaty signing, commentators had already noted that Brown has not yet travelled to Brussels, nearly six months after taking office.
Brown maintains that a popular vote on the treaty is unnecessary as Britain has secured opt-outs, or "red lines" in key areas, safeguarding the country's rights and laws from Brussels.
But critics say the document is virtually identical to the EU constitution, which was rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005. Blair promised a referendum on the constitution in Labour's 2005 general election manifesto.
Brown's "refusal to offer the people of this country a referendum on the Reform Treaty flies in the face of the electorate's wishes and his manifesto commitment," said Ruth Lea of eurosceptic group Global Vision.
In an interview with the Times newspaper Thursday, Brown said he hoped the signing of the new EU treaty will shift the bloc's focus away from an "institutional debate". "I think you'll find on the debate about global Europe, we are leading the way," he said.
He voiced hope "for the foreseeable future that the focus of Europe is now on economics, security, trade, economic reform, climate change and not on institutional debate."
Copyright 2007 AFP.
D'Estaing - French Father of Europe - Admits to Brussels Commission of Constitutional Fraud
Giscard: EU Treaty is the Constitution Rewritten
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:23am GMT 30/10/2007
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.
The statement by the former French President - who chaired the body of more than 100 European politicians that framed the original constitution - has led to new calls for Gordon Brown to grant the British people a vote.
In an open letter to the French newspaper Le Monde, Mr D'Estaing sought to clarify his view on the differences - if any - between two treaties. "Looking at the content," he wrote "the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty….are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties.."
He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.
"Above all, it is to avoid having referendums thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed," he added.
Less than two weeks ago Gordon Brown gave his blessing to the EU Reform Treaty at a meeting of European heads of state and government in Lisbon.
He said there was no need for the Government to honour its 2005 election manifesto promise to hold a referendum because the redrafted version was much less far reaching than the defunct Constitutional Treaty.
Labour never had to honour its pledge to hold a referendum because before it could hold one, the Constitutional Treaty had already been rejected by voters in both France and the Netherlands.
To come into force a new European Treaty has to be ratified in each member state - either in a referendum or in a vote in the national parliament.
While Mr Brown and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, have stuck to the line that many of the big changes have been removed from the text, a string of other top EU politicians have confessed that it is the same as the constitution in all but name.
Mark Francois, the Tory spokesman on Europe said that Mr d'Estaing had "let the cat out of the bag."
"The man who chaired the body which drafted the original EU Constitution has now confessed that its revived version, the so-called Reform Treaty, was deliberately drafted to try and avoid the people of Europe having their say on it.
"The French people were allowed a vote in 2005 as were the Dutch, and the Irish will now get a vote on the revived version - so why can't the British people have their say too. "
More than 110,000 have signed The Daily Telegraph's "Let the People Decide" campaign for a referendum.
The latest YouGov poll for this paper showed almost twice as many people would vote "No" (38 per cent) as "Yes" (20 per cent) if a referendum were held. 43 per cent said they were undecided.Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 931 2921 or email syndication@telegraph.co.uk
By Toby Helm, Chief Political Correspondent
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:23am GMT 30/10/2007
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the abandoned European Constitution, has admitted that the document has been rewritten by EU leaders in a different order just to avoid the need for referendums.
The statement by the former French President - who chaired the body of more than 100 European politicians that framed the original constitution - has led to new calls for Gordon Brown to grant the British people a vote.
In an open letter to the French newspaper Le Monde, Mr D'Estaing sought to clarify his view on the differences - if any - between two treaties. "Looking at the content," he wrote "the result is that the institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty….are found complete in the Lisbon Treaty, only in a different order and inserted in former treaties.."
He made clear that the purpose of the rewritten Treaty (now called the Lisbon Treaty) was to make people think the new version did not merit being put to the people in referendums.
"Above all, it is to avoid having referendums thanks to the fact that the articles are spread out and constitutional vocabulary has been removed," he added.
Less than two weeks ago Gordon Brown gave his blessing to the EU Reform Treaty at a meeting of European heads of state and government in Lisbon.
He said there was no need for the Government to honour its 2005 election manifesto promise to hold a referendum because the redrafted version was much less far reaching than the defunct Constitutional Treaty.
Labour never had to honour its pledge to hold a referendum because before it could hold one, the Constitutional Treaty had already been rejected by voters in both France and the Netherlands.
