10 EU Constitution Treaty Myths

  1. The concept of a ‘constitution’ has been abandoned
  2. The EU ‘Foreign Minister’ has been dropped
  3. The symbols (EU flag and anthem) have been dropped
  4. Britain has a unique version of the treaty due to the government’s ‘red lines’
  5. Britain will have the right to ‘opt-in’ to new EU laws in the area of justice and home affairs
  6. We have an opt-out from EU foreign policy decisions
  7. The treaty will give a bigger role in EU law-making to national Parliaments
  8. The size of the Commission will be reduced, cutting bureaucracy
  9. Britain’s tradition is as a representative democracy – this treaty should be decided on by Parliament
  10. The treaty will improve the functioning of the Union – a structure designed for 6 member countries cannot function with 27
The concept of a ‘constitution’ has been abandoned

Reality: Given this treaty sets up institutions like a full-time President, a Foreign Minister in all but name, defines how governing decisions are made and, like the EU Constitution, will give the EU “legal personality” to make binding international agreements in its own right in a wide range of areas, what other name is there for it but a Constitutional document?

The treaty is also expected to contain an instruction to national parliaments to “contribute actively to the good functioning of the union.” Michael Connarty MP, the Labour chairman of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, has described this attempt to instruct Parliament as “a takeover of the rights of this Parliament” (Hansard, 4 July 2007). Can you get more constitutional an aim than that?

The Spanish PM Jose Zapatero was being more honest than our own government when he said: “A great part of the content of the European Constitution is captured in the new treaties … We have not let a single substantial point of the constitution 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.” (El Pais, 23 June 2007 & speech in parliament, 27 June 2007)

Even Gordon Brown is struggling with the idea that the “constitution” has been abandoned. After a meeting with Irish PM Bertie Ahern, he said: “We have discussed the European constitution and how that can move forward over the next few months.” (press conference in Belfast, 16 July 2007)

The EU ‘Foreign Minister’ has been dropped

Reality: The title of the post – to become ‘High Representative’ instead – is all that has changed in the revised treaty.

Irish PM Bertie Ahern admitted this when he said: “It’s the original job as proposed but they just put on this long title – High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and also Vice President of the Commission. It’s the same job … it’s still going to be the same position.” (Irish Independent, 24 June 2007)

Luxembourg PM Jean-Claude Junker reinforced the point, saying: “It remains the case that we managed to get a European Foreign Minister – even if we now once again call him High Representative for External Affairs and Security – who nevertheless retains all the competencies which were given to him in the Constitution treaty.” (press conference, 28 June 2007)

So the change is evidently only superficial. The main objection to the post of EU ‘Foreign Minister’ was not the title but the increased powers the person will have. Those clearly remain the same.

The symbols (EU flag and anthem) have been dropped

Reality: This claim is both irrelevant and, in any case, meaningless.

Firstly, the referendum was never about such minor points. Does the government seriously expect anyone to believe it is backing out of the promise of a referendum because these (pre-existing) symbols of the EU aren’t mentioned in this new version of the Constitution?

Secondly, does anyone really believe that EU flags will be taken down and the EU anthem never again sung as a result of this change? Those symbols will not, in reality, be “dropped” and will continue to be used regardless.

Britain has a unique version of the treaty due to the government’s ‘red lines’

Reality: The Government points to four red lines, on which they are basing their claim that this new text is different from the original Constitution and therefore no longer requires a referendum.

However, they are essentially the same red lines as Tony Blair claimed to have secured on aspects of the original Constitution. Back in September 2004, then foreign minister Jack Straw said: “We have the right results on policy areas of importance to the UK, including in respect of the charter of fundamental rights and the veto on areas such as foreign policy, defence, tax, social security, criminal law and treaty revision.” (Hansard, 9 September 2004)

The government wants to imply its ‘red lines’ are new when they are essentially the same. And therefore, neither has the justification for a referendum changed.

These claims about red lines are designed only to distract attention from what the government is conceding elsewhere in the treaty. Namely, the loss of vetoes in 60 new areas of EU law-making, a 30% cut in our voting strength, a full-time EU President and de facto Foreign Minister and new EU powers to interfere in the running of public services such as health, education and transport.

Due to the self-amending articles which will also be preserved from the original Constitution, the few remaining vetoes (except those relating to defence) can also be abolished without the need for a further treaty.

As far as almost all vetoes are concerned, therefore, this is the ‘treaty to end all treaties’.

On 9th October, the European Scrutiny Committee – a cross-party group of MPs that exists to examine EU legislation – published their report into the treaty. They concluded that: “Taken as a whole, the Reform Treaty produces a general framework which is substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty … Even with the ‘opt-in’ provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, and the Protocol on the Charter, we are not convinced that the same conclusion does not apply to the position of the UK.”

