He came, he saw, he surrendered. As promised, Gordon Brown turned up to the EU summit in Lisbon ready to hand over British sovereignty. But even then he couldn't do it

EU Constitution - Brown's shamefaced betrayal of Britain

WORKERS, NOV 2007 ISSUE

With his now trademark combination of bluster and bottle, Brown signed the Reform Treaty in Lisbon establishing a conveyor belt to ship power out of Britain and over to Brussels. First the bluster: no need for a referendum, he said. Then the bottle: he stayed away from the champagne celebration that followed, suspecting, rightly, that it wouldn't play well in front of his home crowd.

Earlier, Labour's wish to sweep the EU Reform Treaty out of the headlines took an unexpected blow. Though Brown wants Parliament to decide instead of holding a referendum, he may have opposition there too.

The House of Commons Select Committee on European Scrutiny reported in October: "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 co-operation 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."

This contradicts the government's feeble claim that the two are so different that it can tear up its manifesto commitment to a referendum.

The committee said, "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."

BBC Europe Editor Mark Mardell described the report as "damning", arguing that it "questions, perhaps even undermines, just about all the government's main claims for that controversial text ... it's rare for a Labour-dominated committee [9 out of 16 members] to produce a report quite so unhelpful to the government."

Picking apart the detail
Not only was the committee unimpressed with the main thrust of the government's position on the treaty, but it also picked apart the detail on which Brown's claims are made.

Why can't they look people straight in the eye? Gordon Brown at the Lisbon summit where he signed away British rights. Right, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates. Photo: Council of Europe

It noted, "Article I-6 of the Constitutional Treaty provided that 'the Constitution and law adopted by the institutions of the Union in exercising competences conferred on it shall have primacy over the law of the Member States'. This provision will not be taken over in the Reform Treaty but will be replaced by a Declaration. As the Declaration will provide that 'in accordance with the settled case-law of the EU Court of Justice, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case-law', no substantial difference from the effect of I-6 of the Constitutional Treaty seems intended, or is likely to result."

The committee also said, "We wish to emphasise that the proposals in the Reform Treaty raise a serious difficulty of a constitutional order in as much as they appear to impose, whether by accident or design, a legal duty on national parliaments 'to contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union' by taking part in various described activities. National parliaments, unlike the European Parliament, are not creations of the Treaties and their rights are not dependent on them. In our view, the imposition of such a legal duty on the Parliament of this country is objectionable as a matter of principle and must be resisted."

It noted that the Treaty contains a "ratchet clause", allowing member states to agree that decisions currently taken only by unanimous vote can in future be taken by majority vote. It also contains provisions allowing the EU to amend the objectives of most EU policies without any more controversial treaties. This is the basis of Brown's claim that the treaty is good because it ends structural arguments.

The report also warned that despite the government's claims that it had defended its "red lines" on foreign policy, labour legislation, the common law and the tax and social security systems, Britain may find itself effectively signed up to the provisions set out in the old Constitution.

The committee's chair, Labour MP Michael Connarty, said, "We believe that the red lines will not be sustainable. Looking at the legalities and use of the European Court of Justice, we believe these will be challenged bit by bit and eventually the UK will be in a position where all of the treaty will eventually apply to the UK." He added, "If they can't get these things firmed up, we think they will basically leak like a sieve."

Europe Minister Jim Murphy claimed, "the Charter does not create any new rights in the United Kingdom or other member state." But many of the rights in the Charter are either completely new or derived from documents to which Britain is not a signatory. Murphy claimed that the government had "very strong legal advice that the protocol on the Charter is watertight legally".

But, oddly enough, the government is refusing to publish this legal advice. Connarty noted, "The Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which the Government claimed originally to have an opt-out, is actually going to have effect in the UK."

Connarty also criticised the secretive nature of the drafting process for the Treaty, saying, "The European Council claims it wants to provide EU citizens with 'full and comprehensive information' during the IGC. However, the essentially secret drafting process conducted by the Presidency, combined with texts produced at the last moment before pressing for agreement, could not have been better designed to marginalise the role of national parliaments."

top