To come into force a new European Treaty has to be ratified in each member state - either in a referendum or in a vote in the national parliament.
While Mr Brown and David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, have stuck to the line that many of the big changes have been removed from the text, a string of other top EU politicians have confessed that it is the same as the constitution in all but name.
Mark Francois, the Tory spokesman on Europe said that Mr d'Estaing had "let the cat out of the bag."
"The man who chaired the body which drafted the original EU Constitution has now confessed that its revived version, the so-called Reform Treaty, was deliberately drafted to try and avoid the people of Europe having their say on it.
"The French people were allowed a vote in 2005 as were the Dutch, and the Irish will now get a vote on the revived version - so why can't the British people have their say too. "
More than 110,000 have signed The Daily Telegraph's "Let the People Decide" campaign for a referendum.
The latest YouGov poll for this paper showed almost twice as many people would vote "No" (38 per cent) as "Yes" (20 per cent) if a referendum were held. 43 per cent said they were undecided.Publishers wishing to reproduce photographs on this page should phone 44 (0) 207 931 2921 or email syndication@telegraph.co.uk
Blair Ironically Destined to Commit Ultimate Act of Deception Against British People as He Burnishes Historical Legacy
How Blair Plans to Resurrect the EU Constitution
By TIM SHIPMAN
Daily Mail
Tony Blair was yesterday accused of preparing to usher in a European Constitution by the back door.
He is expected to sign a declaration of intent next month which will pave the way for elements of the constitution, rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands, to be reintroduced.
Senior Cabinet sources last night warned that the Prime Minister is pushing hard for Brussels to be given a full-time unelected president,who would serve a fiveyear term and speak as the voice of Europe on the world stage.
This would end the current arrangement where each country holds the title on a revolving basis for six months at a time.
Whitehall insiders say he is also prepared - without consulting the Cabinet - to endorse full-time defence and foreign ministers for the whole EU, undermining the independence of Britain's foreign and defence policy.
Reforms to strengthen the European Parliament could undermine the ability of member states to opt out of EU laws, as Britain does at present.
Mr Blair is expected to sweeten the pill for voters by pressing France to accept a cut in the £72billion funnelled to farmers through the Common Agriculture Policy - which sucks up around half the total EU budget. Government sources exposed a rift at the heart of the Government over the future of Europe.
Cabinet Ministers, including Gordon Brown, are concerned that Mr Blair will attempt to secure an eye-catching deal on European integration in an attempt to burnish his legacy before he quits Downing Street.
The first step will be taken at a summit in Berlin on March 25. Germany, which holds the EU presidency, wants leaders to sign a document celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome called Declaration on the Future of Europe, which will call for new 'institutional reforms'.
While it will not be legally binding, critics believe that will pave the way for a new watered down treaty, which would bypass the need for a referendum in Britain and other EU nations.
This would be introduced at a Council of Ministers meeting on June 22, in the final weeks of Mr Blair's premiership.
Allies of Mr Brown are concerned that Mr Blair will saddle the more eurosceptic Chancellor with a new treaty and leave him to pick up the pieces when he wins the keys to No 10, probably in July.
A Cabinet source said: 'This has not been discussed by the Cabinet but it is clearly the direction that Blair and many in the Foreign Office want to go. Gordon could be left trying to sell something he doesn't like.'
An insider said: 'This is the European Constitution by the back door.' Europe Minister-Geoff Hoon has been touring European capitals at the rate of a country a week, to find out what other EU states want to do.
Neil O'Brien, director of the eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe, said: 'The meeting on March 25 is all about teeing up an agreement to be finalised at the end of June.
'Things are going to move incredibly quickly after the French presidential election in May and we could have a new treaty before we know it.'
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said: 'The constitution was thrown out by the voters of France and the Netherlands and would have been thrown out here if the British people had been given the chance.
'There should be no cunning plans to bring bits and pieces of the constitution through the back door.'
A Downing Street spokesman said: 'The meeting on March 25 is nothing to do with the constitution. It is to celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. The constitution won't be discussed until after the French election.'
By TIM SHIPMAN
Daily Mail
Tony Blair was yesterday accused of preparing to usher in a European Constitution by the back door.
He is expected to sign a declaration of intent next month which will pave the way for elements of the constitution, rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands, to be reintroduced.
