Move along, nothing to see here

Talks aimed at resurrecting aspects of the EU constitution continue apace.

Margaret Beckett told the European Scrutiny Committee yesterday (a performance "that made the famous Michael Howard Newsnight interview look like an exercise in open government" according to the exasperated Open Europe blog post on it) that:

"Nothing that you could really call negotiations has taken place".

Yet according to the IHT, Nicholas Sarkozy told reporters at the G8 conference today that:

"Tony Blair and I have just agreed on what might be the framework for a simplified treaty. That is quite something."

William Hague has responded to this contradiction with vim:

"Labour ministers seem to be trying to fob off Parliament and the British people while negotiating behind their backs to stitch up an EU Treaty which could see large parts of the rejected EU Constitution smuggled in. This is too important to be part of Blair’s vain quest for a legacy. Gordon Brown should take the talks over now and guarantee that if the new Treaty transfers powers from Britain to the EU by including parts of the EU Constitution, the British people will have their say in the promised referendum."

David Heathcoat-Amory wrote on YourPlatform two weeks ago, that there are four rules for the ongoing treaty negotiations (culminating in the June 21st summit) co-ordinated by Germany:

         1. Don’t call it a Constitution
         2. Keep as much of the substance as possible
         3. Keep the talks private
         4. Don’t allow any more national referendums

Deputy Editor

Comments

[chrisblore]

As far as I see it, Blair still has a mandate to govern as we don't elect our Prime Minister, only MPs from whom a Prime Minister is selected, by convention from the party with the majority. It makes no difference whether he or Brown is pushing this treaty through as it is Blair who is still Prime Minister until he leaves Number 10. That is all there is to it.

The issue of a referendum on the other hand, is a completely different matter indeed and, if this treaty does turn out to be of massive constitutional significance as the failed "Constitution" was to be, of course there should be a referendum.

[Tory T]

A good strong statement by William Hague! If Labour do do this, I hope we will promise a referendum to accept or repudiate it as soon as we are returned to office.

This ought to be a major campaigning point for us this summer.

[TomTom]

I hope we will promise a referendum to accept or repudiate it as soon as we are returned to office.

How do you repudiate a European Justice system or a European Foreign Minister after it is institutionally bedded down ? You would have to hold a referendum on withdrawal because the other parties would not let you renegotiate........and simply put.....there is zro prospect of the Conservatives ever agreeing to that.

Just accept that if Blair signs up to a Treaty in whatever form, Heir to Blair will accept it in its entirety and tell you to stop being

[TomTom]

Just accept that if Blair signs up to a Treaty in whatever form, Heir to Blair will accept it in its entirety and tell you to stop being delusional

[Tory T]

I believe you completely misunderstand David Cameron's principled position on Europe.

Perhaps you missed the speech wherein he called for a repatriation of powers to nation states?

[Ali Gledhill]

This is why it is so awful the Brown is getting a free ride into No.10. It's time we got a definate promise that no further agreements on an EU contitution (in name or like) will be made until we have a referendum.

[malcolm]

I rather doubt it Tomtom. I would hope that DC has learned his lesson on how to communicate with his party.
I am about as sure as any ordinary footsoldier can be that Cameron would promise a referendum after the next election if it is refused by Blair. Not to do so would provoke a far far more serious row within the Conservative party than that which we've just seen.

[Traditional Tory]

Perhaps you missed the speech wherein he called for a repatriation of powers to nation states?

Flannel.

Like his broken promise to leave the EPP.

[Deborah]

"I hope we will promise a referendum to accept or repudiate it as soon as we are returned to office.
This ought to be a major campaigning point for us this summer." - Tory T

Heaven preserve us. Is that the tactic? Let it all go through and then complain about it afterwards?
It would explain why we've heard so little from "strong -speaking" William Hague until now. But I would much rather hear some serious opposition BEFORE anything is signed.

[Tory T]

Oh goodness no, of course we should not "let it" go through. We should raise hell about it. But the fact is we have less MPs now than Michael Foot did as leader of the Labour party, something I think the anti-Cameroons forget at times. We cannot stop Labour signing away our rights, but we can expose what they are doing and promise to reverse it at once when DC is in number 10.

[TomTom]

Malcolm your referendum is meaningless. There are no binding referenda and if the Treaty is signed it will not be rescinded.

There has only been one referendum on Europe and that was purely because Wilson had to avoid his party splitting and he renegotiated Heath's supine agreements and had a referendum - Margaret Thatcher negotiated them again and had no referendum.

