TheEuropeanJournal

The Journal of the European Foundation

November 2004£3.00

&

The Challenge for the Conservative Party

Bill Cash, mp

Marian Tupy & Patrick Basham

Jacob Rees-Mogg • Owen Paterson, mp

Jean-Paul Floru • Struan Stevenson, mep

Paul Howard • Lord Blackwell

Lord Rees-Mogg • Sean Shortell

Dr Lee Rotherham • Dirk van Heck

7 Southwick Mews, London W2 1JG

Chairman: William Cash, MP

The European Foundation

www.europeanfoundation.org

Volume 11 Number 9

November 2004 Volume 11 Number 9

THE EUROPEAN JOURNALThe Journal of the European Foundation

The European Journal is published by The European Foundation. Views expressed in this publication are those of the authors themselves, not those of The European Journal

or The European Foundation. Feature articles and reviews should be sent to the Editor at the address above, if possible by e-mail or on 3.5" IBM compatible disc in MS Word.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means or stored in a retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher.

Contents

For reference, numbers on pages are as in the printed copy Original PDFArticles below are hyperlinked – use the hand icon, point and click Page Page

Solon: The Lunatics have Abandoned the Asylum 2 3

Up Front

Marian Tupy & Patrick Basham: US–EU: The Constitutional Divide 4 5

Bill Cash, MP: The Challenge for the Conservative Party 5 6

Jacob Rees-Mogg: ‘And they said Lord behold here are two swords…’ 12 13

Owen Paterson, MP: You Will Be Assimilated 12 13

Jean-Paul Floru: The Belgian Disease 14 15

Struan Stevenson, MEP: Should EU Vote for an Early Christmas for Turkey? 15 16

Obituary: Lord Hanson 16 17

Paul Howard: The Commission is Dead. Long live the Commission. 17 18

In Depth

Lord Blackwell: Constitution for Europe (Referendum) Bill 18 19

Lord Rees-Mogg: Constitution for Europe (Referendum) Bill 20 21

And Finally…

Sean Shortell: Facts 22 23

Letters to the Editor 23 24

Dr Lee Rotherham: reviews Europe Recast: A History of the European Union 24 25by Desmond Dinan

Dirk van Heck: reviews Off Whitehall by Derek Scott 25 26

Sean Shortell: Valletta City Guide 26 27

Dr Lee Rotherham: Chunnel Vision – Target Acquisition 28 29

Editor: Annunziata Rees-Mogg

For subscription and advertising enquiries, please contact the editorial office.A subscription form is printed on the inside back cover.

Publisher: The European Foundation

7 Southwick Mews, London W2 1JGTelephone: +44 (0) 20 7706 7240

E-mail: euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk

ISSN 1351–6620

2Jump to Contents

Solon -so’lon, n. a famous lawgiver of Athens (594 b.c.),

one of the Seven Sages; a sage; a wisacre.

The European Journal has covered the development ofthe European Constitution more extensively than any

other publication and will continue to do so. It is essential toget across to the national media, as Bill Cash recently did onRadio 4’s Today Programme, the message that our nation isbeing undermined not only by the threat of the Constitutionbut also by the existing Treaties and that the way to regaincontrol of our affairs is by enacting a Sovereignty of ParliamentBill and being prepared to threaten withdrawal from the EU inaid of renegotiation.

On 25 October, the start of the week in which the EuropeanConstitution was signed, the Home Secretary signed away theUK’s veto in asylum and immigration policy. As in so manyother areas of policy, the pass had been sold at Maastricht. Thecommitment made at Maastricht, to regard asylum andimmigration policy as matters of common interest, was thendeveloped in the Treaty of Amsterdam, for which the lastConservative Government must take significant responsibility,in a wide-ranging set of mandatory Articles. These included aprocedural ratchet, in Article 73o, which committed theCouncil, five years after Amsterdam entered into force, to “takea decision with a view to providing for all or parts of the areascovered by this Title to be governed by the procedure provided forin Article 189b [codecision with qualified majority voting].”

This procedural ratchet became part of Article 67 of theTreaty on European Community following the Treaty of Nice in1999, and it is this Article that was the Treaty base for theCouncil of Ministers’ decision on 25 October this year. Theform of words; “with a view to” and “all or parts”, gave theGovernment a potential basis for resisting the loss of the veto.Such resistance had previously been official policy, both at theConvention on the Future of Europe, as evidenced by theGovernment’s draft amendments, and later, as stated by theMinister for Europe on the floor of the House. However, theEuropean Constitution provides unequivocally for QMVthroughout the area of asylum and immigration. Byimplication, the shift in Government policy must have takenplace following the final negotiations on the Constitution inJune 2004, when it became clear that the Government had lostthis battle. Given the Government’s prior commitment toratifying the Constitution, abandonment of the veto thenbecame politically unavoidable.

The Home Secretary has argued that the UK will have “thebest of both worlds” once the veto has gone, since the UK willretain its opt-out and will be able to drive the reform of asylumpolicy. This is a cloak for a negotiating failure. In fact, the

Government had previously been committed to opting into theCommon European Asylum System – the UK has already optedinto four Regulations and Directives, unlike both Ireland andDenmark. Now, the Government expresses caution aboutendorsing further policies that are part of the System. This is asa result of the loss of the veto.

The loss of the veto also means that the UK will lack thenegotiating leverage necessary to drive reform of asylumpolicy. Further, it means that the UK will bear some of thepractical consequences of the Common Asylum Systemnotwithstanding any use of the opt-out, since people who havebeen granted asylum enjoy the right of free movement withinthe EU, including the UK. Any changes made to the fourCommon Asylum System provisions that the UK has alreadyopted into may be made by QMV, thus potentially changing theUK’s asylum laws against the will of our Government andParliament, again notwithstanding the opt-out.

The only way in which national control can be restored inthis area so as to enable Conservative policies on asylum andimmigration to be put into effect is to renegotiate the Treatyprovisions in this area so as to eliminate not only theprocedural ratchet that was put in place at Amsterdam but alsothe relevant provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht, whichcommit the UK to compliance with the Refugee Convention of1951, from which the Conservative Party has pledged towithdraw the United Kingdom. As Bill Cash’s 1996 Blue Paper:A Response to the Government’s White Paper on the Treaty ofAmsterdam said:

“The Government accepted last year that areas covered by TitleVI of the Maastricht Treaty, Justice and Home Affairs – freedomof movement, safety of persons, and the police – are ‘at the heart ofnational sovereignty’. The Treaty simply generates confusion onthis, as I pointed out to the House of Lords. Charles Wardle, MP,former Minister for Immigration, has proved the need forrenegotiation. Astonishingly the White Paper fails even to repeatwhat the Government has already assured Parliament when itsaid that it will not give way on the issue of border controls.Renegotiation is vital or the Conference must be vetoed.”