Senior Cabinet sources last night warned that the Prime Minister is pushing hard for Brussels to be given a full-time unelected president,who would serve a fiveyear term and speak as the voice of Europe on the world stage.
This would end the current arrangement where each country holds the title on a revolving basis for six months at a time.
Whitehall insiders say he is also prepared - without consulting the Cabinet - to endorse full-time defence and foreign ministers for the whole EU, undermining the independence of Britain's foreign and defence policy.
Reforms to strengthen the European Parliament could undermine the ability of member states to opt out of EU laws, as Britain does at present.
Mr Blair is expected to sweeten the pill for voters by pressing France to accept a cut in the £72billion funnelled to farmers through the Common Agriculture Policy - which sucks up around half the total EU budget. Government sources exposed a rift at the heart of the Government over the future of Europe.
Cabinet Ministers, including Gordon Brown, are concerned that Mr Blair will attempt to secure an eye-catching deal on European integration in an attempt to burnish his legacy before he quits Downing Street.
The first step will be taken at a summit in Berlin on March 25. Germany, which holds the EU presidency, wants leaders to sign a document celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome called Declaration on the Future of Europe, which will call for new 'institutional reforms'.
While it will not be legally binding, critics believe that will pave the way for a new watered down treaty, which would bypass the need for a referendum in Britain and other EU nations.
This would be introduced at a Council of Ministers meeting on June 22, in the final weeks of Mr Blair's premiership.
Allies of Mr Brown are concerned that Mr Blair will saddle the more eurosceptic Chancellor with a new treaty and leave him to pick up the pieces when he wins the keys to No 10, probably in July.
A Cabinet source said: 'This has not been discussed by the Cabinet but it is clearly the direction that Blair and many in the Foreign Office want to go. Gordon could be left trying to sell something he doesn't like.'
An insider said: 'This is the European Constitution by the back door.' Europe Minister-Geoff Hoon has been touring European capitals at the rate of a country a week, to find out what other EU states want to do.
Neil O'Brien, director of the eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe, said: 'The meeting on March 25 is all about teeing up an agreement to be finalised at the end of June.
'Things are going to move incredibly quickly after the French presidential election in May and we could have a new treaty before we know it.'
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said: 'The constitution was thrown out by the voters of France and the Netherlands and would have been thrown out here if the British people had been given the chance.
'There should be no cunning plans to bring bits and pieces of the constitution through the back door.'
A Downing Street spokesman said: 'The meeting on March 25 is nothing to do with the constitution. It is to celebrate 50 years of the Treaty of Rome. The constitution won't be discussed until after the French election.'
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown Caught in Double Deception Over Controversial EU Treaty/Constitution: British People Demand Promised Referendum
Tories Attack Gordon Brown Over Treaty Signing
By Melissa Kite and Justin Stares
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:39am GMT 12/12/2007
Gordon Brown will be the only leader absent from the signing of the EU Reform Treaty this week, it has emerged.
The Prime Minister is citing a diary clash as the reason for his failure to attend the ceremony, but campaigners against the treaty are claiming that the Prime Minister does not want to be associated with it because of its unpopularity.
Mr Brown has been invited to Lisbon by the Portuguese government, which holds the EU presidency, along with the leaders of the other 26 EU member states. Officials in Lisbon last night said all other national leaders had said they would attend.
Downing Street denied that Mr Brown wanted to avoid the ceremony.
A spokesman said he was due to face the Commons liaison committee - made up of senior MPs - on Thursday morning, just hours before the ceremony takes place in Lisbon.
The spokesman for No 10 said: "He does want to go but it may not be possible."
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, is likely to fly to Portugal to sign the document. The spokesman said there were precedents for prime ministers not signing key EU Treaties, pointing out that the then foreign secretary Robin Cook signed the Nice Treaty in 2001.
The EU Reform Treaty, which critics say is virtually identical to the rejected EU Constitution, still has to be ratified by MPs at Westminster before coming into force.
With opposition among Labour MPs growing, the battle could be the most gruelling the Government has yet experienced.
The Tories are hinting that they will offer a referendum on the changes even if the document is ratified.
The Conservatives accused the Prime Minister of running scared on the issue after repeatedly refusing widespread, cross-party demands for a referendum despite promising one on the proposed constitution.
John Redwood, the head of the Tories' competitiveness commission, said: "Brown is ashamed of selling Britain down the river and has once again done his vanishing act.