Just accept the fact that whatever Blair signs will be facts on the ground and move on - there is simply no way that any political party will unpick any treaty. It might sound fun but nothing will change, the EU has a momentum of its own and is now moving into Education with proposals to standardise university courses and research centres in the EU

[TomTom]

Meanwhile the impact of the EU on Health Care is interesting

http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/

It takes five years to train a doctor at a unit cost to the taxpayer of approximately £250,000. The young men and women who emerge from medical school have a duty to the county to behave themselves, to conduct themselves as mature and responsible professionals and, in particular, to embark upon proper postgraduate study to obtain additional qualifications to enable them to become senior doctors.

Dr Manish Chand
I work as a registrar/senior SHO in Poole with lots of experience having completed a teaching hospital BST rotation in London.
First class distinction at BSc
Postgraduates prizes,
Several first author publications and have presented as first author all over the world. I am a tutor at an Oxford college.

Unemployed

Dr Benjamin Taylor
Applied for ST3 Clinical Oncology (London/KSS, Eastern, W-Mids, Severn).
All 4 first round interviews (round 1a). No offers.
House on market today - moving back in with family.
MRCP
1st class honours BSc
competitive London Medical rotation (not London graduate)
currently SHO in major tertiary referral Oncology Hospital

Unemployed

[Harry Randall]

If Blair signs up to the Treaty/Constitution, the Party should make an election promise that if elected to Govern, they will revoke the Treaty until the people have had thier say in a referendum.

[malcolm]

Time will tell Tomtom. Neither you nor I know what the future will bring, but throughout history treaties have been amended or broken. I suspect that this will be the same.

[Traditional Tory]

Did you read about the EU's tyrannical decision to put traditional barometer-makers out of business by banning the use of mercury?

Just another nail in the coffin of British liberty.

[Richard Tyndall]

Cameron's claims that he will 'repatriate powers' are meaningless. As TomTom has pointed out he cannpot do this without the agreement of the rest of the EU and that he will not get.

This is why the easiest and simplest way to solve this whole issue is simply to leave the EU. This can be done by revoking the 1972 European Communities act. Any other promises from Cameron, Brown or anyone else on ANY matter that has already been ratified by Parliament is worthless. The same applies to the SNP promises to get changes in the CFP.

Of course Parliament can revoke any treaty it likes but again the effect will be for Britain to leave the EU.

Something I very much look forward to.

[Richard Tyndall]

Christina Speight's letter on the Barometer issue in the Times yesterday was absolutely right.

The EU are banning the use of mercury in barometers which generally are preserved for decades or even centuries as items of value whilst at the same time pushing forward with a plan to enforce the use of energy saving lightbulbs which also contain mercury, are throw away items and usually end up in landfill in their hundreds of thousands.

Go figure.

[Simon Denis]

I must confess, despite my enjoyable exchanges with the civilised and optimistic Tory T, that TomTom's misgivings strike a chilling chord. Let us remember that the guiding lights of the current conservative leadership are against anything which might be regarded as unpopular in Lib dem and centre left circles. Having distanced themselves from academic selection in the teeth of the evidence, there is little guarantee that they will make a strenuous effort to withstand further European integration. Some months ago, I heard Charles Moore opposing the motion, "This house believes the Tory party is no longer conservative". I recall that he expressed doubts as to whether a point of view opposed by quite so many of the great and the good - Euroscepticism - should really enjoy our unqualified loyalty. As an influential figure in Tory politics, his words must be treated with the utmost seriousness, as must the views of Michael Portillo. In his Sunday Times column he has referred to the British people as fundamentally "socialistic"; he has suggested that the lion's share of former policy positions should be consigned to the shredder; most recently, he subtly queried the assumption that evidence should have a dominating role in determining policy. The guiding theme is popularity, not principle; power, not purpose. The aim is somehow to apologise one's way back into office.