The chairman of this committee, Labour MP Michael Connarty, went further saying:

“We believe that the red lines will not be sustainable. Looking at the legalities and use of the European Court of Justice, we believe these will be challenged bit by bit and eventually the UK will be in a position where all of the treaty will eventually apply to the UK. If they can’t get these things firmed up, we think they will leak like a sieve.” (Today BBC Radio 4, 9 October 2007)

Given the credibility of this cross-party Labour-dominated Parliamentary committee, this has surely settled the debate about the merit of the government’s claimed ‘red lines / opt-outs’ once and for all.

Britain will have the right to ‘opt-in’ to new EU laws in the area of justice and home affairs

Reality: This ‘opt-in’ was also secured in relation to justice and home affairs in the original Constitution. It is not a new innovation, so the government’s spin that the need for a referendum has changed as a result is flawed.

However, recent negotiations over the treaty have in fact eroded this safeguard to an extent that will make it almost impossible to use. For example, if in future there are amendments to existing EU home affairs laws which the UK has opted in to (such as the EU Arrest Warrant), then Britain will be required to choose between accepting the amended form or being thrown out of the existing legislation altogether – something the Government will not risk.

It has also been agreed that, once the UK has opted in to a measure at the early stages, we will not be allowed to pull out again – even if the proposal changes radically and the UK opposes the final outcome.

It has also emerged that there are further conditions on the five-year delay on the jurisdiction of the EU Court of Justice over home affairs matters. The temporary five-year delay before the Court gets its new powers will only apply to EU legislation that has been passed before 2009.

So not only does this ‘opt-in’ have no bearing on the justification for a referendum, but it is already being eroded.

We have an opt-out from EU foreign policy decisions

Reality: In fact, the revised Constitutional treaty would end the veto in eleven different areas of Foreign Policy.

This includes proposals from the EU ‘Foreign Minister’, the design of the EU diplomatic service, setting up an ‘inner core’ in defence and various vaguely defined terms such as ‘civil protection’, ‘terrorist financing controls’ and ‘consular issues’.

A wide range of foreign policy proposals could potentially be brought forward under such vague policy headings and we would no longer have a veto to stop them.

The treaty will give a bigger role in EU law-making to national Parliaments

Reality: While Parliaments will be consulted on new EU laws, that doesn’t amount to much of a “role” for them in EU law-making as their views can be easily ignored.

Compared to the original Constitution, this proposal has in fact been significantly watered down. The proportion of national parliaments needing to object to an EU proposal to trigger a review procedure has been increased from a third to half.

In the unlikely event that fourteen national parliaments all vote against their government on the same proposal, within an eight week window, then the Commission merely has to “reconsider” – but not actually change its action at all, if it chooses not to.

Such proposals aim to give the impression of accountability without the reality.

The size of the Commission will be reduced, cutting bureaucracy

Reality: The rule of one Commissioner per country will be ended. This will mean there will be periods when a third of member states will not know what is going on within the Commission – the EU institution that has the sole right to initiate new EU laws – and will lose influence over EU laws as their views will not be represented.

This change is not reducing the tasks of the Commission – only a handful of jobs at the very top. Removing nine Commissioners will hardly make much of a dent in the Commission’s total of 63,000 employees.

Britain’s tradition is as a representative democracy – this treaty should be decided on by Parliament

Reality: Referenda are hardly an alien concept to Britain, and the Labour government has been one of the biggest users of them in history.

Clearly no-one wants to have referendums on all kinds of small issues. But the government has accepted that, when there are constitutional changes, people should be consulted directly.

The Government held referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution, and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. They have had referendums on the London Mayor, the North East Assembly and on dozens of city mayors. The government has promised a referendum if it ever tries to introduce proportional representation or the single currency, and promised one on the original EU Constitution, which this treaty is at least 90% the same as.

It’s simply too late for the government to start arguing that referenda are an ‘alien’ process, which threatens to undermine representative democracy.

What’s more, the ‘traditional parliamentary process’ some talk of so reverently would in fact be a meaningless charade for this treaty. Parliament will indeed be able to ‘scrutinise’ and ‘debate’ it, but will not be able to amend one single word of the treaty – as it would when considering domestic legislation.

Our democratic process would therefore not be working as effectively as it would usually, which is why the extra democratic safeguard of a referendum is justified and required.

The treaty will improve the functioning of the Union – a structure designed for 6 member countries cannot function with 27

Reality: That there is some kind of fatal problem with the functioning of the Union, a ‘log-jam’ in decision-making or the system is in danger of ‘grinding to a halt’ is a total myth, invented only to justify the need for yet another treaty enabling yet more powers to be passed to EU institutions.

A study of EU legislation by academics at the Paris-based university Science-Po found that the EU has in fact been adopting new rules and regulations some 25% faster since the EU’s enlargement to include 10 new member states in 2004, and that ‘old’ member countries are in fact twice as likely to block EU laws as the ‘new’ countries.

This gives the complete lie to the claim that the changes proposed are in any way ‘needed’. In fact they are only ‘wanted’, by a few fanatical political elites still pursuing the out-dated 1950s idea of centralising power away from Europe’s elected national governments to remote and undemocratic EU institutions.