"It is not good enough to leave it to the office boy when you have done something so bad for Britain. It is time he owned up to how much power this treaty is transferring and gave the British people a vote."
More than 110,000 people have signed The Telegraph's petition demanding that the Government stands by its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum.
By Melissa Kite and Justin Stares
UK Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:39am GMT 12/12/2007
Gordon Brown will be the only leader absent from the signing of the EU Reform Treaty this week, it has emerged.
The Prime Minister is citing a diary clash as the reason for his failure to attend the ceremony, but campaigners against the treaty are claiming that the Prime Minister does not want to be associated with it because of its unpopularity.
Mr Brown has been invited to Lisbon by the Portuguese government, which holds the EU presidency, along with the leaders of the other 26 EU member states. Officials in Lisbon last night said all other national leaders had said they would attend.
Downing Street denied that Mr Brown wanted to avoid the ceremony.
A spokesman said he was due to face the Commons liaison committee - made up of senior MPs - on Thursday morning, just hours before the ceremony takes place in Lisbon.
The spokesman for No 10 said: "He does want to go but it may not be possible."
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, is likely to fly to Portugal to sign the document. The spokesman said there were precedents for prime ministers not signing key EU Treaties, pointing out that the then foreign secretary Robin Cook signed the Nice Treaty in 2001.
The EU Reform Treaty, which critics say is virtually identical to the rejected EU Constitution, still has to be ratified by MPs at Westminster before coming into force.
With opposition among Labour MPs growing, the battle could be the most gruelling the Government has yet experienced.
The Tories are hinting that they will offer a referendum on the changes even if the document is ratified.
The Conservatives accused the Prime Minister of running scared on the issue after repeatedly refusing widespread, cross-party demands for a referendum despite promising one on the proposed constitution.
John Redwood, the head of the Tories' competitiveness commission, said: "Brown is ashamed of selling Britain down the river and has once again done his vanishing act.
"It is not good enough to leave it to the office boy when you have done something so bad for Britain. It is time he owned up to how much power this treaty is transferring and gave the British people a vote."
More than 110,000 people have signed The Telegraph's petition demanding that the Government stands by its manifesto commitment to hold a referendum.
Continentals & UK Government Continued During '07 to Deceive the British Public About Contents And Sovereign Reach of EU Constitution
Tories Attack 'Rushed' EU Treaty
BBC News Last Updated: Tuesday, 7 August 2007
The Conservatives have accused Prime Minster Gordon Brown of trying to push the "unreadable" revised EU treaty through "on the quiet".
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said there would be only nine Parliamentary days after MPs' summer holiday to discuss the treaty.
He said: "I think in a way [he] wants to get this out of the way with as little public attention as possible."
The government has rejected Tory calls for a referendum on the treaty.
The Conservatives say the EU treaty is almost identical to the failed EU constitution so the government must keep the promise they made to hold a referendum on that document.
But the government insists the treaty is different because all mention of a constitution has been dropped.
Britain's voice
Speaking earlier at a press conference, Mr Hague sought to disprove the government's claims, quoting the Spanish foreign minister who said 98% of the content of the constitution is in the new draft.
Mr Hague claims the treaty would make Britain's voice in the world less important and could usher in an era where EU judges decide more of our law.
He said the government is trying not to attract attention to the treaty, but a public vote must be granted.
The government says that although dozens of vetoes are being given up, the treaty does not transfer major powers to the EU.
Campaign plan
Mr Hague hit back at claims by Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the Conservative Party was returning to its "old agenda" of focussing on Europe.
If an early election was called by Mr Brown, an EU treaty referendum would be key to the Conservatives campaign.
"Upholding the commitment to a referendum on the EU constitution will obviously feature in the campaign in any early election.
"By all the standards of the past the commitment to a referendum should be upheld."
Among Conservative concerns were the creation of a European Union president and a "high representative" acting as a foreign minister.
Mr Hague said the revised treaty would lessen the UK's sovereignty, losing vetoes in about 60 policy areas, with the union being given the legal status to sign international treaties.
Launching a pamphlet explaining the treaty in "plain English", Mr Hague suggested that the document had been made deliberately "unreadable" to hinder opposition.
BBC News Last Updated: Tuesday, 7 August 2007
The Conservatives have accused Prime Minster Gordon Brown of trying to push the "unreadable" revised EU treaty through "on the quiet".
Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said there would be only nine Parliamentary days after MPs' summer holiday to discuss the treaty.
He said: "I think in a way [he] wants to get this out of the way with as little public attention as possible."
The government has rejected Tory calls for a referendum on the treaty.
The Conservatives say the EU treaty is almost identical to the failed EU constitution so the government must keep the promise they made to hold a referendum on that document.
But the government insists the treaty is different because all mention of a constitution has been dropped.
Britain's voice
Speaking earlier at a press conference, Mr Hague sought to disprove the government's claims, quoting the Spanish foreign minister who said 98% of the content of the constitution is in the new draft.
Mr Hague claims the treaty would make Britain's voice in the world less important and could usher in an era where EU judges decide more of our law.
He said the government is trying not to attract attention to the treaty, but a public vote must be granted.
The government says that although dozens of vetoes are being given up, the treaty does not transfer major powers to the EU.
Campaign plan
Mr Hague hit back at claims by Prime Minister Gordon Brown that the Conservative Party was returning to its "old agenda" of focussing on Europe.
If an early election was called by Mr Brown, an EU treaty referendum would be key to the Conservatives campaign.
"Upholding the commitment to a referendum on the EU constitution will obviously feature in the campaign in any early election.
"By all the standards of the past the commitment to a referendum should be upheld."
Among Conservative concerns were the creation of a European Union president and a "high representative" acting as a foreign minister.
Mr Hague said the revised treaty would lessen the UK's sovereignty, losing vetoes in about 60 policy areas, with the union being given the legal status to sign international treaties.
Launching a pamphlet explaining the treaty in "plain English", Mr Hague suggested that the document had been made deliberately "unreadable" to hinder opposition.
UK Tories Wise Years Ago to False Brussels Representations About Sovereignty-sapping EU Constitution
Tories Attack 'Dangerous' EU Blueprint
Epolitix - Published: Tue, 29 Oct 2002
A blueprint setting out the future shape of the EU is "very dangerous", the Conservatives have warned.
David Heathcoat-Amory, who is a member of the European convention, believes the draft constitutional treaty is the first step to united states of Europe.
"This draft constitution is a very dangerous document indeed," he told the BBC.
"We are only about halfway through this convention on the future of Europe, but already they have produced what they call a constitution for Europe, it is going to be organised on a federal basis and they are offering us all dual citizenship.
He said the document amounts to "an embryonic European state".
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the convention's chairman, published draft document on Monday outlining the future shape of Europe's political institutions.
The former French president - who has compared his constitutional role to the US founding fathers - caused controversy by calling for the EU to be renamed the United States of Europe. Angered by his remarks, British officials said there was "not a cat in hell's chance" of the UK agreeing to the name change.
"If anything, it will be called the European Union," said one.
The former Europe minister, Peter Hain, welcomed the draft document but downplayed the name change debate.
"United States of Europe was one option. Europe United was another - Europe United sounds like a football team to me. United States of Europe frankly is not on, we won't accept that," he told the BBC.
"I think we will end up with where we are - something which people know, which is the European Union."
Elsewhere the 46 section draft - the work of a convention of 105 of Europe's great and good - has been welcomed guardedly as a cautious beginning to a "skeleton" constitution for Europe.
Hain believes that the proposals are a step in the right direction despite the controversy.
"The substance of the issue is not the labels. We are encouraged by this report ... the reality is that this is a draft which anchors the European Union to the nation state, a union of sovereign nation states not the federal superstate," he said.
The blueprint seeks to put the EU on a "federal basis" but will retain national sovereignty throughout the union. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ****]
"A Union of European States which, while retaining their national identities, closely coordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal basis," article one of the document states. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The new proposals would give the EU a single legal personality for the first time.
Article three of the draft envisages a new treaty merging justice and home affairs and foreign and security policy under one framework.
"This article establishes the general objectives [including] creation of an area of liberty, security and justice [and] development of a common foreign and security policy, and a common defence policy, to defend and promote the union's values in the wider world," says the document.
The Conservatives welcome the move towards a new treaty - which requires unanimous agreement - but have attacked plans for a common European defence policy. Timothy Kirkhope, the Conservative MEP and member of the convention, described the development as "dangerous".
"I suppose the good news is that this is to be a new treaty and not a constitution, and at present allows for a re-naming of the European Union which could again become the European Community - a distinct advantage in the preservation of the individual nation states," he said.