It is time we acknowledged that in order to implementConservative policies we will have to admit that the Party wentwrong in the past and promise a policy of reasserting nationalcontrol before the next general election. Recent spats in theHouse of Commons have not made this sufficiently clear. Thenecessary clarity is contained in the pamphlet that takes upmuch of this issue of the European Journal, ‘The Challenge forthe Conservative Party: The Future for Britain and Europe’.

The Lunatics have Abandoned the Asylum

Name (in capitals): Title:

Address (in capitals):

Postcode:

Tel: e-mail:

I enclose a donation of £

Dear Reader,

As a subscriber, you have been the staple of our fundraising for the last eleven years. It is thegenerosity of people like you that enables us to meet our annual budget so that we can continueto provide in-depth comment and analysis on how the European Union affects all our lives.

The EU is encroaching more and more aspects of British independence. The Foundation isresolutely committed to fighting the battle against Brussels on your behalf. With the EUConstitution looming, and the loss of 63 vetoes that accompanies it, a donation from you today isessential to ensure we win this arduous fight. Simply fill in the form below and return it to us atour new address.

Please feel free to contact me directly by email or phone if you have any questions regardingdonations.

Thank you for your continued support.

Yours faithfully,

Sara RainwaterFundraising Co-ordinator

Please complete this form in block capitals. Please made cheques payable to The EuropeanFoundation and post to our new address:

The European Foundation

7 Southwick Mews

London W2 1JG

✂

4

The European Journal Up Front November 2004

Jump to Contents

US–EU:The Constitutional Divideby Marian Tupy and Patrick Basham

All written constitutions areproducts of their time. They reflect a

specific political culture, the strength ofdifferent political interests, and theparticular historical concerns of the authorsthemselves. As President Bush, sworn todefend a Constitution written over 200years ago, met in Washington with EUleaders finalising a Constitution of theirown, the respective documents reflect thedifferences between American and Euro-pean political cultures.

The American Constitution is a productof the 18th century Enlightenment. Its over-riding concern is the relationship betweenindividual freedom and coercive govern-ment power. Hence, the government’spowers are delegated, enumerated, and thuslimited. The authority that governmentenjoys is derived from the people, who can,in theory, reclaim that authority.

In contrast, the recently drafted EUConstitution is a product of 20th centurywelfare-state socialism. The official goal wasto design a simpler, more efficient, moredemocratic Europe that is “closer to itscitizens”. However, the goal was neverseriously pursued and, consequently, neverachieved. As a result, the new Constitutionwill have serious negative implications forliberal parliamentary democracy and theprinciples of self-government.

The EU Constitution makes Europeangovernment more, not less, remote from thecitizens. The EU’s operations are expanded,not streamlined, and its bureaucracy ismade more complex, not simpler. There areno cuts to the EU’s 97,000 pages ofaccumulated laws and regulations. The EU’spowers are supposedly limited in thisdocument but there is an escape clause incase the Brussels-based bureaucracy everfeels boxed in by popular sentiment. Thedecisions in Brussels are final and EU lawssupersede laws made by national parlia-ments.

The EU Constitution ignores the

delineation of government powers for bothideological and practical reasons. Ideo-logically, the federalist European Left viewsgovernment as the initiator of action, whichis why it favours a government uninhibitedby individual freedom. By contrast, mostAmericans view government as a facilitatorof actions initiated by private individuals.That is why individualism is incompatiblewith the welfare state and that is why it isrejected by European elites as alien to theEuropean political system.

In practical terms, the drafters of the EUConstitution made a conscious decision toleave the exact parameters of federal gov-ernment power as ambiguous as possible.This is in order to provide for the expansionof EU power held centrally in Brussels. Ifthe EU is ever to approximate the stature ofthe United States in international affairs andglobal economics, the Brussels-led reason-ing goes, centralised decision-making mustincrease. Hence, the pessimism of thoseseeking to overturn the EU’s longstanding‘democratic deficit’.

The EU Constitution is also full of dan-gerously vague, politically correct phraseol-ogy, including references to “sustainabledevelopment”, “solidarity between gener-ations”, and “the social market economy”.Moreover, the EU Constitution is alsopreoccupied with the codification of welfareentitlements, i.e. redistributive claims thatindividuals and/or groups make against oneanother. For example, some of theprovisions in the European Charter ofFundamental Rights, such as the right to ajob, can only be guaranteed through thetransfer of vast resources from somecitizens to others.

When the original Charter was signed, itwas considered a non-binding statement ofintent. That is why the British, whosepolitical system most closely resembles theAmerican, were willing to consent to it. TheEU Constitution makes the Charterprovisions compulsory in the manner of the

American Bill of Rights. However, the twoare fundamentally different. With theexception of the 7th Amendment, whichprovides Americans with the right to a trialby jury, the Bill of Rights stipulates onlythose rights individuals possess vis-à-visthe state. It says nothing about entitlementsthat some people may receive at others’expense.

The formal adoption of the EUConstitution will result in one of twopossible outcomes. Either the constitutionalwelfare provisions will be discretelyignored, because of their prohibitive costand negative effect on European economicgrowth, or their enforcement will lead toeven greater central government regulationof European social and economic life.

In the former outcome, the entire EUConstitution will be devalued by overtlybroken promises. The latter outcome willrelegate the European economy to per-manent second-class socio-economic statusand thus postpone, perhaps indefinitely, theEuropean dream of eventually rivaling Am-erican financial wealth, cultural influence,and political power.

Alain Lamassoure, a French delegate tothe EU Constitutional Convention, states,“Our work compares favourably with thatof the Philadelphia Convention.” On thecontrary, the EU’s technocratic socialengineers confused their overly elaborateconstitutional designs with the simple yetenlightened principles that anchor theAmerican Constitution and underpin thevery success that the EU exists to emulate.

