Dealing with Just Some of the Myths

The facts about Tory fantasy

"The European constitution would take our power to decide who governs Britain." - Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative Party conference, Bournemouth, 9.10.0)

This is palpable nonsense.

The Convention's draft is good for Britain. It consolidates much of what is already contained in existing treaties and spells out that EU is a union of nation states, which has only those powers Governments have conferred upon it. The text reinforces the role of national Parliaments and proposes a full-time Chair of the European Council to provide greater accountability to national governments as well as greater efficiency.

A new constitutional treaty is needed to make an expanded EU more effective and more accountable. Modernising EU decision-making will help ensure that an institution designed for six members can operate well in the future with 25 or more members.

While the process of agreeing a new constitutional treaty is an important issue for Britain and its relationship with the European Union, it does not alter the fundamental constitutional relationship between member states and the EU.

As Lord Hannay, Britain's former permanent representative at the European Union said last month:

"It is not as significant ... as the original Treaties of Rome and Paris, which we ratified in 1972; nor as the Single European Act 1986 ... which quite literally changed Europe's economy; nor as the treaty of Maastricht, which established a single currency and laid the foundations of a common foreign and security policy.

"In the view of history, the document may not even be considered as significant as the various accession treaties which opened the door to countries which had suffered from fascism and communism, the most recent of which we are currently in the process of ratifying parliamentarily."
Lord Hannay (House of Lords, 9.9.03, col 182)

"A blueprint for a United States of Europe in all but name." - Iain Duncan Smith (Speech in Prague, 10.7.03)

This is fantasy. Indeed, former Tory foreign secretary, Lord Howe, dismissed the hyperbolic claims of the present Tory frontbench when he said of the draft treaty:

"In fact, the proponents of federal union or anything like a superstate, who have constantly played a part in these debates, have been held at bay substantially, if not completely on many of the key points.
Lord Howe (House of Lords, 9.9.03, col 176)

"The draft constitution sets out to transfer sovereignty, both generally and specifically, from our national Parliament." - Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram (House of Commons, 16.9.03, col 777)

This is untrue. The draft text proposes enhancing the powers of national governments and parliaments within the EU, and emphatically restates the principle of subsidiarity Indeed, the draft treaty goes further than any preceding measure by proposing that national parliaments have a key role in enforcing it.

The draft suggests giving national parliaments the right to examine proposals for EU legislation right at the start of the legislative process. If more than a third thought a proposal did not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission would be asked to think again.

This would be a powerful weapon and one that led the House of Lords European Union Committee to conclude that:

"... it is clear that the balance of power in the European Union is going to shift from the Commission in favour of the Members States if the [Convention's] proposals ... are adopted."
(Lords Select Committee on EU, 21st report, HL 105, 15.5.03)

The draft text is however not perfect and, like many other Member States, there are some points we will want to examine in more detail during the Intergovernmental conference. We will, for example, only accept a final text that made clear that issues like tax, defence and foreign policy remain the province of the nation state.

"The constitution is, on its own terms, irreversible. Once one is in it, one cannot change it back again." - Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram (House of Commons, 16.9.03, col 781)

This is completely untrue. The draft treaty sets out very clearly the procedure for revising it with amendments entering into force after being ratified by all member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In this respect, the proposed treaty would have no greater importance than any other preceding constitutional treaty such as the Single European Act or the Maastricht Treaty.

In addition, the draft has an explicit provision allowing for the first time a member state to withdraw from the European Union if it so wished.

"Our country [would] no longer be able to choose its allies. - Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative Party conference, Bournemouth, 9.10.03).

This falsehood is a reference to part of the draft treaty that calls on member states "actively and unreservedly" to support the Union's common foreign and security policy and "to refrain from action contrary to the Union's interests."

Yet almost exactly the same wording is found in the Maastricht Treaty signed by a Conservative government in 1992. In that Treaty, the UK agreed "actively and unreservedly" to "refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union". All member states agreed to "ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions."

We believe that Britain's influence in the world is enhanced by having, where possible, a common EU approach to foreign policy issues. This has worked well on issues like the Middle East Peace Process, Iran, Zimbabwe and Burma. But because foreign and security policy go to the heart of what it is to be a nation state, there will be times - as with Iraq - when EU member states cannot agree a common approach.

The former Tory peer Lord Skidelsky said this of the draft text:

"In sum, I believe that the draft convention leaves foreign policy and defence firmly in the hands of national governments ... The Euro-sceptics will be able to sleep quieter in their beds, for the grand experiment of European unity will have broken down."
Lord Skidelsky (House of Lords, 9.9.03, col 205)

"Our country [would] no longer be able to use British soldiers to defend our interests abroad." - Iain Duncan Smith (Conservative Party conference, Bournemouth, 9.10.03).

