Some individuals in Britain not only think they know best. They know they know best. Such as those in Parliament and in the TUC, eagerly pushing the European Union project. They are the self-styled political elite who want us to leave everything to them as they plot the disappearance of Britain as a nation state and the end of any national control on the British economy. What they have in common is contempt for national parliaments, institutions and organisations and a fear of what happens when the people intrude into what they see as their own private discussions.
First they tried to stifle the debate on the European Constitution. Then, when they could no longer contain it, they attempted to corrupt the debate. First by trivialising it, saying (and you still hear this) that the constitution was just a matter of tidying up a few things. Then they tried to pretend (and still do) that it is just a question of economics, nothing political. As if the economic control of a country were not political.
 |
| Imperial ambitions: the signing ceremony for the unratified constitution was held, fittingly, in the Julius Caesar Room in Rome |
Dutiful Blair
Tony Blair dutifully signed the treaty in Rome on 29 October, along with the other 24 countries of the European Union. But it still needs to be ratified, and perhaps never will be. To date, at least ten countries have announced that they will be holding referenda on the constitution (although they have not said when: they are hoping for a more favourable climate) to determine whether to ratify it. The list of referendum countries includes Britain, Denmark and Poland, all countries considered problematic by Brussels, as well as Spain, France, the Netherlands and Ireland. Even Germany may hold a referendum, though it will need to change its own constitution to do it.
Meanwhile, the European Union behaves as if the constitution had been ratified, gathering more and more powers into Brussels. Increasingly the Europhiles have become desperate, and nowhere more so than in Britain.
The British working class have not been impressed by membership of the European Union, seeing us lose control of our fisheries, a private foreign takeover of many of our once-nationalised energy companies, and our industry decimated. The obvious strength of feeling against the euro has dissuaded the government from even trying out a referendum. And the stunning rejection last month of the EU-driven regionalisation plans for the North East (see Opinion article) has sent alarm waves throughout the pro-EU establishment in Britain and on the Continent.
Blair certainly took a risk by agreeing to a referendum on the constitution. The greater risk, though, would have been to attempt to proceed without one. Now we are approaching the final showdown. "Let battle commence," said Blair at the TUC in Brighton. It is indeed a battle — a battle of ideas the like of which we have not seen since Oliver Cromwell's lawyers pored over the long-dormant Magna Carta.
 |
| Smirking, Blair and Straw sign the European Constitution in Rome, 29 October. But it will take a referendum to ratify it. |
Power shift
But there is one major difference between now and the English Civil War. Then, power was shifted towards the people. The European Constitution, however, is being imposed on the people and takes power away from us. It diverges widely from what people want or need.
The European Constitution has its origins in 2001, when European heads of state met at Laeken, near Brussels, and set up the European Convention on the Future of Europe.
This convention started work in 2002. In charge was Giscard d'Estaing, a politician whose national career in France had been wrecked by disclosures involving an African country and a quantity of diamonds, and such leading lights as Silvio Berlusconi and the Irishman John Bruton. (Rewarded by being appointed as the EU's ambassador to the US, Bruton was overcome with joy that such a small country should find such a grand diplomatic role on the international stage.)
At the time, Europe Minister Peter Hain played down what he called "fears". Asked if the government would back a const-itution for Europe, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If it means a blueprint for a superstate then certainly not." But superstate is exactly what it does mean.
The stated aim of the convention sounded innocuous: to "simplify decision making" and make the European Union appear more transparent, democratic and efficient. Whatever the aim, it rapidly turned into the opposite of that. The resulting constitution merged all previous EU treaties — Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice — and endowed the EU with a single legal personality (Article VI), handing all political and economic control to the unelected European Commission. And it is hard to imagine anything less transparent, democratic or efficient than the European Commission.
| The Judiciary |
| The European Court of Justice is to become a kind of European Supreme Court, given added authority by the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Further judicial power will move to Brussels with the introduction of Euro Warrants and a European Public Prosecutor. |
| Fiscal and monetary policy |
| The unelected European Commission will draw up the budget, and the currency shall be the euro.Other countries will have the power to force Britain to adopt the euro, in the interests of the EU. Eurozone countries will have their monetary and fiscal policy dictated by the European Central Bank. |
Disgust
Even the pro-EU Labour MP Gisela Stuart, Britain's sole representative in the convention, was so disgusted by the experience that she said: "The convention was riddled with imperfections and moulded by a largely unaccountable political elite — many of whom see national parliaments as an obstacle." She told the Fabian Society's newsletter: "Not once in the 16 months I spent on the convention did representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of Europe want." Hers was to become a strong voice calling for a referendum.