Pursuing this current of thought, the conservative party has succumbed to one of its older heresies - appeasement. To the amateur historical revisionist, bridling at knee-jerk Churchillolatry, appeasement can seem an attractive proposition. Why fight Germany? There was Russia to worry about. We ended up parcelling Poland from one genocidal maniac to another and losing prestige in the process. And so on. The point is, of course, that all that futility, all that loss were the result not of Churchill's resolution but of Baldwin's dithering. In a series of elegant, adroit manoeuvres, the politicians of the thirties sidled into a predicament worse than that which they believed they were escaping. Minus the Rhineland, France was threatened; with the Anschluss, Italy was menaced; without Czechoslovakia the western allies had lost a useful ally on Germany's eastern flank. I rehearse this well worn theme by way of analogy. So, minus the grammar schools we will make it harder to defend any sort of selection and even the public schools will be threatened - indeed, they are already; afraid to cut tax dramatically, we appear to support the view that only taxation can help people; too terrified to assert the right of the British people to an identiy, we cannot effectively mobilise opposition to the current immigration fiasco. I do not believe the British are socialistic any more than they were protestant whilst Henry VIII and his little band of radicals demolished our medieval heritage. What we need is a sort of Tory Pilgrimmage of Grace, but a successful one. The only reason the first Pilgrimmage failed, remember, was that the saintly Robert Aske, who led it, was insufficiently ruthless. Only passionate conviction can mobilise the masses but it is perhaps precisely the thought of great baying crowds which gives our modern politicians pause. Understandably, perhaps, they have no stomach for it. But I am inclined to believe that it is only by means of such unflinching vigour that we will change the direction and therefore secure the destiny of this country.

[TomTom]

but throughout history treaties have been amended or broken. I suspect that this will be the same.

Posted by: malcolm | June 08, 2007 at 16:26

How many has Britain revoked since 1945 ?

You should also recall the Single European Act 1986

The Single European Act (SEA) was the first major attempt made by member states to amend the arrangements made under the Treaty of Rome (1957). Although the European Community had been in operation for nearly thirty years, it had not achieved its aim of a genuine common market. The SEA’s main effect was to set a deadline for the creation of a full single market by 1992. It also created deeper integration by making it easier to pass laws, strengthening the EU Parliament and laying the basis for a European foreign policy. In these ways it took the process of European integration to a new level, laying the groundwork for the rapid changes of the 1990s and 2000s.

‘In ten years, 80% of the laws on the economy and social policy will be passed at a European not the national level.’ Jacques Delors, European Commission President, 1985-1995

Once the SEA was passed it was inevitable that Britain would not be able to extricate itself from the EU. The Conservative record on the EU is one of compliance whether Thatcher or Major and there is no prospect of any British Government doing anything but comply in future.

[Mark Wallace]

The clear aim of these negotiation is to resurrect the Constitution - in the shockingly honest words of Angela Merkel's letter to EU Governments, "to use different terminology without changing the legal substance".

I hope Conservative Home readers will urge their MPs to join the cross-party National Committee for a Referendum (NCR), Chaired by Daniel Kawczynski MP, which is campaigning for a referendum on the new document. The list of those currently members of the NCR can be found here: http://www.tfa.net/ncr01.htm

MPs, MEPs and Peers can join by emailing Daniel Kawczynski's office at [email protected]

[Traditional Tory]

The infamous Nazi Big Lie technique is a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

So they believe it.

And we have our own Big Lie foisted on the Conservative Party, don't we?

It's the total and utter lie that the British people don't want the Conservatives to tell the truth about the EU.

In fact the public are at least as Eurosceptic as we are, but the lie has been sedulously promoted by the 'Modernisers'

[Denis Cooper]

TomTom @ 16:20 - " ... if the Treaty is signed it will not be rescinded."

Under our constitution the signature of the Treaty will not be the definitive step - as the governments of the other member states have always known perfectly well, a treaty has no effect on British law until both Houses of Parliament have passed a Bill to give it legal effect, and that Bill has received Royal Assent.

It shouldn't be forgotten that Blair and all the other heads of state and government signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, but that was not the end of the story - under its own Article IV-447 it could not come into force, for any of the member states, until it had been ratified by all member states "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".

A formula of that kind has always been used in EEC/EC/EU treaties, reflecting the fact that the member countries are still sovereign states and none can have
a treaty imposed upon it - there has to be unanimous agreement and ratification.

By standing on the Labour manifesto in 2005 all the Labour MPs promised the voters in their constituencies that they would not vote for a Bill to ratify the EU constitutional treaty without our prior consent in a referendum, and we have the right to expect them to keep their word in both the letter and the spirit.

[Richard Tyndall]

On that last at least I disagree with you TomTom.

It would be extremely simple for Britain to leave the EU. There would be lots of negotiations for sure but we would have the upper hand in that the EU needs Britain's cooperation and markets a hell of a lot more than we need their's.

