EU Treaty - A Cynical Stitch-up

Have a quick read of this article on the EU Constitution or rather "Treaty".

Feartie and his sidekick the Millipede are still banging on about red lines and how big and courageous they have been standing up to all those johnny foreigners in the EU and how nothing will change.

This is a complete and utter mockery, all that has happened is that the Constitution has been obfusticated and rewritten as a "Treaty" to sound better. It will now be passed on the nod by Gordon tomorrow night and there will be little we can do about it now or in the near future. The Treaty is the old Constitution in all but name.

Our protection will of course will be the infamous "Red Lines" that have either already been effectively bypassed or can be got round like the infamous Maginot Line.

Even the The cross-party European Scrutiny Committee in its report finds that the new Reform Treaty is “substantially equivalent to the Constitutional Treaty”.

It also notes that the Government’s “red lines” are substantially the same as before, and questions whether the various safeguards for the UK will work.

It notes that the Treaty would

“change the legal relationship between the EU and national Governments”

particularly by giving the European Court of Justice new powers over criminal law and policing.

The key points from the report are

1) The new treaty is the same as the rejected EU Constitution

From Para 45:

* “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 cooperation 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 under the Reform Treaty. We look to the Government to make it clear where the changes they have sought and gained at the IGC alter this conclusion in relation to the UK.”

The Government has repeatedly insisted that “the constitutional concept has been abandoned – most recently in the Prime Minister’s press conference today. But the Committee’s Report notes that this is “misleading”.

* Para 50: “we do not consider that references to abandoning a ‘constitutional concept’ or ‘constitutional characteristics’ are helpful and consider that they are even likely to be misleading in so far as they might suggest the Reform Treaty is of lesser significance than the Constitutional Treaty. We believe that the Government must offer evidence if it is to assert that the processes are significantly different.”

2) The red lines won’t work

The report also publishes correspondence with ministers. Initially the Government claimed that it had secured an “opt out” from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In his statement on 25 June Tony Blair said, “It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs.” However, in a letter dated 31 July Europe Minister Jim Murphy admitted:

* “The UK specific protocol which the UK secured is not an ‘opt-out’ from the Charter. Rather, the protocol clarifies the effect that the Charter will have in the UK.”

The Committee warns that the European Court of Justice will simply sidestep attempts to limit the impact of the Charter. The report gives a number of examples:

* Para 58: “To take a possible example, the Working Time Directive contains provisions limiting the weekly hours of work of a worker to 48 hours per week, but with the possibility of agreements to waive those limits. As Article II-91 of the Charter provides that “every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours” we have some concern that following a reference to the ECJ from some member state, the Court might find that, in the light of the Charter, the [UK] derogation from the Directive allowing such waivers has to be interpreted more restrictively than before (i.e. before the Charter had legal effect).”

* Para 59: “We would be concerned that, following a reference to the ECJ from some other member states the Court might find that a measure adopted at EU level (such as Council Directive 200/43/EC) had to be given an extended interpretation in light of the wide grounds for prohibiting discrimination under the Charter.”

On criminal justice and policing the report notes that:

* Para 21: “We are concerned that removing the “distinction” between the EU and the EC in relation to matters currently dealt with under the third pillar (with the subsequent increase in the powers of the Commission to bring infraction proceedings and those of the ECJ to interpret and apply Union measures) will change the legal relationship between the EU and national Governments in a way that will increase their powers in relation to UK law. We call on the Government to set out the safeguards which they will expect to gain at the IGC to prevent this happening.”

On future treaty change the report notes that the new “simplified revision procedure”, - which would allow the treaties to be incrementally changed in future with no need for any further treaties - would lead to even less transparency and accountability in the way the EU is run:

* Para 42: “We are concerned that these provisions could allow substantial changes to be made without convening an IGC and so lead to even less transparency in the way the EU is governed, and less accountability of governments to their national parliaments. We ask the Government to outline what safeguards they would put in place to prevent this further erosion of transparency and accountability.”

Contrast this with the Official Foreign and Commonwealth Website and its pages on the EU Reform Treaty. This is supposed to be an unbiased website, but just try and find anything in it that does not toe the Labour Party Line, The only mention of cross-party European Scrutiny Committee's damning report is as follows

Minister for Europe, Jim Murphy, has responded to the report on the EU Intergovernmental Conference by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee:

"I welcome the publication of this report, just as I have welcomed opportunities to provide evidence to this Committee, to its House of Lords equivalent, and to the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am pleased to note the Committee's recognition that by defending its 'red lines' the UK has secured a specific deal different to that on offer to the other 26 EU member states."

Which must be one of the most cynical of replies to a report that rubbishes everything the government has said.

So there we have it Gordon Brown will go back on his party's word that we would have a referendum on the EU Constitution, as it is now a Treaty, and as such we don't need to be consulted. Perhaps he should listen to some of his EU buddies

The author of the Constitution, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, says: “All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”

The Spanish Prime Minister Jose Zapatero admits: “We have not let a single substantial point of the Constitutional 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.”

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel says simply: “The substance of the Constitution is preserved. That is a fact.”

This is one of the biggest lies that Labour has hoisted on us in recent years and will, I predict, become as infamous as Tony's whoppers about Iraq.

The only obvious solution to this may be to declare Independence in Scotland as soon as possible and hope we are not allowed into/thrown out of the EU, as even getting out of the EU is a tricky business nowadays.

If you want some more forthright and perhaps rather more forcefully reading try Polly the Euro-crazies: A cautionary tale Not for the nervous or easily shocked reader!


We must stand up to this cynical stitch-up | Camilla Cavendish - Times Online