"The bad news is that the treaty wishes to pursue a European Common Defence Policy which would be an irresponsible folly and, if implemented, a dangerous and unmitigated threat to our security and the future of NATO."
Plans to establish a system of "dual citizenship" - where voters in member states retain national citizenship along with European citizenship - have also sparked controversy.
Peter Hain, the government's representative on the convention, expressed his surprise at the suggestion. "Nobody knows where this came from, it hasn't been discussed," he said. Britain will oppose the plan "if it means a sort of super, over-arching European citizenship that is not acceptable to us and won't be acceptable to the convention" promised Hain. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The draft also trails "the possibility of establishing a Congress of the Peoples of Europe" but fails to determine "its composition. the procedure for appointing its members, and define its powers".
But for member states not happy with the future direction and shape of the EU, Article 46 of the blueprint will provide an exit route "for voluntary withdrawal from the union".
Epolitix - Published: Tue, 29 Oct 2002
A blueprint setting out the future shape of the EU is "very dangerous", the Conservatives have warned.
David Heathcoat-Amory, who is a member of the European convention, believes the draft constitutional treaty is the first step to united states of Europe.
"This draft constitution is a very dangerous document indeed," he told the BBC.
"We are only about halfway through this convention on the future of Europe, but already they have produced what they call a constitution for Europe, it is going to be organised on a federal basis and they are offering us all dual citizenship.
He said the document amounts to "an embryonic European state".
Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the convention's chairman, published draft document on Monday outlining the future shape of Europe's political institutions.
The former French president - who has compared his constitutional role to the US founding fathers - caused controversy by calling for the EU to be renamed the United States of Europe. Angered by his remarks, British officials said there was "not a cat in hell's chance" of the UK agreeing to the name change.
"If anything, it will be called the European Union," said one.
The former Europe minister, Peter Hain, welcomed the draft document but downplayed the name change debate.
"United States of Europe was one option. Europe United was another - Europe United sounds like a football team to me. United States of Europe frankly is not on, we won't accept that," he told the BBC.
"I think we will end up with where we are - something which people know, which is the European Union."
Elsewhere the 46 section draft - the work of a convention of 105 of Europe's great and good - has been welcomed guardedly as a cautious beginning to a "skeleton" constitution for Europe.
Hain believes that the proposals are a step in the right direction despite the controversy.
"The substance of the issue is not the labels. We are encouraged by this report ... the reality is that this is a draft which anchors the European Union to the nation state, a union of sovereign nation states not the federal superstate," he said.
The blueprint seeks to put the EU on a "federal basis" but will retain national sovereignty throughout the union. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ****]
"A Union of European States which, while retaining their national identities, closely coordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal basis," article one of the document states. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The new proposals would give the EU a single legal personality for the first time.
Article three of the draft envisages a new treaty merging justice and home affairs and foreign and security policy under one framework.
"This article establishes the general objectives [including] creation of an area of liberty, security and justice [and] development of a common foreign and security policy, and a common defence policy, to defend and promote the union's values in the wider world," says the document.
The Conservatives welcome the move towards a new treaty - which requires unanimous agreement - but have attacked plans for a common European defence policy. Timothy Kirkhope, the Conservative MEP and member of the convention, described the development as "dangerous".
"I suppose the good news is that this is to be a new treaty and not a constitution, and at present allows for a re-naming of the European Union which could again become the European Community - a distinct advantage in the preservation of the individual nation states," he said.
"The bad news is that the treaty wishes to pursue a European Common Defence Policy which would be an irresponsible folly and, if implemented, a dangerous and unmitigated threat to our security and the future of NATO."
Plans to establish a system of "dual citizenship" - where voters in member states retain national citizenship along with European citizenship - have also sparked controversy.
Peter Hain, the government's representative on the convention, expressed his surprise at the suggestion. "Nobody knows where this came from, it hasn't been discussed," he said. Britain will oppose the plan "if it means a sort of super, over-arching European citizenship that is not acceptable to us and won't be acceptable to the convention" promised Hain. [THIS HAS BEEN LATER PROVEN TO BE UNTRUE ***]
The draft also trails "the possibility of establishing a Congress of the Peoples of Europe" but fails to determine "its composition. the procedure for appointing its members, and define its powers".
But for member states not happy with the future direction and shape of the EU, Article 46 of the blueprint will provide an exit route "for voluntary withdrawal from the union".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