What we cannot do is stay in and pretend we can turn back the clock. The EU works by continuously ratcheting forward with ever closer union and ever more detailed intrusion into the daily lives of the people. In the face of such dedicated and clearly considered plamnning by the architects of the project, there is no possibility of any party in Britain independently changing anything at the European level without puling us out of the whole project.

Something that would be of great benefit to the country as a whole.

[TomTom]

It would be extremely simple for Britain to leave the EU

It would first require politicians who wanted to do so....I don't believe there are any that are likely to command a majority in The House of Commons....the issue is evaded at elections, and is just one more of the taboo issues in political parties between elections

[Sean Fear]

Well, let's not damn David Cameron out of hand. This would be a good opportunity for him to do the right thing, and to reassure the grass roots.

A speech criticising the proposed Treaty (ie Constitution), before Blair goes to grovel before his masters would be timely.

[TomTom]

Denis I don't know if your understanding is correct or not, but looking at this

FCO Treaty

and this

FCO

FULL POWERS

In international law a Head of State, Head of Government or Foreign Minister may sign a treaty in his or her own right. Any other person signing a treaty on behalf of a State needs to produce the authority from one of the three above to do so – known as 'Full Powers'.

In UK practice, the Queen does not sign treaties herself, although the Prime Minister sometimes does. Full Powers are normally given by the Foreign Secretary, except for certain EU treaties which are drawn up as between Heads of State, and therefore require a Full Power from the Queen. FCO Ministers, and certain UK Representatives, hold general Full Powers, which give them the authority to sign any treaty – although this is always subject to the approval of the Foreign Secretary in each case. For anyone else to be able to sign a treaty, a specific Full Power must be produced for that person (or persons) and that treaty alone.

[TomTom]

Ponsonby Rule

The Ponsonby Rule of 1924

Since March 1892, it had been the practice to present to Parliament the texts of treaties
binding the United Kingdom. This was done in a numbered series of Command Papers
known as the Treaty Series. But treaties were published in that series only after they had
entered into force for the United Kingdom, so that at that stage no Parliamentary
approval, tacit or express, could be sought or given.

On 1 April 1924, during the Second Reading Debate on the Treaty of Peace (Turkey)
Bill, Mr Arthur Ponsonby (Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Ramsay
MacDonald's first Labour Government) made the following statement: "It is the intention
of His Majesty's Government to lay on the table of both Houses of Parliament every
treaty, when signed, for a period of 21 days, after which the treaty will be ratified and
published and circulated in the Treaty Series. In the case of important treaties, the
Government will, of course, take an opportunity of submitting them to the House for
discussion within this period. But, as the Government cannot take upon itself to decide
what may be considered important or unimportant, if there is a formal demand for
discussion forwarded through the usual channels from the Opposition or any other party,
time will be found for the discussion of the Treaty in question." He warned that:
"Resolutions expressing Parliamentary approval of every Treaty before ratification would
be a very cumbersome form of procedure and would burden the House with a lot of
unnecessary business. The absence of disapproval may be accepted as sanction, and
publicity and opportunity for discussion and criticism are the really material and valuable
elements which henceforth will be introduced" [H.C. Deb. (1924) 171, c. 1999-2005].

[Richard Tyndall]

TomTom,

I agree about the politiians at the moment. I am of the school that thinks that the situation will have to get much worse before we can hope for it to get any better. What we need is for it to become clear to the public at large that they are no longer ruled by their elected MPs but by the unelected bureaucrats. We hav been saying it is so for a long time but it takes time - decades for the message to become clear to the public. It is a long game we need to be playing.

On your reply to Denis, he is correct that whatever powers Parliament might lend to the Foriegn Secretary they can stil veto any treaty he signs up for. Under the British Constitution Parliament is sovereign in this and all other matters.

[farnboro]

Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act 1972, which made the UK's legal order compatible with the UK's obligations under the Accession Treaty, and has been amended time and again to take into account further treaty change.

Repealing this element of "entrenched" law would remove good deal of the automaticity of implementation of EU law in the UK: for instance Regulations would no longer be directly applicable, and there would be no delegated authority to implement Directives by statutory instrument.

In effect, it would be impossible tfor the Government to meet its international obligations under the Treaties, and it would have no option but to denounce the Accession Treaty and withdraw from the EU.

But Parliament cannot of its own will override the prerogative power of the Crown to sign and ratify an international treaty. Either or both Houses may pass resolutions disapproving of a treaty: but this does not amount to a veto. They may make Addresses to the Queen humbly requesting that she denonce a treaty: but there is no constitutional convention that obliges her to do so.

