philjit
Arch-Enemy of Idealism
Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002 |
Why I will be voting No on the referendum to set up a European Constitution
I am a pro-european who will be voting No in the referendum that Britain is to have on the Constitutional Treaty, which effectively will set a European Constitution. I have many reasons for this. Firstly I don't believe in codified constitutions like that of the USA. I consider them to rigid and difficult to change. Britain has evolved it constitution through means of statute, precedent and convention and it has served this country brilliantly since 1215. But my other reasons for rejecting the treaty are to do with the document itself and what it implies for the EU. I support the principle guding odea of European Union. However, my support is, and always has been based on a support for a Union of Nation States. Not a Federal structure where the power is lost by member states. The Contituional Treaty, becuase it is a bad document does just that, and as such I have to oppose it.
So.... why will I be voting No? Because as it stands the draft document is a shit document. I read it, and not only did I get utterly confused by it's language the first time, but I also noted some very serious implications that were contained within it, that are not, as Yes camp would have people believe, "nothing to worry about".
First of all, the name of the thing is a con. It has been established as a "treaty" in order to provide those pushing for it the claim that it cannot be considered a real constitution, hence it cannot, and does not create a "superstate". That is bollocks. True, the Yes camp can argue that Article 59 provides an exit clause (somethign which I believe the US Constituion does not have). But when you read the bloody thing it becomes clear that the EU will, if the treaty is ratified, have its own executive, legislature, judiciary, police, civil service, currency, central bank, taxes, army, foreign minister, embassies and flag. That implies that it is going to have a new legal identity which constitutes statehood. That's a fact. It's not a eurosceptic lie, the lie is failing to acknowledge it. The German and French leaderships acknowledge the very radical effect this document will have. But the Yes camp in the UK is trying to play it down by basically burying it's head in the sand on the issue. The EU under this treaty will no longer be the sum of it's part, or a Union of Nation States. It will be a new glorious whole with a single legal identity.
On foreign policy the Government states that the veto will remain. Again this is wrong. I am not going to say that they are lying necessarily on this one, but I am going to say that they clearly havn't read the text (or perhaps they hope we will not). Article III-195 (paragraph 2) states "The member states shall support the common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity." Now, the argument from the Yes camp on this one is that the words are all but identical to Article 11:2 of the Maastricht Treaty (signed by John Major). They also point to the Iraq war as proof that the article is not a threat. However they are misrepresenting the treaty because they fail to notice, or perhaps deliberately avoid the fact that in addition to the Article there is also a new Article (1-27) appointing an EU Foreign Minister who "shall conduct the Union's common foreign and security policy,". The implication is that the meaning of Article III-195 becomes very very different to the previous structural relationship.
Of course, I have no doubt in fairness that the veto will remain on foreign policy, we, and the French will not accept otherwise. However, that isn't the end of the story as fair as this (bad) document goes. The treaty has provision so that when a unanimous decision on an aspect of foreign policy is reached by the member states, all actions within that decided specifc area of policy become decided on the basis of majority voting. What does that mean practically? Well, let's say a unanimous decision to send an EU envoy to a war torn country is made. All subsequent decision relating to that envoy are, under this treaty, no longer based on unanimity. So who the envoy is would be a majority vote, what the envoy says and does would be a majority vote etc. The veto at this point becomes meaningless. Ireland's traditional neutrality is severely at risk from this Treaty as well. In the cas eof the example I just gave, the Treaty implies that once an area of foreign policy is decided unanimously it then goes to majority voting for subsequent decisions, these include at this point, the use of force. Additionally, in defence policy, the treaty will set up a non-permanent European operational planning cell. This will come into actions when NATO is not interested in acting. The first time this occurs the Alliance that has maintained the stability of much of the world will be fundamnetally undermined.
Also the claim that economic policy is a "red line" issue not to be crossed, and that the government has won that argument is also a fallacy. Economic policy, according to the Treaty, is going to be "co-ordinated" from the European level. What is left to the member states is fiscal policy. But whilst memebr states will have control over fiscal policy they will have to run it to achieve the aims of the Europe wide economic policy. The same is true in social policy as well. Article III-70 states that "Member states shall conduct their economic policies in order to contribute to the achievement of the Union's objectives." This implies, pretty clearly, that economic policy is not in the control of the member states anymore. Not to mention of course that the Treaty implies harmonisation of indirect taxes. That means British VAT exemptions are at risk from the Treaty, and we will have no control over those exemptions ending.
Law and Order is the biggie though. Article 10 states that EU law "shall have primacy over the law of the member states". Now the Yes camp will argue that this principle exists already so nothing changes. Again this is either a bare faced lie, or they have not really understood the document. You see that principle only exists currently in the law of commerce. The Single European Act and Maastrict established the principle in order to make the single market work. It was the correct thing to do. But under this new treaty it extends that principle into the new fields of foreign policy, criminal law, justice, and many more. That is a radical constituional change on the part of Britian's way of doing things. Britain will no longer have primacy over it's own law in these areas. The EU will have.
There is also the claim that this Treaty infers much more power to national Parliament's to censure and curtail the Commission through the extension of the principle of subsidiarity. But again, it's bollocks. What the treaty says is that if one third of memebr states wish to reject a proposal from the Commission the Commission must "review" it. Problem is it then says that the Commission, "After such a review......may decide to maintain, amend or withdraw its proposal." So... what does that mean? It means you can say "oi we don't like that, have a look at it again", the Commission can then go "right we've had a look at it and you're all wrong, we're going ahead with it". National Parliaments lose power in the principle of subsidiarity from this Treaty, they do not gain it.
Not to mention of course that what was mentioned above - where unanimity on deciding to have a common foreign policy in a particular area is then followed by majority on subsequent decisions in that area - is also extended to all fields of policy. The result of this in fact means that the government's "red line" wins are meaningless. All it takes is for one unanimous vote to decide some issue and then, under the rules of the treaty, subsequent votes on that policy area become based on majority voting. This is the case for all policy areas. And actually, this is the single biggest trojan horse in the treaty and should be reason enough to reject it outright. The treaty is not just bad for Britain but it's bad for Europe as a whole. It does create a political monster that will subsume the member states. And that's not a myth, it's a fact. And if you can't see it, then you clearly have not really read the document and realised it's implication.
One other thing, the Yes camp, and particularly Blair will try to make this referendum one on "do you want to be in Europe or out". The implication already being played out so plainly in his strategy is that if Britain votes No it means we cannot be in the EU anymore or will be marginalised. It's rubbish. It is nothing more than a bluff to blackmail us into voting Yes. If we vote No (which I personally think we will) all the previous Treaty's will still remain valid and ratified for us. We will still be able to trade within the single market and we will still have all the economic beneifts that come with that. The only difference will be that we will not have to go along with policies that we do not want to go along with. Our hands will not be tied like the hands of those that ratify the Treaty, and our sovereignty, and our sovereign, will remain with us. The only exception will be, as it currently stands, the area of commerce which is an acceptable surrender of sovereignty to make the single european market place work effectively for our interests.
Report this post to a moderator |
IP: Logged
|
![[new thread]](/images/vb/button_newthread_off.png "Post New Thread")
![[post reply]](/images/vb/button_newreply_off.png "Post A Reply")
05-01-2004 07:23 AM
