The proposed EU constitution

2. Improving accountability

In short, the constitution suggests a useful set of improvements to the current EU system. It responds to many of the criticisms that have previously been levelled at the EU, making it clearer, more efficient and more accountable.

The new constitution will act as the agreed rulebook for the "resident's association" of our continent, who have come together after centuries of bloody warfare and division to find a better way of doing business together. It merits our support.

Rebuttals to emerging myths on the new constitution

Opponents of the European Union have seized on a number of real or imaginary features of the proposed new constitution, which they wilfully distort in order to create scare-stories about it. Among the more notable are the following:

“ The word ‘constitution’ implies that the EU is to become a state”

Britain is a member of other international organisations that have a “constitution” (e.g. the World Health Organisation). Even sports clubs have “constitutions”! The term simply means the basic ‘rulebook’ of an organisation.

The new EU constitution is intended to replace its current constitution, namely the various overlapping and sometimes confusing treaties that set out the EU’s field of competence, powers and procedures. This simpler, clearer, single document should be welcomed.

“ It is unacceptable that EU law overrides national law”

This has been the case since well before we joined the EU. What it means is that governments should carry out what they agree in the EU. This is the very principle we relied on to win our case against France on their refusal to accept British beef.
But also remember who makes EU law in the first place: not the European Commission, but our own government, meeting with its counterparts and subject to parliamentary scrutiny by the House of Commons and the European Parliament.
Besides, all international law overrides national law. If a number of countries agree to a particular measure, this has to be binding on them – or else what would be the point? If a country could agree one thing at international level and then do something else at domestic level, we may as well not bother with the international agreement in the first place. It is simply illogical to complain that EU law supersedes national law.

And remember, anyway, that EU law can only be adopted in the limited areas specified in the Treaties – areas which can only be adjusted with the agreement of every single country.

“ A new powerful ‘President of Europe’ will be created”

Not at all. The proposal is simply to replace the rotation system for the chairing of meetings of the European Council (the Prime Ministers of the Member States). Currently, Prime Ministers take it in turn to chair for 6 months at a time. It is proposed instead that they choose someone for a 2 ½ year period to prepare and chair their meetings.

That person will have no autonomous decision-taking power.

“ There will be a massive transfer of powers to the EU”

The new constitution does not increase the field of responsibilities of the EU at all. No new subject matters are added to the EU’s current competences. On the contrary, as numerous studies have pointed out (including a report from our own House of Lords), the balance is actually shifted the other way, to give national parliaments and the European Parliament more influence.

“ Our foreign policy will be in the hands of an EU Foreign Minister”

Policy decisions will remain in the hands of national ministers representing their countries in the EU Council. Where they agree a common position, then this will be presented to the rest of the world as a common EU position, strengthening our voice. Currently, external presentation of such common positions is confusingly spread across the Commissioner for External Relations (currently Chris Patten) and the High Representative for Foreign Policy (currently Javier Solana). The new constitution would merge these two jobs into a single “foreign minister”, ending duplication and confusion. But he or she will only be able to act when given a mandate by agreement among all the national governments.

“ The EU will become a centralised super-state”

The EU will only be able to deal with the subjects laid down in the Constitution. These can only be extended with the unanimous consent of each and every national parliament, including our own.

Even within these limited areas, any EU legislation must be approved by the Council of Ministers. This is composed of members of all national governments, accountable to national parliaments. As an additional safeguard, EU legislation is also scrutinised and amended by the European Parliament, whose members are directly elected.
The system is not centralised, nor is there any danger of that happening. The key gut issues of politics (the health service, education, social security, pensions, housing, income tax, local government, most aspects of crime and punishment, devolution, and so on) will remain national issues, settled in national elections and subject to legislation by our national parliament.

As now, the central administration of the EU will remain small (the Commission has fewer employees than Leeds City Council!) and the EU budget will remain limited by law to less than 1.24% of GDP, a figure that can only be changed if every single country agrees.

“ But continental politicians sometimes talk of federalism”

If “federalism” means what many British newspapers say, i.e. a centralised system, then virtually no-one supports it. But, to many continentals, federalism simply means having different levels of governance to deal with problems of varying scale (e.g. local government to deal with housing, the international level to deal with global warming), with the whole system as decentralised as possible and with each level democratically accountable.

" We will lose our national identity"

The motto of the European Union, enshrined in the draft Constitution is "United in diversity". No country has joined it in order to lose their identity: certainly not the French, Dutch, Irish or any of the new Members who have only recently thrown off the yoke of foreign domination. Article 5 of the new Constitution states that "The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including those for ensuring the territorial integrity of the state, and for maintaining law and order and safeguarding internal security."

" Brussels will decide our taxes"

A lie. The Constitution makes no changes to the current situation, where only indirect taxes can be harmonised and even then, only by unanimous agreement by all Member States.

" The Constitution inevitably means a European Army"

Not true. As now, Britain can, if it so chooses, send troops to join in EU or UN actions, but the decision remains a national one. For instance, we currently participate in an EU peace-keeping force on Macedonia. Furthermore, we will remain free to participate in military action outside the EU framework, as in Afghanistan.
" We will lose control of our borders and immigration policy"
The special protocol that allows Britain and Ireland to maintain their own frontier controls will remain in place under the new Constitution. What there will be is common action on dealing with transnational criminal gangs who smuggle people across frontiers and agreement on common rules for dealing with asylum applicants in order to avoid "asylum shopping" whereby multiple applications are made to different Member States. We want these rules to be agreed by majority voting in order to prevent other countries blocking the decisions we need in this field. (Remember how long it took us to persuade the French to back down on Sangatte).

" We will lose control over our criminal justice system and the right to trial by jury will be abolished"

This is a complete distortion of what is envisaged. The draft Constitution allows Member States to agree common rules that will help combat serious crime with cross-border dimensions, such as terrorism, trafficking in human beings, corruption and organised criminal gangs. It does not change the national court systems, such as our own jury system. It does allow the EU to agree minimum standards for criminal procedures, so that British citizens arrested in other Member states can be guaranteed Consular access, interpretation and other rights.

“ When we joined Europe, we were told we were only joining a free trade zone”

Not true. The Wilson government, in setting out its reasons for applying in 1967, stressed that “the Government’s purpose derives above all from our conviction that Europe is now faced with the opportunity of a great move forward in political unity and that we can - and indeed we must - play our full part in it...”
The Wilson Government White Paper pointed out that membership involved “Community law having direct internal effect is designed to take precedence over the domestic law of the Member States”.

The Heath Government 1971 White Paper spoke of the aims of “an ever closer union among European peoples” and not just of trade but “social progress”, “approximating the economic policies of member states”, “stability”, and “closer relations of the member states” - all “objectives to which this country can wholeheartedly subscribe”.