This article was published in the WashingtonTimes, 25 June, 2003, http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-05-03.html

Marian Tupy is assistant director of theProject on Global Economic Liberty andPatrick Basham is senior fellow in the Centerfor Representative Government at the CatoInstitute. See www.cato.org for more details.

… news in briefHungary announces withdrawal from Iraq

The new Prime Minister of Hungary, the former Komsomolchik FerencGyurcsany, has announced that the 300 Hungarian soldiers in Iraq willbe withdrawn by March 2005. “It is our duty to stay there until theelections,” he said, “but it will be impossible to stay much longer than that.”The mandate of the Hungarian soldiers in fact expires in December.

Budapest said that it would announce its decision after the US elections,and so it has done. The conservative opposition has repeatedly called forthe troops to be withdrawn: the Iraq war, and Hungary’s participation inthe occupation, are extremely unpopular. The Dutch Government hassaid it will send a contingent of 1,350 soldiers to Iraq. The Hague has saidthat this will be the last contribution it makes to post-war Iraq. [LeFigaro, 4th November 2004]

5

November 2004The European Journal Up Front

Jump to Contents

The Challenge for the Conservative Party:The Future for Britain and Europe

by Bill Cash, MP

To win, a political party has to be clear and consistent, with itsprinciples as the foundation of its existence. The bigger the

issue, the greater the need for clarity. When clarity is there, thevoters’ perceptions and their votes run together for the winning.

In his novel, Coningsby, Disraeli sums up the state of theConservative Party at the time of the Tamworth Manifesto and therepeal of the Corn Laws – an issue of defining, historic significancefor the Party as were, later, Home Rule, Tariff Reform, FranchiseReform, Appeasement and Trade Union Reform under MargaretThatcher. “There was a great deal of shouting,” he writes, “aboutConservative principles, but the awkward question naturally arose –what are the principles we are supposed to conserve?” Lack of clarityin the application of those principles to these watershed issues led toelectoral disaster until they were resolved. In each case, what hadbeen the minority view in the Party became the accepted view, andvictory followed.

So it is with Europe. Indeed, it is a paramount issue because it isabout who governs. Thus it is about the voter and the vote itself –our system of democratic consent and parliamentary sovereignty.The national interest lies at its heart and, as Disraeli also said; “theTory Party is a national Party or it is nothing”. Not “nationalistic,” but“national” – or nothing – as strong a word as can be used.

Well over 60 per cent of our laws are now made by the EuropeanUnion. They already affect every aspect of our daily lives – evenbefore the European Constitution is taken into account. They derivefrom the existing Treaties. They are not working, either for Europeor for the United Kingdom: much of the eurozone has low growthand high unemployment, while our businesses are being strangledby over-regulation. There needed to be a referendum on theEuropean Constitution and, on present reckoning, it will berejected, but the problem of the existing Treaties will remain. It isessential that they be radically reformed.

This is where we need clarity, as I explained in the House ofCommons on 9 September 2004. We cannot merely confine our

renegotiation of the Treaties and laws to foreign aid, fishing andunspecified powers. We must resolve clearly the political structureof Europe itself, returning power to the voter and to Parliament.Integration under Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice must beunravelled, and the market itself reformed, to meet theopportunities of global trade, not be hidebound by theprotectionists in Europe. We must face the future with confidenceand experience and be prepared to take enterprising risks, as wehave down the centuries.

We need, therefore, to commit ourselves clearly to associatedstatus (as I argued in my pamphlet Associated, not Absorbed, (2000))not to integration in a rigid, institutional framework. The Economiston 13 June 2003 concluded from a poll of electors that; “If that policy[associated membership] became explicit Tory policy, they mightattract 8% more votes [in a General Election].” Now, on 25September 2004, The Economist has acknowledged in its survey ofthe EU that association agreements may indeed be part of the futureof the EU.

But surely, some argue, Europe is not at the upper end of voters’concerns. This is simply because it has been badly explained. TheBBC and others will not treat the subject objectively and the realconnections between Europe and virtually every other area ofpolicy are not presented to the electorate. When the penny drops,Eurorealist instincts become votes. In the meantime, we have theludicrous spectacle of the federalist Liberal Democrats being giventop rating on Europe in the Populus poll for The Times on 28September 2004, according to Peter Riddell. This when every otherpoll rejects the euro and the European Constitution by over 60 percent, and has done so for years.

As for Labour, Derek Scott and Stephen Wall, both formeradvisors to Tony Blair, have revealed that the battle between Blairand Brown greatly turns on the economics of the European issueand who governs. Brown and Jack Straw pushed Blair into thereferendum on the Constitution at the same time as Straw conceded

6

The European Journal Up Front November 2004

Jump to Contents

the argument which Richard Shepherd and I had fought with him inthe House of Commons for six months about the supremacy ofParliament over international and European treaties. MichaelHoward has recently, and rightly, asserted this principle as respectsthe Common Fisheries Policy. Yes, it can take much more than aunilateral slogan to turn the ship of state. Now is the time, with theTUC last month refusing to back the “Yes” campaign, to drive thewedge deeper between Blair and Brown on the seminal issue ofEurope and parliamentary government.

So let us have clarity – promise to return real power across theboard to the voters and Parliament – meet the challenge with clarityand self-confidence and, with real determination, threaten with-drawal if the other Member States refuse to listen and act accord-ingly. The national interest and the future of the Conservative Partyare at stake. If this great, historic issue is grasped in a statesmanlikemanner, we will at last be on course to win. Action today.

Fundamental Questions & Answers

What has Europe done for us?

The Common Market and its successor organisations havebrought down trade barriers in Europe and provided an

attractive alternative model to communism during the Cold War.Some studies suggest that the UK would be better off if we hadnever joined – we must now renegotiate so that we avoid itsdamaging aspects. Contrary to an oft repeated assertion, the EU hasnot been the reason for peace and security – this came from NATO.A fundamental problem arising from the EU has been its insistenceon an undemocratic system and lack of accountability, and onEuropean economic government and its damaging social agenda.

How important is this European Constitution?

Fundamentally important. It would subsume nationalconstitutions, expanding and setting in stone the old model of a

political European Union. It revokes the existing treaties and lawsand reapplies them under the primacy of a European Constitutionitself and the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Is it a constitution of a club or the Constitution of astate?

