Mats Persson (London, Open Europe): John Palmer can be confident that despite his assertion to the contrary, we have indeed read the revised version of the EU Constitutional Treaty, having translated it, consolidated the amendments and put them side-by-side with the original Constitution. This exercise exposed the striking degree of similarity between the two texts. But don't take our word for it: read it here, and make up your own mind...
Seen in this light, the question of a referendum should be a simple matter of the UK Government keeping its manifesto promise: it pledged a referendum on the Constitution, so why has it gone back on its word now when the new version is almost identical? Palmer's overblown claim that there can be "no conceivable justification for a referendum" clearly falls down at this first hurdle. About 86% of the public disagree - and want their say.
But leaving that debate aside, Palmer's post merits a response because it is misleading and riddled with contradiction but also because he has genuinely attempted to tackle our arguments where he can. I appreciate this and apologise for the length of this reply, but the issue could hardly be more important.
Is John Palmer seriously suggesting the Constitutional Treaty changes nothing of any significance? If this is true, and if the Constitutional Treaty is insignificant, perhaps he could explain why Europe's political elite have been so desperate to revive it since it was rejected by voters in France and Holland? Why did Merkel tell the Bundestag last year "We absolutely need the Constitution to ensure the European Union is effective and capable of action"? If this Treaty doesn't do anything important, why was it put forward in the first place?
In reference to foreign policy, Palmer says there are "No new powers [transferred to the EU] but greater efficiency". But greater "efficiency" in this debate is of course code for making it easier to pass EU laws - which inevitably means overruling dissent from member states that would otherwise oppose and block the measure in question. That's why in the area of foreign policy alone, national vetoes are abolished in eleven separate areas. So much for Palmer's claim that foreign policy "remains completely in the hands of Member State governments who retain the power of veto."
Amongst others the veto is axed over proposals from the EU Foreign Minister, the design of the EU diplomatic service, the membership of the new inner core in defence - the structured cooperation group, on urgent financial aid, on the appointment of the foreign minister, over the new "terrorism solidarity" clause and over the new EU Foreign Policy Fund. The UK Government opposed most of these changes, but later gave way.
Let's consider another change which Palmer plays down - the creation of a permanent EU President. The President will drive forward the work of the 3,500 civil servants in the Council Secretariat - something which would give him/her a substantial power base from the start. Today's arrangement, with the seat rotating amongst member states, has given individual governments an opportunity to set the agenda and secure influence. Under the Constitutional Treaty, negotiations would instead take place between one Brussels institution and another. How is this not a change? Also bear in mind that the Constitutional Treaty opens up the possibility of a merger of the President of the Council and the President of the Commission - something the UK opposed but gave way on.
The name of the Foreign Minister has been changed, but the new powers remain, and as Romano Prodi recently pointed out: "as long as we have more or less a European Prime Minister and a European Foreign Minister then we can give them any title."
As noted in our previous post, the new minister/high rep will have an automatic right to speak for the UK in the UN Security Council on issues where the EU has taken a position - which the UK asked to be deleted but later gave way on. The UK also eventually accepted that the new minister will be a member of the Commission (the UK has resisted giving the Commission a role in Foreign Policy since 1992). He or she would also have the power to appoint EU envoys. At the end of the negotiations the UK also eventually accepted that the Foreign Minister / HRUFASP will chair meetings of the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council.
As the Guardian noted: "Britain said the new official should not chair regular meetings of EU foreign ministers, nor take over the resources of the European Commissioner for external affairs. It lost."
Perhaps most importantly of all, when the Council asks the Foreign Minister for a proposal on a particular subject, once he or she has made that proposal it will be subject to majority voting. This is a major new proposal.
And as far as justice and policing are concerned, the Constitutional Treaty would mean big changes - particularly giving the Court of Justice jurisdiction in these areas for the first time. Remember - there is no "opt-out" from a ruling of the Court.
Indeed, the Government previously argued strongly against giving the Court such powers. Back in 2000 the Government stated in a memorandum to the Lords EU select committee that: "The Government does not accept that we should agree to extend full ECJ jurisdiction over the very sensitive areas covered by the Third Pillar. These raise sensitive issues relating to national sovereignty - law and order and the criminal justice process."
The Constitutional Treaty also removes the tight rules on standing which limit the power of the ECJ in civil law, asylum and migration. In November 2006 Geoff Hoon told the Lords EU committee that giving the ECJ full jurisdiction over asylum policy could create problems: "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."
One of the many other problems with the "opt-out" arrangement is that when a new measure is proposed the UK has to decide at the start whether or not to participate in it. Once we opt in, the UK is unable to opt back out - even if it is unhappy with the way the proposal changes in the Council.
It is also worth noting that since the revolutionary ECJ ruling on environmental crimes in 2005, criminal law measures can now be passed through the first pillar - for example the proposed criminal offences on intellectual property. Currently the scope of this historic judgement is at least restricted by the limited scope of community competence. However, the Constitutional Treaty collapses the third pillar, undermining this safeguard. As Richard Plender QC told us - "there is no opt out or opt in" under first pillar criminal legislation.
In fact, when Palmer insists that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitutional Treaty that changes anything, he's arguing against most EU-leaders - some holding similar views to his own.
Spanish PM Jose Zapatero has said that the Constitution is "without a doubt, much more than a treaty. This is a project of foundational character, a treaty for a new Europe."
Romani Prodi has stated that the Constitution means "a big change from the basic concept of nation states. It's a change of centuries of history."Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian Prime Minister, has insisted that "The European Union acquires all the instruments of a federal state...The capstone is the Constitutional Treaty."
Nicolas Sarkozy has argued that the Constitutional Treaty means that "The project of the founding fathers is complete: the economic Union is becoming a political Union."
Jean Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg has said, "Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty" while adding "But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?" Are all these people lying? Likewise, few people would recognise Palmer's description of the loss of vetoes as primarily involving technical areas. Elsewhere in Europe, leaders have justified giving up vetoes by reference to a need to deal with "big" issues from energy, to employment law - areas where the stakes for the UK are particularly high.
These changes may not go far enough to satisfy John Palmer's far-flung view of a federal Europe, but for most ordinary people these are alterations that do matter.
That's why clear majorities in every single EU member state want to be given a say on handing over more powers to the EU. If the EU is to survive in the long run, it has to be built on public consent. Secretive, elite-driven integration is outdated as well as unsustainable, and can only erode the legitimacy of the Union. Simply denying that anything significant is happening is not only insulting to the intelligence of voters but is storing up problems for the future.
So let's have an honest, open discussion on whether handing over more power to the EU is a good idea. It's time ordinary people had a say in this debate - through the referendum they were promised. Sign up here to have your say.