[Martin Cole]

I have been following this regularly on my blog 'Ironies Too'. Two points worth making in regard to those above:

1) We may on this occasion be in an unprecedented situation of neither the PM nor the Foreign Secretary still being in post to defend the stance taken in the Treaty negotiations in Parliament once they are fully revealed.

2)Normally the PM as first amongst equals would be expected to at least have some Cabinet guidelines to take into the negotiations. As this Cabinet is largely lame duck and certain to be soon replaced, with the PM, Deputy PM and Home Secretary certainly leaving within days, along with several unknown others, how can there be any assurance that such guidelines, if they exist, have been followed.

Also note as pointed out on my blog, the French and Qatar press reports indicate Blair has agreed a basis for incorporating the "document' on Fundamental Rights! This fact has been omitted from other reports generally read in the UK!

[Denis Cooper]

Firstly, on the matter of "Full Powers", ie the appointment of "Plenipotentiaries" not by Parliament but by the Queen (because they will be exercising the Royal Prerogative on her behalf when they sign the treaty). If you look for example at the Preamble to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12004V/htm/C2004310EN.01000301.htm

as with all the previous EEC/EC/EU treaties it starts along these lines:

"HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF DENMARK ... etc ... HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND ...

HAVE DESIGNATED AS THEIR PLENIPOTENTIARIES:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS,

Guy VERHOFSTADT

Prime Minister ...

etc ...

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND,

The Rt. Hon Tony BLAIR

Prime Minister

The Rt. Hon Jack STRAW

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

WHO, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:"

Then in the Final Provisions, here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12004V/htm/C2004310EN.01018601.htm

"EN FE DE LO CUAL, los plenipotenciarios infrascritos suscriben el presente Tratado ...

etc ...

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty ...

etc ...

TILL BEVIS HÄRPÅ har undertecknade befullmäktigade undertecknat detta fördrag"

"Hecho en Roma, el veintinueve de octubre del dos mil cuatro ...

etc ...

Done at Rome on the twenty-ninth day of October in the year two thousand and four ...

etc ...

Som skedde i Rom den tjugonionde oktober tjugohundrafyra."

"Pour Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges

Voor Zijne Majesteit de Koning der Belgen

Für Seine Majestät den König der Belgier

*** signature ***

Cette signature engage également la Communauté française, la Communauté flamande, la Communauté germanophone, la Région wallonne, la Région flamande et la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale ...

etc ...

For Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

*** signature *** "

It's easiest to understand the layout by looking at the links.

[TomTom]

they can stil veto any treaty he signs up for

Parliament can repeal the European Communities Act 1972,

I do not dispute what you say, but what you say is can and my point is not that it is possible, simply that it is not probable.

The political class will simply not step out of line. I do not know if there are reptile funds lubricating politicians, or if they simply have no desire to stand out against the political dirigisme....but I cannot honestly imagine the leading politicians in any political party in Parliament doing anything to overturn the applecart. That they could if they would is clear to me, but the likelihood is remote indeed

[Denis Cooper]

farnboro @ 18:15 - that's more or less what I understand.

International treaties are signed under Royal Prerogative, and if they have no implications for our domestic law the ratification can also be completed under Royal Prerogative. But if a Treaty would or could require changes to our law then ratification cannot be completed by Royal Prerogative, because the Crown alone cannot change our law - that must be done through the Crown in Parliament.

For example I think the most recent Act of Parliament (ie a Bill passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent) which relates to an EU treaty is the European Union (Accessions) Act 2006:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/20060002.htm

"An Act to make provision consequential on the treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, signed at Luxembourg on 25th April 2005; and to make provision in relation to the entitlement of nationals of those states to enter or reside in the United Kingdom as workers."

[Tanuki]

Right now I'm channeling an image of one of John CLeese's finer moments:

"Don't mention the Constitution. I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it!"

[Alex Swanson]

Perhaps you missed the speech wherein he called for a repatriation of powers to nation states?

What if the other EU countries refuse to agree?

[TomTOm]

Even leaving aside my concern that politicians lack the will to change matters, what implications does the treaty hold for our domestic law the ratification can also be completed under Royal Prerogative.

If it comes in slices it can skirt around these provisions

[Matt Wright]

There should be a referendum,

Matt

[Opinicus]

Of course there must be a referendum.

More important from the Conservative point of view, someone needs to make a speech demanding one before Blair goes off to sell his country short. Every negotiation with Europe should be subject to a referendum.
The lie back and count the votes.