It is called a ‘Constitution for Europe’ and has thecharacteristics of a classical state Constitution. Jack Straw

recently admitted that it would take precedence over theconstitutional laws of Member States:

Mr Cash: On primacy, he is of course referring to article 1-5(a). Inote that the word ‘constitution’ was eliminated from the previoustext. The text now makes it clear that, ‘the Constitution and lawadopted by the Union’s institutions in exercising competencesconferred on it, shall have primacy over the law of the MemberStates.’

Does the Foreign Secretary deny that the expression ‘the law ofthe Member States’ includes the constitution of the United King-dom?

Mr Straw: Of course it does

What will happen if we vote ‘No’ in the referendum?

The Constitution will be stopped in its tracks, thoughthere may be attempts to hold new referendums in some

countries. If Britain alone votes ‘No’, this will set us on a path torenegotiating our relationship with the EU. If several countries vote‘No’, then the Member States will have to start looking at different,looser models for reforming the EU. If there is a ‘No’ vote, then there

will have to be a radical renegotiation of the existing treaties. It is thestructure which is wrong, including enhanced co-operation, whosesuperficial attractions would merely put us in the outer ring of theconstitutional wheels of the European Union. This is why we needassociated status, to which reference will be made below.

Might our EU partners not agree to British demands forrenegotiation?

If our demand for renegotiation were backed by a real threat ofwithdrawal, it would certainly create circumstances in which it

could be accepted. The balance of trade between the UK and therest of the EU puts us in a strong negotiating position. There areother Member States that would back us if we led the way.

What else can we do?

Enact my two Bills: the Sovereignty of Parliament Bill, whichaffirms the principle that UK judges must obey UK statutes

even if they expressly conflict with EU law; and the Memoranda ofEuropean Derivation Bill, which provides for the identification ofthe EU origins of relevant domestic legislation – bringing realtransparency to the legislative process. We should also adopt apolicy of associated status, as set out in my earlier pamphlet,Associated, not Absorbed, which The Economist, on 13th June 2003,suggested would be worth an 8% share of the vote to theConservative Party in a General Election.

Do we need to agree to the Constitution for the sake ofour relations with our neighbours?

No. The Iraq crisis split the EU down the middle – it is wrong tocharacterise it as Europe v America. That rivalry, however, is

the path down which the Constitution would take us. Political unionwould undermine our democracy and is not good for Europe. Wemust take a positive approach, namely that it is not anti-European,but pro-democracy, pro-economic freedom, pro-security; whereasEurope is not working, with low growth and high unemployment.The reason the UK economy is reasonably sound, but could bebetter, is despite Government policy on EMU and the ERM.

Does the Constitution return powers to the MemberStates?

No, it consolidates and extends the powers of the EU. No powerhas ever been returned to Member States and there are no

examples of subsidiarity – the principle that action should be takenat EU level only if this is the most effective level – in practice.

How important is it that powers be returned – whetheror not there is a ‘No’ vote in the referendum?

It is essential to restoring the strength of our democracy. It isalso economically vital as de-regulation, if conducted at the

European level, will take too long to be effective in the context ofEurope’s inevitable relative economic decline in the light of theacquis communautaire and the refusal to make necessary changes tothe existing treaties. The issue of the return of powers to ourparliamentary system of government is also relevant to the lowturnout in our elections because they see their Parliamentemasculated and they feel they cannot make changes.

Is it inevitable that we will join the euro?

No – and it is essential that we don’t. The Constitution wouldbring the prospect of joining closer by tightening the noose of

Economic and Monetary Union.

Would the European Constitution give us more rights?It would give us different rights – and less freedom. The Charter of

7

November 2004The European Journal Up Front

Jump to Contents

Fundamental Rights would not give us more rights, it would justgive the ECJ jurisdiction over our rights – taking that power awayfrom our national institutions.

What is the Conservative Party’s role in all this?

The role of the Conservative Party is to represent the nationalinterest. This means helping to ensure a ‘No’ vote in the

referendum and planning for action ahead of the result such asputting forward proposals with a view to radically renegotiating theTreaties and preserving our democracy. This means abandoning thecomponent parts of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice andreforming the Single Market. This would include adopting mySovereignty of Parliament Bill, reasserting the supremacy ofParliament, as a matter of principle, irrespective of whether itinvolves an inconsistency with the European Communities Act –and insisting that judges give effect to inconsistent Acts ofParliament. This would involve repeal or amendment of the existingTreaties and laws and aspects of the role of the ECJ. In other words,we would be insisting on the democratic rights of the voters in ageneral election through their representatives in Parliament.

Let Battle be Joined

“Let battle be joined”, the Prime Minister declared, as heannounced the referendum on the Constitution for Europe.

The battle is coming; a great battle – a battle for Britain and Europe.Tony Blair has already made it clear that his main weapon in thisbattle will be negative spin, purporting to expose ‘Euromyths’ – theallegation that we, as Eurorealists, are making it all up.

We who champion a ‘No’ vote do so because we want to save ournation. Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson want a ‘Yes’ vote becausethey want to destroy our country by transforming it in their ownimage. Their ‘vision’ is more important to them than our nationalinterests. Most of the British public already know they can’t trustMandelson and Blair. If Labour are allowed to continue inGovernment, these are the men who will be running the ‘Yes’campaign, which we have already had a taste of in the recent WhitePaper on the European Constitution – a propagandist documentpacked with dubious assertions. It is highly significant that the TUChas refused to support the ‘Yes’ vote campaign.

Rearguard Action

The dissembling of the White Paper is just the most recentmanifestation of deceit from a profoundly deceitful Govern-

ment. Tony Blair’s sentimental fondness for the EU is based on thepolitical strategy of New Labour: socialism by the back door. Listento Blair’s own policy advisers: the proposals of the Convention onthe Future of Europe “give us most of what we want,” said RogerLiddle, Number 10’s former chief policy adviser on Europe. “I don’tthink he has got any political grasp of what has driven the EuropeanUnion over the past 50 years and where it is going,” said Derek Scott,the Prime Minister’s former chief economic policy advisor; “PeterHain … was all over the bloody place” at the Convention. Mr Scottalso said, “I don’t think Gordon Brown is opposed to the euro in theway that I’m opposed to it. My own feeling is that he hasn’t actuallythought through the economics.”As David Heathcoat-Amory, the Conservative Parliamentaryrepresentative at the Convention, said, the British Government wasnot doing enough in the early stages. The pass was sold back then,and the later, rearguard action was more spin than substance.Although the referendum was forced on them, New Labour hasconsistently sold out the national interest.

