John Palmer (London): I am afraid that Mats Persson, like so many others, has not read the proposed EU treaty.
- There is ALREADY a President of the European Council. The Presidency rotates among Member States every six months. The only change is that in future the President - agreed by the Member States - will carry out this coordination function for 2 1/2 years. He /she remains answerable ONLY to the Member State governments.
- The new foreign policy High Representative will assume the EXISTING responsibilities of Council of Ministers Secretary General on foreign policy and those of the EXISTING Commissioner for External Affairs. Control of Foreign/Security Policy remains completely in the hands of Member State governments who retain the power of veto. No new powers but greater efficiency.
- Britain retains the right to opt in or out of all matters relating to criminal law under the provisions for justice and home affairs. Rulings of the Court of Justice would not affect the UK on all matters where it exercises its right of opt out.
- The move to qualified majority voting primarily concerns technical decisions but does include some areas where the UK has long sought changes in policy blocked by other governments.
- Disgracefully, the Blair/Brown government insisted on remaining outside the Charter of Fundamental Rights on grounds of defending “national sovereignty.” Britain should opt in to the Charter forthwith. Which goes to show what happens when politicians kow-tow to the eurosceptics and europobes.
There is not the slightest justification for imaging any significant transfers of sovereignty under the old “constitutional” treaty - let alone the new “reform” treaty. It is true that most of the provisions of the old treaty are retained in the new treaty - but in forms of revisions to existing treaties. Which is why there was also not the slightest justification for having a referendum for the old treaty. It too did not propose any significant transfers of sovereignty.
There is therefore no conceivable justification for a referendum. But if there is why not have it across all 27 Member States? Or if it is to be a “UK” referendum why not allow the Scots and Welsh nations to reach their own decisions and have the right to adopt the new treaty even if the English nation declines?
A serious constitutional treaty would provide for power to move from EU governance based on cooperation between Member State governments to an elected federal government with an agreed list of decision making powers. It would share the power to propose new laws between the Commission (elected government) and the European Parliament. I would support such a meaningful constitutional treaty - but it is not and has not been on offer.