[Torygirl]

I am taking the liberty of printing an e-mail I have received, subject "The speech he should have made".

Dear Mr Cameron

As the UK nears the point when the Prime Minister is involved in discussions on the content of a proposed new European Union
constitution which could be binding upon the United Kingdom, HM Opposition's stance is conspicuous, once again, more by its silence on this momentous issue than any principled and public response to what should be its highest priority, namely the future governance of the UK.

The content of the following speech made by Mr Ashley Mote MEP is the one that should have been delivered by you in one form or another, and indeed by the leaders of all other political parties in the UK at this
critical time. As it is, the statesmanlike appraisal of the current prospects for the UK's future relationship with the EU is left
to a relatively unknown and independently minded MEP. Shame on you Mr Cameron!

The Conservative Party website trumpets: "Parliament should be the
watchdog of the (British) Constitution." Shame on you Mr Cameron for not acting on your own stated principle through your guilty silence.

Your web site also suggests proposals that the Conservatives will ensure "No deals being made in Europe without full explanation first".

Once more the British people will see through this empty promise because just such a "deal" is being negotiated in secret by Mr Blair with our EU partners on the proposed EU 'constitution', and in
particular with Angela Merkel of Germany, at this very moment.

The deal is being passed off by Mr Blair as of no particular constitutional significance, and therefore not requiring a referendum by the British people. Whilst your Party does call for such a
referendum, that call is muted and mis-trusted because of your Party's
abysmal track record in its approval of further EU/UK integration in
almost every possible policy area since the signing of the Treaty of Rome.

Shame on you Mr Cameron, for failing to make a single major policy speech in opposition to the EU's increased hegemony over the will of a freely elected UK Parliament by an unelected foreign organisation, and for failing to expose the nature of the second hand EU 'constitution now being proposed.

Now read on - for the speech you should have made:

****** ****

Sovereign Nations Don't Have Constitutions Imposed on Them - 7 June 2007

EU Constitutional Debate, European Parliament, 7 June 2007
Text of speech by Ashley Mote MEP, independent, SE England

"You are our Neighbours - Not our Masters", Ashley Mote MEP tells
European Parliament

"The British government's White Paper on the original constitution said
that it involved “no fundamental change” "But why have a constitution
if you don’t want fundamental change – what else could be its purpose?
Angela Merkel has said that the new version should have a new name and
“use different terminology without changing the legal substance”.

How reassuring to be so vividly reminded of German commitment to
democracy and the rule of law.

The old - and doubtless the new - constitution totally reverses the
relationship between the EU and the Member States and between the
governing and the governed. Whenever before did a sovereign nation
permit outsiders to write and impose a new constitution on them, except
after defeat in war?

In my country the state draws power from the people, and answers to
them.

In the EU, the State now seeks to exist in its own right, and have the
people answer to it. Our rights and freedoms are our birthright. They
are not in the gift, or at the discretion, of a passing parade of
political nonentities - here today and gone tomorrow. The original
draft constitution did us a great service: it crystallised the future.
It attempted to turn a Europe of nations into a nation called Europe.

It forced us to decide if we would allow Europeans to become our
masters. We do not. You are our neighbours. You should be our
friends. But nothing more.

Whatever its new name - like the last one, this one will not be a
constitution at all. The first version was vague, grandiose,
imprecise, deliberately complex, confusing and extremely long. It was
proscriptive rather than enabling. It made law, instead of creating a
framework for law-making. It offered no effective checks and balances
to control future law-makers, and no mechanism to stop the train. It
consolidated power for a system of government by a self-perpetuating
bureaucracy. It turned the member states from theoretical masters of
the house of Brussels into its servants. So what's different this time? This oppressive constitution is not the answer. It is a 1950s solution to 1920s problems. Today we live in another world. People living in today’s fast-moving, flexible,unpredictable, hi-tech world need responsive, imaginative, minimalist government.

The EU has been left far behind by the Americans, and soon the Indian sub-continent and China will overtake as well.

The EU and its grandiose ideas are part of the problem. They are not part of the solution. Hostility exists across all 27 countries. It abounds in Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Latvia, parts of Scandinavia and, of course, the UK.

The Dutch are rightly angered by suggestions that they didn’t understand what they were voting about last time. Given the chance,
they may well vote ‘no’ again. And what happens in Ireland and Denmark, where referenda are mandatory even if the word ‘constitution’ disappears? Resistance will inevitably harden.