This is also completely untrue. Britain will always retain the sole right to decide whether to deploy its armed forces, and there is nothing in the draft treaty that suggests otherwise.

The Government has been a strong supporter of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and welcomes a number of proposals in the draft treaty to help the EU continue to undertake operations of the kind witnessed in Bosnia, Macedonia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

We do not, however, support all the proposals in the Convention's text. We believe that a flexible, inclusive approach and effective links to NATO are essential to the success of ESDP. We will not agree to anything which is contradictory to, or would replace, the security guarantee established through NATO.

"It is a written constitution which, for the first time, explicitly enshrines the primacy of EU law." - Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram (House of Commons, 16.9.03, col 779)

Ever since, the UK joined the then EEC in 1973, EU law has had primacy over national law in those areas agreed to by member states. This principle was accepted by Parliament in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

Without primacy of EU law, implementing the Single Market and other key areas of EU work would be impossible. How else can the EU ensure that all member states carry out the decisions their governments have agreed to?

The implication of this claim, is that the Conservative Party is now in favour of reversing the principle of EU primacy - action which would make UK membership of the EU untenable.

"It is a constitution that sets up a European Presidency for the first time." - Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram (House of Commons, 16.9.03, col 779)

Pure myth. The European Union already has three Presidents - a President of the Commission, a President of the Parliament and a rotating six-monthly President of the Council. At the moment, each member state of the EU holds the Council Presidency once every seven-and-a- half years. With 25 members, it will be 12.5 years - a recipe for confusion and inconsistency, and one which will reduce the effectiveness of national governments within the EU.

The draft treaty therefore proposes to scrap the existing six-monthly Council Presidency to establish a full-time Chair of the European Council to give national governments a greater say in the EU's strategic direction.

Some Tories, including Timothy Kirkhope MEP, who claimed to speak for the Conservative Party on the Convention on the Future of Europe, sensibly back the idea as a way of enhancing the role of national governments.

And former Tory Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe supports the proposal. He said:

I believe it could be the most important change to emerge from this convention, because it will introduce a sense of continuous dynamic, and give some continuity to the work of the Council. This will, I hope, enable the President of the Council to oversee the work of other ministerial councils. It could well establish that institution as almost the key junction box of the entire system.
Lord Howe (House of Lords, 9.9.03, col 178)

Yet the official Conservative position rejects it even though by doing so they would, by default, tilt the balance of power within the EU in favour of the Commission.

"Europe would have a Minister for Foreign Affairs to conduct the EU's common foreign policy." - Conservative Party website (October 2003)

It is sensible to merge the two roles presently performed by the EU High Representative, Javier Solana, and the Commissioner for External Relations, Chris Patten. This should improve the coherence of EU external action. On issues where the EU can reach common agreement, having a single EU spokesman will ensure a stronger, more effective voice. It is important, however, that this representative is properly accountable to member states in the Council, so we welcome Article I-27.2 which states that "the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs shall contribute by his or her proposals to the development of the common foreign policy, which he or she shall carry out as mandated by the Council of Ministers".

"It is a constitution that sets up ... a European diplomatic service for the first time." - Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram (House of Commons, 16.9.03, col 781)

The draft treaty actually proposes the creation of a Joint External Action Service consisting of officials from the Commission, Council Secretariat (who currently serve for the EU's High Representative, Javier Solana) and seconded diplomats from member states. It is not a replacement for national diplomatic services, and the EU already has more than 150 posts abroad.

"There would be a European Public Prosecutor, which would extend the EU's power into the field of criminal law for the first time." - Conservative Party website (October 2003)

The EU has been involved in the field of criminal judicial co-operation since the Maastricht Treaty. The Government has long supported measures to ensure more effective action to tackle cross-border crime. We also backed minimum standards in criminal law at Amsterdam to protect British citizens facing criminal prosecution elsewhere in the EU. But we see no need for the creation of a European Public Prosecutor, and the draft treaty gives us a veto on whether or not it is established.

"The case for a referendum on the proposed European Constitution is overwhelming." - Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram (House of Commons, 16.9.03)

The idea that there should be a referendum on a draft text which member states have only just begun discussing in the intergovernmental conference is absurd. As former Tory foreign secretary Geoffrey Howe said:

"I am concerned ... that my own party ... has so misled itself that it is ready at this stage to commit itself to a referendum on anything that may emerge from the constitutional convention, not before the ink is dry but before half the wet ink has been put on it. We do not yet know what is going to emerge. It may prove to be an issue so dramatically different from those we have subscribed to in the past as to deserve that response. But I hope very much that my own party will consider carefully the wisdom of committing ourselves in advance to a referendum on this issue before we know what is going to emerge."
Lord Howe (House of Lords, 9.9.03, cols 179-180)