The Empire Strikes Back?

One of the most disingenuous claims that the Governmenthas made is that the Constitution will give powers back to

national parliaments. It is a claim that Number 10 had to make,since some of Labour’s most senior MPs, including Gordon Brownand Gisela Stuart, who sat on the Convention on the Future ofEurope, have insisted publicly that powers should be returned. Infact, the Constitution, as well as strengthening and formalising thelegal and constitutional framework of the Union and subsumingthe Constitutions of its Member States, removes the national veto insome 40 policy areas which are vital to our national interest.

The “right of referral” in the Protocol on the Role of Nationalparliaments, meanwhile, merely gives national Parliaments thechance to say that they think a draft piece of EU legislation doesn’tcomply with the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a speciousnotion that New Labour uses to claim that the EU “adds value”. Ithas never been effective because it has never had any teeth. TheConstitution wouldn’t give it any.

Rather, the danger is that the Constitution would take things inthe opposite direction. It would apply the co-decision procedure,under which the European Parliament agrees legislation with theCouncil, far more extensively than at present. In the 1999-2004session, a practice of first-reading agreements has developed inrelation to the co-decision procedure. These ‘fast-track’ agreementsbetween the two institutions provide for the rubber-stamping of EUlegislation and short-circuit the process of scrutiny in nationalparliaments, as the European Scrutiny Committee has indicated inits cross-examination of Jack Straw on 15 September 2004.

Honour Bound

One of the most immediate problems in the EU is thevolume of red tape piling administrative costs onto business;

and the British, “the good boys of Europe”, maintain a proud recordof implementing it all. My pamphlet with Bill Jamieson, of March2004, The Strangulation of Britain and British Business, showed thatthe six biggest regulatory burdens in Britain emanated from the EU,with a combined cost by July 2004 of around £23 billion. A recentstudy by the think-tank Civitas1 estimates the current cost of EUregulation at £6.33 billion a year. Yet the Constitution will donothing to remedy this – it will only make the problem worse. Theacquis communautaire, the ever-expanding body of EU law (with itsdamaging impact on Britain and British business), will be preservedunder Article IV-3 of the Constitution and added to by future EUlegislation made under the Constitution.

Reclaiming powers from Europe, or indeed any national attemptat de-regulation involving EU legislation (and any meaningfulattempt to deregulate would necessarily involve EU legislation), willnot be facilitated but rather frustrated by this Constitution and itsfounding statement of the supremacy of EU law, which will preventany national legislation from touching on the now vast areas of EUlegislative power.

This must not be allowed to happen. Instead, the currentsafeguards must be strengthened and used effectively. Digby Jonesof the Confederation of British Industry recently accused MPs ofbeing “asleep on the job”, yet the CBI has made no representations atall to the Commons’ European Scrutiny Committee, as I indicatedin my article in The Times on 25 August 2004. One is left with theclear impression that the attack was based on the CBI’s failure tomake a difference at the early stages, both with the Government andin Brussels. Doing it their way has not worked (despite my call at the

8

The European Journal Up Front November 2004

Jump to Contents

time of the Single European Act in 1986 that trade associationsmust work closely with the UK Parliament) but rather than lookingat the alternatives, they have attempted to shift the blame onto MPs.If British business is ever to be relieved of the growing tangle ofasphyxiating Euro rules, bodies like the CBI must lobby morewidely at Westminster and start to take the radical alternativesseriously – such as my Sovereignty of Parliament Bill and theproposal for associated status.

Text Up

People on both sides of the debate agree that something hasto be done. Europe’s relative decline has become inevitable. The

European Commission’s own review, of December 2002, forecast a44 per cent decline between 2000 and 2050 in the share in globalGDP of the 15 Member States that belonged to the EU at that time(‘the EU 15’). The entry of 10 new Member States last May will nothelp: their economic vigour since 1990 has been largely a result ofcasting off communism, whilst their demographic future is evenbleaker than that of the EU 15; some have birth rates well belowreplacement level. Having just returned from Malaysia and China Ifound it clear that there are massive opportunities for us in theglobal market place unless we are inhibited by protectionism.

The only effective way to mitigate this decline is by radicalmeasures to improve efficiency and productivity – includingserious de-regulation. As Michael Howard has said, “the alternativeto EU transformation is not the status quo – it is certain economicdecline.” 2 We must take the necessary practical steps with sufficientpolitical will to achieve change and make the necessary difference.Yet the Union and its Member States are set not to cut the ties thatbind, but to be hamstrung by a vast constitutional framework,presided over by an overbearing supreme court of Europe.

The Constitution betrays the historic potential of the Europeanproject. It embodies the Euro elite’s failure to keep pace with events.Expansion to the east must entail fundamental change. The defeatof communism should mean the defeat of statism, not its creepingadvancement; the reaffirmation of the free-market, liberal model ofpolitical economy, not its erosion; and the strengthening of theWest, not its growing division.

Courting Disaster

If the European Constitution is adopted in the UK, ourdemocracy will be subordinated to the European Court of

Justice. Once the Constitution is in effect, that document willbecome the highest source of law throughout the Union. It will beinterpreted by the European Court of Justice, whose interpretationswill be impossible for Member States to challenge. The introductionof universal appeal rights to the ECJ, the manner in which the EU’sprospective accession to the European Convention on HumanRights has been prescribed, and the ECJ’s wider prospectivejurisdiction based on the new Charter of Fundamental Rights willmake it a fully-fledged supreme court of Europe, which determinesthe extent of its own powers regardless of Member Stateparliaments and governments. There are issues, as I said when I wasShadow Attorney General, which must be tackled by the appeal oramendment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Swingeing Sixties

Furthermore, Article I-5a of the Constitution makes theprinciple of the supremacy of EU law a founding principle of

the Union. The Government protests that there is nothing new in

this, yet a number of national courts, including our own, haveinsisted that nothing in the existing European Treaties may touch orqualify ultimate national sovereignty. The principle that Europeanlaw is superior to national law was made up by the ECJ in the 1960sand, although this was incorporated at accession, it was limited tothe then existing functions. These have now been outrageouslyextended; hence the need for the existing Treaties to be radicallyrenegotiated. As one of our Law Lords, Lord Scott, hasunderstatedly remarked, “It is an oddity that European law will haveprimacy over member states’ domestic law [under the EuropeanConstitution] even where the ECJ does not have jurisdiction3 .”