The proposal is nothing less than a seizure of power to complete a series, with which our government and unions have been compliant and often complicit. It is about control of our work, our training, our research and development, our ability as a nation to produce both for our own needs and for export. Derek Simpson, Amicus general secretary, and his mates talk of a "democratic deficit", as though there were degrees of democracy up or down a sliding scale and reform could make it acceptable. But this seizure of power is a one-way street. As Gisela Stuart acutely observed, talking to the BBC's World at One: "The constitution only allows for powers to move towards the centre."
The constitution is to last for "an unlimited period" (Article IV-446). "A giant step forward," said Romano Prodi, outgoing president of the European Commission. And sweeping new powers that were not part of the original draft were added in. For our Prime Minister to have signed up without a mandate from the people is as treasonable today as Charles I was in the 17th century.
| Energy |
| There was no reference to energy policy in the Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht or Rome treaties, but the constitution says that the EU will take over control of energy. That could mean our North Sea Oil being controlled from Brussels "to ensure the security of energy supplies in the Union", as the constitution puts it. |
| Removal of national powers |
| According to Articles I and II, countries only have powers where the EU has not claimed them. And exclusive powers that only the EU can wield include: "customs union", or international trade; "the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market", or the whole of economic policy, including enforced privatisation; and "common commercial policy" — more or less everything to do with internal trade and business. |
Yet trade union members also bear a heavy responsibility. The content of the constitution and the threat it poses have not come out of the blue. Trade unionists have been in a better position than anyone to see the effects of Brussels economic control over our industries. The throttling effect of convergence, privatisation, liberalisation (which sounds so much nicer) and the Growth and Stability Pact has been felt in workplaces around the country.
Unions have no excuse for not knowing that there has already been a seizure of our industrial policy. Last year the European Court of Justice declared illegal the "golden share" option whereby the government retained strategic control of key industries and service providers. Blair and his cabinet accepted this ruling without a murmur, jeopardising the interests of BA, Rolls Royce, the utilities and defence companies.
And now the government claims its hands are tied, refusing to intervene to save the Corus steel plant at Scunthorpe. Yet all manufacture depends on steel, and now we are told there is a steel shortage and a shortage of recyclable metal — a field where Britain has led.
Where was the trade union protest when Blair signed away the British veto over industrial policy? Our manufacturing is now faced with 3,000 job losses a week, twice the rate as under Thatcher. And next year the EU's Consolidated Public Procurement Directive will enter law, ordering government departments to put projects over 100,000 up for auction among all 25 countries of the EU.
But where is the opposition from Amicus, the union with the deepest involvement in manufacture, and the rest of the TUC? At the end of October, Amicus issued a report showing that only 75% of our trains are made here, while in other European countries the corresponding figure is 100%. Astonishingly, instead of calling for all our trains to be made here, Amicus issued a call for other cories to surrender the right to build their own trains! The first real sign of commitment to manufacturing would be NO to the constitution and YES to protected investment for industries and utilities. This requires a proper debate in the unions that will force members, whatever their union position, to confront reality.
We can win
Industrial closure has set the government on a path of self-destruction. Some MPs may have lucrative futures abroad, but what of those who care about their seats at home? Simple: they must refuse to ratify this constitution. It is possible. To say that the British people will be cowed into line and that a supine parliament will inevitably ratify is defeatist, and underestimates the working class.
The British people stopped the euro even going to a referendum. The people of the North East stopped regionalisation dead. Now popular opposition to the constitution is overwhelming (apparently even in Sedgefield), and not because the government propaganda machine has been slow to swing into action. It is because the arguments against are so compelling, and the arguments for so weak.
| National defence |
| Under Article I-12, "The Union shall have competence to define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy." That means Eurocorps, the EU army, now getting experience in Afghanistan and offering itself to Sudan and the Caucasus. |
| Elections |
| We are all become "citizens of the European Union", whether we like it or not (Article I-10). The same part of the constitution grants the "right to vote and to stand as candidates in elections to the European Parliament and in municipal elections in the Member State of residence, under the same conditions as nationals of that State", so residence qualification has replaced nationality. MPs rich enough to afford a second home abroad are already eyeing up their chances. |
As for the best of the bunch, the eurosceptics, we should help them to gain more clarity and turn their scepticism into real opposition. It would be dangerous to understate the perils of the situation we are in. The sceptics have yet to realise that this constitution is not simply a further step on the road towards a superstate (we are already there in some respects); it is the final step. It does not merely increase the powers of the European Commission. It hands them control, the "sole power to initiate policy" in crucial areas. It aims to destroy, irrevocably, the sovereignty, independence and democratic control of the nation states.
In 1642 a parliamentary manifesto was sent to Charles 1 demanding complete political and military control. The king did what the government and the European Union will do come a referendum: he tried to play on their fears. "The proposition would destroy all rights and property," he said, warning that government "would end in a dark equal chaos of confusion".
Well, we know what happened to him — the people had an alternative policy for England. In the 21st century, we have our alternative vision: independent unions for an independent Britain.