These are important constitutional issues which the Council of
Mínisters has largely chosen to ignore just as they have ignored the failure of the first version of the constitution. Some 36 new EU projects and institutions - wholly dependant on that document for their
legitimacy - have all gone ahead already. So much for due process and the rule of law. For the bureaucrats, rebirth of the constitution - even under an assumed name – really is just a tidying-up exercise. For the rest of us it changes everything. No British parliament has the power to bind its successors. The EU constitution - whatever it's called - threatens to deny that power of an elected British government.
That alone makes it unlawful.

Suggesting – as clause 18 of the original did - that we might have to come, cap in hand, to ask to leave is preposterous. And wait two years while the rest of you decided? Who are you kidding?

The Victorian lawyer, Professor Dicey told the British people that they are free to withdraw their consent from parliament at any time and have
the right to use any means to regain control of their sovereignty.

The Bill of Rights, 1689, is still the statute law of the UK. Its authority was re-affirmed in a House of Lords judgment in November 2001. Desuetude (repeal by lack of use) is unknown to English law.
The Bill of Rights is based on a concept of permanence and declares that any actions taken against its principles are null and void. It specifically forbids handing power to foreigners. "
END

[TomTOm]

Shame on you Mr Cameron, for failing to make a single major policy speech in opposition to the EU's increased hegemony over the will of a freely elected UK Parliament

Bureaucracies by compliance through co-opting. The Commission knew they would get Cameron on board by pushing EU-wide environmentalism.....jst as Thatcher was seduced by a Single Market and agreed to the SEA to get it.

Lord Cockfield brought Thatcher into line and she spent the next 4 years of her career railing against it. Cameron will roll-over, regret what Blair has done, but promise to fight Britain's corner and acquiesce

[TomTom]

The Bill of Rights, 1689, is still the statute law of the UK.

Yet Section 7 7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

seems to have curtailed my right to hold arms removed entirely

[Denis Cooper]

Correct. Several specific sections of the Bill of Rights have been repealed, including amendment within the term "repeal". According to Lord Justice Laws the Bill of Rights is one of the "constitutional statutes" which are only subject
to express rather than implied repeal. But Parliament and the courts did not previously recognise that distinction, and it now seems unlikely that it will be accepted for very long.

[George Hinton]

It really is too much that politicians are ignoring the groundswell of public opinion on Europe and the EU and are trying to stitch up deals that take away our democracy and democratic choice.
If Blair has indeed stitched a deal together then he needs to stand before Parliament, explain himself, face a vote of no confidence and grant the people of this country a referendum.
I have no wish to be governed by Brussels/Strasbourg and if i wished to have Corpus Juris and the Code Napoleon and a Republican government then would have renounced my British citizenship and moved to the continent.
A pox and plague on these people who put themselves above us and ignore our wishes.

[If Only]

Lets cut to the chase. We can do what we like re the EU, we pay the bills. Can you imagine the hilarity of stern words and threats from Sarkozy and Mangel. If only one politician with balls would realise that the EU is a house of cards given its unpopularity.

The sensible way to do it is simply announce parliamentary supremcy restored BUT we are fully committed to the EU and will adopt approriate legislation as normal.

Its as simple as that, i really dont think any more needs to be done. What foreign politician is goiung start criticising us for regaining sovereignty if we honour our commitments? What domestic politician is going argue in favour of a sell out?

This single move will expose the other weak and cowardly politos on the continent . How weak is a foreign net-contributor going to look if we have established a clear new direction of our relationship with Europe?

They have been in a headlong rush to integration without ever winning the argument domestically. We would simply be saying we are a sovereign country and we are obligated to act in the best interests of the UK. At this time we intend to continue with unchanged arrangement and are happy to continue.

Forget legality it really is a total red put about by the muppet lawyers who got us into this mess.

[Denis Cooper]

"The sensible way to do it is simply announce parliamentary supremcy restored" - that's what Bill Cash wants to do:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/comment/debate/letters/article1816607.ece

"Sir, Not only will a new European treaty (leading article, May 17) be unacceptable in its specific policies, but it will also be constitutionally unacceptable as a matter of principle from everything we have heard from Angela Merkel’s 12 points and the manoeuvrings of the member states since then.

You say that the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a declaration would not have the force of law. But evidence from eminent QCs to the European Scrutiny Committee has made it clear that the European Court would still construe any such declaration as being a matter for the European Court, taking “precedence over those by national judges”. Human rights legislation is interfering with the suppression of terrorism. Putting the Charter in the treaty, in these matters, will hand the jurisdiction to the European Court with even more disastrous consequences than at present.