Under the European Constitution, therefore, election manifestosthat conflict with judgements of the European Court will beoverridden, even if a government is elected on the basis of thatmanifesto. This strikes at the heart of our democracy andparliamentary sovereignty. There is growing discontent in Britainabout the amount of power that our domestic judges have. TheConstitution would give infinitely more power to an already over-mighty court in Luxembourg – and we could not legislate to get anyof that power back.

Taxing Time

‘Tax harmonisation’, the standardisation of tax rates acrossthe EU, is often called a Eurosceptic scare story, but it is in fact

already happening. A recent pamphlet 4 showed that the stealthyharmonisation of corporation tax by the European Court of Justicehad already cost the UK Treasury around £10 billion – no wonderGordon Brown has adopted an increasingly Eurosceptic tone sincebecoming Chancellor. The rapid development of ECJ case law inthis area has also had the effect of undermining legal certainty forboth business and the Inland Revenue and has interfered with theUK’s network of double taxation treaties. The issue illustrates theimpotence of New Labour in Europe. As the pamphlet’s author says,“the Government seems to be hoping for the best” – as if wringingtheir hands would make the problem go away.

The Constitution paves the way, however, for the big bogeyman.The Government would like us to believe that the tax provisions ofthe draft Constitution were removed, in a victory for the BritishTreasury. In fact, whilst express references to tax were indeedremoved, the economic and financial provisions of the Constitutiongrew in scope during the final negotiations. Professor TimCongdon, a top economist, believes that the only plausible meaningof the main Article under Economic Provisions is taxharmonisation, as in the standardisation of overall fiscal policy: “IfArticle III-71 … has any substance, it is that the determination offiscal policy guidelines is to be centralised under Ecofin just asmonetary policy [for members of the euro] has been centralised underthe European Central Bank.” In fact, the European Court of Justicehas already seriously invaded the realm of tax.

Can’t Control that EMU

The provisions of the Constitution also tighten the nooseof Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in other ways.

Under Article III-91, non-euro Member States such as the UK are tolose their voting rights in a number of areas, including:recommendations made on the basis of multilateral surveillanceand measures relating to excessive deficits; decisions establishingcommon positions on issues of particular relevance for EMUwithin international financial institutions and conferences; andmeasures to ensure unified representation within the international

9

November 2004The European Journal Up Front

Jump to Contents

financial institutions and conferences.These exclusions might be fair enough were it not for the fact that

non-euro Member States, such as the UK, are nevertheless subjectto the EU laws that go with euro membership. The Constitutionstrengthens these, providing that; “the Member States shallcoordinate their economic and employment policies withinarrangements as determined by Part III, which the Union shall havecompetence to provide”5 . The European Council will lay downguidelines for economic policy under Article I-14(1) and aDeclaration annexed to the Treaty establishing the Constitutionstates that greater co-ordination of economic policy amongMember States could raise economic growth potential. The Stabilityand Growth Pact, which was endorsed by Kenneth Clarke and JohnMajor, and which I opposed at the time, has proved a massivefailure.

Of course, whether co-ordinating economic policy would in factimprove growth potential in the EU depends on what the policiesare. There is a danger that the whole EU could end up with theeconomic problems of France and Germany as the economy ofEurope marches “valiantly towards the ’70s”.

Give us a Brake

One of the most live threats posed by the EuropeanConstitution is to our civil liberties. The Constitution is full of

talk of ‘rights’, but the rights we are used to enjoying as Britishcitizens would be choked off and crowded out following itsincorporation into UK law.

The long-standing EU plan to create a common criminal code forEurope has always been resisted by Britain because our ‘commonlaw’ legal system is fundamentally different from legal systems onthe Continent. The Constitution, however, provides for EU laws todetermine the definition of offences over a wide and open-endedrange, procedural rules to be followed and sanctions for thosefound guilty. The prospect of such a significant incursion into thecoercive powers of the state aroused determined opposition, so theGovernment, having failed to deal with the issue conclusively,negotiated an ‘emergency brake’ procedure: Under Articles III-171and III-172 of the Constitution, if a Member State considers thatproposed legislation would “affect fundamental aspects of itscriminal justice system”, it may refer the proposal to the EuropeanCouncil, which may either request that the proposal be redrafted –or implement it in spite of the objection.

A late addition was also made to the text, providing that if theEuropean Council does not make a decision one way or the otherwithin four months or if, twelve months after a fresh draft has beensubmitted it has not been adopted, then a third of Member Statesmay implement the proposal themselves on the basis of ‘enhancedco-operation’. Thus the ‘emergency brake’ cannot stop the vehicle;nor does it constitute an effective opt-out from the development ofan EU criminal code, since the European Council can go ahead andimplement a measure across the board, in spite of the brake beingapplied.

A European Public Prosecutor’s Office (dubbed an “engine ofoppression” by the European Scrutiny Committee) is also providedfor in the text. Once established, its functions may be extended fromcombating fraud to a wide range of offences. It has been describedas “a European FBI” and even the Government has described it as“unnecessary”.

All this is in addition to the European Arrest Warrant andEvidence Warrant, which will have serious implications for the

freedom of the press and for fairness in the judicial system. InMarch this year, a journalist who had been investigating theEurostat scandal, Hans-Martin Tillack, had his home and office inBelgium ransacked and items seized at the instigation of OLAF –the EU’s anti-fraud office. The fact that a journalist’s home can beturned over on the authority of a foreign official should be a wake-up call even to writers at The Guardian and Independent.

Wicked Waste

Asimpler solution to the problem of fraud in the EU wouldbe to establish a proper system of double-entry accounting

with sufficient oversight to guarantee the probity of EU officials.[The Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons andthe National Audit Office have procedures, including theChairmanship being in the hands of a leading member of theOpposition, which comprehensively deal with the problem of fraudand incompetence. This is an adequate safeguard of ourparliamentary system, whereas the EU Court of Auditors, for all itsefforts, continues to be unable to sign off the accounts; yet nothingchanges. The Public Accounts Committee, as with otherparliamentary procedures, although constantly in need of reform,provides the basis on which parliamentary accountability can besustained.] Fraud continues to run rampant in the EU. The Union’saccounts have not been signed off for nine years, and there has been“a vast campaign of looting” from the EU budget. This is after theentire Commission was forced to resign over corruption in 1999.Indeed, in response to that fiasco, British Vice-President of theEuropean Commission Neil Kinnock was given a specific brief toeradicate corruption, yet the last year of his term has beendominated by the Eurostat scandal, involving millions of euros intaxpayers’ money being siphoned off into private bank accounts.Once again, the whistle-blowers, not the embezzlers, have been theones facing the sack.

