the constitution con
WORKERS, MAY 2004 ISSUE
One shady character to another, 18 July 2003: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, president of the European Convention having just presented the draft EU constitution to the scandal-wreathed President of the European Council, Silvio Berlusconi. D'Estaing achieved notoriety in France when it was discovered that in 1973, as Finance Minister, he had received $250,000 worth of diamonds from emperor Bokassa of the Central African Republic; so shunned was he in his own country that he became known as Monsieur X in French political circles until Brussels rescued him from obscurity to lead the body drawing up plans for a federal superstate. The British people have won an important victory by forcing Blair to allow a referendum on the European Union constitution. This is not, as described by its advocates, merely a treaty of consolidation and minor reforms designed to make the enlarged union work better. It certainly does consolidate a large number of power seizures from member states by the EU which we never had a chance to vote on — such as those in the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties. But also it adds a whole set of completely new and radical changes, and gives a new status to the EU by simply being a constitution.
A constitution is not an inter-governmental agreement like an ordinary treaty but a body of rules for an organisation, in this case a supranational body that is giving itself new powers and a new "single legal personality", which EU President Romano Prodi describes as a gigantic leap forward. Any member country that signed the treaty would be accepting it as the Constitution of the European Union. The treaty's Article IV-9 says, "The treaty establishing the constitution is concluded for an unlimited period."
The constitution would give the EU sweeping new powers. Article I-24.4 gives the European Council new powers to change the treaty without recourse to national governments — the so-called passerelle or escalator clause — so the EU could end national vetoes with no reference to national governments. Title 1s Article 17, the constitution's new flexibility clause, allows the EU to take appropriate measures to achieve its aims even where the constitution does not provide the necessary powers.
The end of vetoes
The constitution would remove national vetoes from 36 policy areas. Under the Maastricht treaty, the three-pillar system safeguarded the national veto in each of the three areas, Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), Common Security and Foreign Policy (CSFP) and Economy. The new constitution would abolish this system, merging JHA with CSFP. The veto would, for now, remain in the CSFP (although Signor Berlusconi has already proposed abolishing it), but would vanish almost completely from JHA.
The constitution would create a new, permanent President of the European Council, elected by members for a two-year term, who would be either a head of government or a head of state. It would also create the new post of EU Foreign Minister, and a new European Public Prosecutors Office.
The constitution would create new common policies, where no country would have a veto. Article I-40 creates a common EU defence policy. Article III-158 frames a common policy on asylum. Article III-168 creates a common immigration policy. Article III-171 sets out the details of legal harmonisation. Articles III-45-49 enshrine the free movement of capital, Articles III-69-79 an open market economy with free competition.
Almost everybody agrees that this constitution is of extraordinary importance. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said that the treaty was anything but minimalist — it creates the prerequisites for the completion of the unity of Europe, and, "This is the most important treaty since the formation of the European Economic Community." He also said, "Currency, security and constitution, those are the three essential components of the sovereignty of modern nation states." Prodi said, "The single market was the theme of the 80s; the single currency was the theme of the 90s; we must now face the difficult task of moving towards a single economy and political unity."
Legal revolution
Former Italian PM Lamberto Dini said, "The constitution is not just an intellectual exercise. It will quickly change people's lives." Former Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palace said, "This is a legal revolution without precedent." Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that the constitution is a historic step in the integration process. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said it created a new political age.
Peter Hain said on 22 March 2003, "Our task is nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new united Europe." And on 1 April 2003, "I am not saying it has no substantial constitutional significance, of course it will have."
Hain also reported that Blair had said, "The outcome of the convention is absolutely fundamental. It will define the relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe, the prospects for the euro, and it would last for generations." He said it was more important than Iraq. But by May 2003, Hain had been told what he should say: "This is more of a tidying-up exercise."
Blair has promised the EU that Britain would reach agreement on the treaty by June. But he has no mandate for signing a treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. None of the proposed changes appeared in any party's manifesto. No MP has any right to vote for this treaty. For parliament to pass a bill ratifying the constitution, authorising the government to sign this treaty on our behalf, would be ultra vires. Our sovereign national rights are not parliament's to give away.
The vast majority of the British working class have consistently demanded a referendum on the EU constitution so that we can vote against it. By standing firm we have gradually isolated Blair, and won a signal victory by forcing him to concede a referendum. We will win again when we vote down this EU constitution and keep our national sovereignty and independence.