This makes the proposals of my Supremacy of Parliament Bill ever more important. We have to pass a Westminster Act of Parliament which ensures that, where necessary, we legislate to override the European Communities Act 1972 and require the British judiciary to obey this law.

BILL CASH, MP

House of Commons"

[Graham D'Amiral]

At the risk of being lynched, I do find it hard to get worked up about this issue as I did the original proposed constitution.

I always prefered the Dutch argument against the constitution, that we didn't need one because we had more than enough treaties to govern the EU already without the need for another treaty to bind all the other treaties together.

I agree as the constitution was rejected it would be quite wrong and without democratic legitimacy to revive it or parts of it through the back door. But is it really necessary to frame this debate in such alarmest "the end of life as we know it" terms.

[Ken Stevens]

Graham D'Amiral 16:29 "..is it really necessary to frame this debate in such alarmest 'the end of life as we know it' terms?"

Alas, I believe that it is, because we are being subjected to the salami technique - just a little slice at a time, ostensibly of little account in itself, and then suddenly we will come to the end of our sovereign sausage and find that there is Wurst to come.

[Traditional Tory]

Good sound posts from almost everybody and then the predictable 'Don't let's rock the boat' plea from dyed-in-the-wool Cameroon Graham D'Amiral.

Speaks volumes.

[Graham D'Amiral]

Rock the boat as much as you like Traditional tory, I was simply stating my own view that exagerating the threat from the European Union diminishes the quality of the argument.

I'm a conservative not a cameroon whatever one of those is supposed to be. In Europe not run by Europe that great slogan sums up the conservative view of Europe fairly perfectly for me.

[Richard Tyndall]

"In Europe not run by Europe that great slogan sums up the conservative view of Europe fairly perfectly for me."

It does indeed sum up the conservative party view. In that it is meaningless drivel and a completely false portrayal of the situation both now and under a future Conservative Government. If you are in Europe (at least the EU) then you are, by definition, run by it since that is the only way they will accept membership.

This is why the whole Tory (and SNP and others) position of 'repatriation' of powers is a downright lie. They know that such a policy can never be enacted as the EU will simply say 'No'.

[James Maskell]

We must have a referendum for this Treaty/Constitution to have any legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

The problem with this, and this is pretty obvious but a point that needs making, is that Cameron will not want a Europe battle within the Party. He knows all too well the damage the European dimension does. That said, I feel that if we are to have this battle, its better to have it sooner rather than later. Lets fight it out now rather than in the run up to a General Election.

[John Irvine]

If Graham D'Amiral (I wonder where that name comes from?) does not want to rattle the cage of the Euromaniacs then he is no Conservative as far as I am concerned.

We've tolerated these Eurofanatics in our midst for far too long. IF they were removed there would be no more trouble from them in our party

[ToMTom]

Lets fight it out now rather than in the run up to a General Election.

Posted by: James Maskell | June 09, 2007 at 20:48

General Election ? What about the European Election on 11th June 2009 ?

After all in future Britain will only have an EU Commissioner once every 11 years.

[TomTom]

and the QMV in the Council of Ministers will see Britain sidelined as Education and Health and Justice become EU responsibilities

[Torygirl]

The short answer is NO, he will not be offering a referendum on the EU. Why? Because he wants us to stay in.....

Ask David Cameron: Shared ownership, EU referendum, PMQs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO8CA9D65Po

[Graham D'Amiral]

John Irvine quesions first the origin of my name, it is French, though since my ancestors left the country centuries ago it probably wasn't to spread pro EU propaganda.

The strange comment about "we've tolerated Euro fanatics in our midst for too long" almost sounds as paranoid as McCarthyism. I'd remind you that no conservative government has ever proposed withdrawl from Europe, though of course it was a key pledge in the 1983 Labour Party manifesto.

I believe very much that Brtain's interests are best served in Europe, but that does not mean we share the model of European integration with those who wish to undermine independent nation states. As Margaret Thatcher once said "Europe works best with Britain as Britain, France as France and Spain as Spain"

[Ross]

Some of the comments have been horrendous in their dismissive attitude to non-elites.
Some clown actually said if Bliar signs up to a new E.U. sell-out, we just have to accept it and move on!
That's what the mandarins and their minions in Westminster hope. Frankly, if it comes to the point where we can't negotiate our deliverance, then armed resistance to Euroarmies, Eurocops and Eurocollaborators will be justified.