Of the money that is not looted by officials, much is misallocated.EU regional subsidies are handed out partly on the basis of politicalnegotiation, and their result is often that local economies becomedependent on subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy, whichcosts the average British household £20 a week, has been a disasterfor Third World development, whilst in 2001, 56% of EU overseasaid did not go to poor countries. This is why the Conservative Partyis committed to taking back our overseas aid policy in full – a policycommitment that we could not fulfil under the Constitution. TheCommon Fisheries Policy, which the Conservatives are alsocommitted to restoring to national control, has largely destroyedour fishing industry, as well as creating an ecological disaster in theNorth Sea.

Taking on the Competition

The final negotiations on the Constitution entailed someslipping through of important changes. Competition policy, for

example, became an exclusive competence of the EU under the finaltext. The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee wrote toPatricia Hewitt at the Department for Trade and Industry for anexplanation. She said it wasn’t a top priority in the negotiation.

Draft provisions on energy supplies sneaked back into the text.These had been removed after lobbying from the oil industry, butreappeared at the last moment, in revised form. [In the last few days,BP has been calling for an EU energy policy]. The Government’sWhite Paper says that these provisions are about liberalising energymarkets, but this is disingenuous. They provide for the partial

10

The European Journal Up Front November 2004

Jump to Contents

ceding of control over energy policy and supplies – vital levers ofthe economy – to the EU.

The arms industry has been less alive to the threats posed by theEuropean Constitution. As part of plans for a common Europeandefence (an aspiration that has been diluted, but remains in theConstitutional text) there is to be a European Armaments Agency.In fact, this was set up shortly after negotiations were concluded andnow awaits a legal basis for the expansion of its activities, in theConstitution.

The Agency represents a consolidation of the military-industrialcomplex across Europe. This has several severe implications: for theindependence of our arms procurement (any partner in the Agencycould effectively deny the UK access to hardware and materiel); forthe quality of military construction projects in Europe, assured byhealthy competition (remember the Eurofighter?); and for thefuture of our domestic arms industry, which will be at the mercy ofEU policymakers. It is the planned role of the Agency that hasfacilitated the Government’s recent Defence Review. This will save alittle money in the short-term, but at the cost of huge long-termfinancial and political risks and the emasculation of much of ourforeign and defence policy.

Don’t Stop the Press

Having grasped the nature and scale of the draft EuropeanConstitution, the British press acted effectively, putting

sustained pressure on the Government to hold a referendum. Thispressure must be maintained to stimulate turnout, so that the size ofthe “No” vote sends an unmistakable message to the Euro elite thatthe British people will not accept a European state.

The campaign for a referendum was a breakthrough for coverageof EC/EU affairs in the UK, which has tended to be sporadic,sparked off by lobbying efforts and often focussed on the anecdotal.Events in this field are however constantly unfolding, and are nowheavily integrated into our national life. Most of our new legislationnow has a European origin and our domestic politics is conditionedby what goes on in Brussels.

After the general election, the referendum on the Constitutionwill be the big, forthcoming political event. Our media would do aservice both to themselves and to the British people by throwingconstant light on the European dimension of contemporarypolitics, not least of which because over 60% of legislation, affectingthe daily lives of the electorate and the running of our economy,including the whole question of public spending in all areas ofgovernmental function.

The Way Forward

It is vital to ensure that we win the referendum. It is also vital,however, to consider in advance what we will do afterwards. The

defeat of the Constitution in a referendum will not be the end of thematter – hardly even the end of the beginning. It will result in theEuropean Council re-convening to consider the position. We musthave staked out our position in advance of this.What the British people want is clear: less and better Europe. Theway to accomplish this is to renegotiate our relationship with the EUso as to achieve an associate status, backed by the only bottom linethat counts – the real threat of withdrawal.Meanwhile, we must start the process of reform here in Britain withtwo Bills, both of which I have already introduced into Parliament.The first, the Sovereignty of Parliament Bill, would put into statutethe obligation of our judges to comply with our laws should they

expressly conflict with any provision of EC law. The second, theMemoranda of European Derivation Bill, would identify theEuropean origin of any new domestic legislation with a Europeanderivation (that is, most of it). Equipped with these tools, aConservative Government could begin the process of proper de-regulation – and the preservation of our democratic system. This, incombination with an insistence on associated status, would alsoshow our European partners that we mean business.This Party Conference is the crucible of policy for the generalelection manifesto. The Conservative Party owes it to the Britishpeople and to ourselves to promise a positive roadmap for thefuture – one that reveals the sunlit uplands of our futurerelationship with our voters, based on clearly defined principles,without prejudice to co-operation as compared to co-ordinationwithin Europe and the world.There are specific principles to which we must adhere: firstly, thecommitment to our voters and our democratic system ofgovernment; secondly, to our system of laws, as prescribed by theirParliament on their behalf; thirdly, that we run our own economyand provide freedom for the business community and thedismantling of burdensome regulations, many of which come fromthe European Union’s social agenda; fourthly, the opening of globalmarkets, enterprise and risk; and fifthly, the security of our nationin an increasingly unstable and unpredictable environmentaffecting the Special Relationship, our commitment to NATO andour overall security through foreign policy, defence and anti-terrorism measures.The Constitution would be a forced marriage – what we want is acoherent network of relationships throughout the world, includingEurope, but without prejudice to our right to enter into separatetrade agreements and other treaties, within Europe and the rest ofthe world. It is absurd that the Conservative Party should be kept inhoc to a small group of Europhiles who have lost all credibility withthe public6 . This is the most important political question of ourlifetimes – we must get the answer right, in the national interest.

