 | Home |
| What's New |
| Speeches & Articles |
| Newsletter - Apr 2008 |
| Biography |
| Diary |
| Contact Information |
| Photo Album |
| Parliamentary Highlights |
| Publications |
| Links |
| MEPs' Transparency |
| Conservative Party |
| Latest News from Conservatives.com |
| Conservative Party Website |
 |
Open letter to Michael Lord Heseltine
Westminster, London SW1A 0AA Dear Michael, You may recall that we had dinner together nearly twenty years ago, before we appeared together on an edition of the BBC's "Any Questions". Little did I think at the time that in the new century we might be on opposite sides of the great EU debate, but I should like, if I may, to take up some questions on your article which appeared today (April 26th) in the Daily Telegraph, entitled "Yes, this treaty is good for us". Purpose of the Constitution: You insist that the Constitution is necessary to streamline decision-making in an enlarged EU. But on any fair reading, the Constitution is 10% streamlining and 90% integration. It is designed to create a political union. It would have been easy enough to revise the treaties (as set out in the drafting Convention's original objectives) so as to make them more consistent, more transparent and more accessible, and to facilitate decision-making, without creating what many EU leaders have described as "a huge step in EU integration". But that would not have met the objectives of the euro-zealots on the drafting Convention. "Nation states will be firmly in the driving seat". The Constitution pays lip-service to states' rights (as did the US Constitution). But the content is quite different. In particular, Article 45.2 states "Citizens are directly represented at the Union level in the European parliament". This is a transparent attempt to create a new level of democratic legitimacy which by-passes and trumps national democracy. In reality, the rights and aspirations of individual member-states, and their voters, can be over-ruled again and again through the QMV mechanism. "It explicitly states that the EU's powers derive from its member-states, not the other way round". Again, it pays lip-service, and the statement is true in the very narrow sense that the member-states would have to ratify the Constitution to give effect to it. But once ratified, the EU's powers derive from the Constitution itself, not the member-states. "Start with the canard that the treaty is a Constitution: it is not". This is just plain wrong. I have a copy on my desk as I write. The title page says "Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe". So there is a treaty, but the treaty is no more than a delivery mechanism, used once only. The thing delivered is a Constitution, plain and simple, and is intended to be permanent. Those who suggest that it is a treaty, or a constitutional treaty, and not a Constitution, are deliberately seeking to mislead, and to play down its enormous significance. "It proposes that if a third of (member states) oppose a piece of EU legislation, they would have the right to force the Commission to review it". This provision is entirely toothless. Leaving aside the problem of getting a third of member-states to agree, the Commission has no obligation to take any action whatever, apart from stating that it has reconsidered the position. It is not required to explain itself, or change its position, or delay implementation, or anything else. "The treaty defines clearly what the EU can and cannot do….for the first time, the limits of EU powers are defined". This is nonsense. Article 17 says exactly the opposite. It allows the EU to extend its powers without limit, and without the consent of national parliaments. "Only three policy areas will be the exclusive responsibility of the EU". This is grossly misleading, as ten other areas are listed as "Shared competences". But under the EU's definition, a "shared competence" is an area where member states may act only if the EU has opted not to do so -- so in effect they are exclusive competences for Brussels. It is easier to define areas where member states retain competence, which would consist of parts of health and education -- rather like a county council. Under the constitution, the EU will retain or take control, explicitly, of economic, employment and social policies, commercial policy and customs union, foreign and security policy including defence policy, internal market, justice and home affairs, agriculture and fisheries, transport, energy (including, apparently, North Sea oil and gas), environment, consumer protection and aspects of public health "Member states will retain their sovereignty in core areas such as tax, foreign policy and defence". Please give me the references for this claim. Despite a close reading, I cannot find these provisions. What I do find, in Article 15.2, is a requirement that "member states will actively and unreservedly support the common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and solidarity". It is difficult to reconcile this with a veto on defence. It also seems possible, given the EU's constitutional duty to co-ordinate economic policy, that the ECJ would strike down any tax veto as unconstitutional. "The new treaty will not take precedence over all British laws and constitutional practices". Article 10.1 says exactly the opposite. Union law will have primacy over national law. Nor is it clear, as you assert, that "EU law has had primacy over British law since 1972". This is a grey area, and decisions by constitutional courts in several member states (as reported on the same page of the Daily Telegraph) have challenged the primacy of EU law. But the Constitution will make it explicit. "The Charter's provisions only apply when they are implementing EU laws". This defence is about as much use as a chocolate tea-pot. The Charter will apply when the ECJ decides it applies, which will be universally. The court is notorious for political activism and for promoting European integration. "Will the Queen no longer be our head of state?" The Queen will remain the titular Head of the UK, but the UK will not remain an independent, self-governing state in any meaningful sense. Under the EU Constitution, the UK will no more be an independent nation than the "States" of the USA are independent nations. The Queen's laws, the Queen's judges, the Queen's ministers, will all be subject to foreign institutions where we have no control and limited influence. Her Majesty cannot be the sovereign ruler of a mere province. As Michael Howard rightly says, countries have constitutions, while associations of independent states are bound together by treaties. Few British people wish to be part of a country called Europe, or residents of an off-shore province called the UK. Currently, it is arguable that the EU is an association of independent states deriving its legitimacy from the consent of its members. Under the Constitution it will be a new kind of polity, a political union deriving its legitimacy from the Constitution itself -- as the USA does. I am profoundly opposed to any such development, and my political career, such as it is, is dedicated to fighting against it. Yours sincerely, ROGER HELMER |