APPENDIX: MYTHS AND REALITIES

In his Statement to Parliament on the Treaty Establishing aConstitution for Europe, on 21 June 2004, the Prime Minister set

out some “myths” which he said the Constitution “demolishes”. Hereis a list of those so-called “myths” and the truth behind them:• The UK will lose its rebate. There were proposals in the draftConstitution to take away the national veto over arrangements forthe EU budget, so that the UK’s budget rebate could be voted out ofexistence. The rebate remains under threat despite the retention ofthe veto in the final version of the Constitution. Since Tony Blairmade his statement to Parliament, the European Commission hasrevealed new plans to scrap it.• The UK will lose its seat on the UN Security Council. Whilstthe UK will retain its seat on the Security Council under theConstitution, we must “defend the positions and interests of theUnion” in that forum and will be obliged to let the Union Ministerfor Foreign Affairs present the EU position where one exists.• Brussels will seize control of our oil supplies. A new area of EUpowers, over energy, was introduced into the Constitution, thenremoved, then reintroduced in a watered down form in the finalversion. Meanwhile, in August 2004, the EU Energy Commissionerrenewed calls for an EU oil reserve.• The UK taxpayer will pay for other EU countries’ pensions.This suspicion arises from the fact that many other EU countries’

11

November 2004The European Journal Up Front

Jump to Contents

pension systems are severely under-funded whilst the UK’s system,despite great damage done by the Government, is still sound bycomparison. There is no express reference to pensions in theConstitution, but the principle of ‘burden-sharing’ among MemberStates is strengthened and the European Court of Justice has arecord of making judgements on the basis of the ‘spirit’, rather thanthe letter, of the text.• We will have to give up control of our army to Brussels.References in the Constitution to ‘a common defence’ were watereddown, but it remains the premise on which the common securityand defence policy is based. The European Armaments, Researchand Military Capabilities Agency, which has already been set up, isdesigned to bring that common defence about. This year’s DefenceReview was the first practical step.• We will be forced to join the euro. The UK’s euro opt-out wasnegotiated anew only at the eleventh hour, hence the suspicion thatthe Government was preparing to abandon it. Despite its retention,there are a number of provisions in the Constitution that tighten thescrew on non-euro members of the EU, such as the UK, whilstexcluding us from extra areas of decision-making.• We will be forced to raise our taxes. Application of the existingrules of the Stability and Growth Pact would require the Chancelloreither to cut spending or raise taxes over the next few years, whilsttax harmonisation may yet prove to be the effect of the EconomicProvisions of the Constitution.• Our foreign policy will be dictated by Brussels. Article III-195(2) of the Constitution states: “The Member States shall supportthe common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in aspirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity [and] shall work together toenhance and develop their mutual political solidarity. They shallrefrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Unionor likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in internationalrelations.”• We will lose control of our borders. The UK’s Schengen opt-outon border controls, like the euro opt-out, was negotiated afresh onlyat the last minute, hence the suspicion that the Government waspreparing to abandon it. For practical purposes, however, theGovernment has already lost control of our borders and is alreadyparticipating in the creation of a common asylum policy. There aresigns that it may adopt the common immigration policy under theConstitution as well – based on the principle of ‘solidarity’, asopposed to the concerns of national electorates.

The Prime Minister’s Statement also set out some myths ofits own…

• We are in the EU for the benefits of the single market. You don’thave to be a member of the EU to enjoy the benefits of the singlemarket, you just have to belong to the European Free Trade Area.Conflating the EU with the Single Market is one of theGovernment’s favourite dissembling tactics on Europe.• We are in the EU for the strength it gives us in tradenegotiations with powerful countries like the United States andJapan. Whilst negotiating in a bloc gives the bloc clout, it meansthat our national interests are lumped together with those of all theother EU Member States. What’s more, the Prime Minister’sexample admits by implication that Japan succeeds in being apowerful trade negotiator despite acting alone.• The EU’s network of aid and trade relationships make animportant contribution to international peace and security anddevelopment. Only 44 per cent of the EU international aid budget

for 2001 went to poor countries. The greatest contribution the EUcould make to international peace, security and development wouldbe to abolish the wasteful and damaging Common AgriculturalPolicy.• The EU is the most successful way anyone has yet devised ofmanaging the relations between European countries whosenational rivalries had, until 60 years ago, been settled only bywars. The crucial factors in the ending of major European wars havebeen the collective security guaranteed by NATO and the spread ofdemocracy in Europe. Democracies do not go to war with eachother – whether or not they are members of the EU is irrelevant.• The power of the EU has helped eight countries of EasternCentral Europe achieve democratic stability. The USSR used tomake similar claims about these countries when they were itssatellites.• The power of the EU is transforming Turkey into a modern,democratic state. The great political transformation of Turkeytook place after the First World War. Recent developments havebeen insignificant by comparison. Turkey’s level of modernity andthe quality of its democracy are in reality only minor factors inwhether it is eventually invited to join the EU.• The EU is helping achieve peace in the Balkans. Better late thannever.• Every EU Member State government welcomed the TreatyEstablishing a Constitution for Europe. The two Member Stategovernments that blocked the Treaty in December 2003 (underMiller in Poland and Aznar in Spain) have both gone. No one waswilling to spoil the party this time, but it is well known that fewnational Governments welcomed the final text in private.• Many other Member States share the British view of Europe’sfuture. The British people’s view of Europe’s future is ratherdifferent from that of the Prime Minister. Other Member States andtheir peoples have their own views – the idea of a shared vision islittle more than a propaganda tool. This is why the Constitutionalmodel of Europe is inappropriate in principle.• Opponents of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution areoperating on the basis of a narrow nationalism, rather than thereal British interest. New Labour and the Liberal Democrats areunmoved by the claims of their country. The Conservative Party is,and always has been, the party of the national interest.

1 A Cost too Far: an analysis of the net costs and benefits for the UK of EU

membership, by Ian Milne, July 2004.

2 Speech to the European Democrat Union Summer University, London,

19 July 2004.

3 Lords Hansard 21 May 2004, Column 1002 – emphasis added.

4 EU Law and British Tax, which comes first? by Alistair Craig, Centre for

Policy Studies, 2003.

5 Article I-11(3) – emphasis added.

6 In a YouGov poll for the Mail on Sunday, published on 12 July 2004,

only 20% of respondents thought that the Conservative Party should

support Britain signing the European Constitution, as opposed to 36%

who thought the Party should continue with its present policy and

28% who thought that the Conservatives should promise to withdraw

from the EU.

Bill Cash is Conservative Member of Parliament for Stone andchairman of the European Foundation.

12

The European Journal In Depth November 2004

Jump to Contents

‘And they said Lord behold here are two swords.And he said unto them, it is enough’ Luke 28, Verse 38.

by Jacob Rees-Mogg

This one verse of the Bible providedmedieval scholars with a lifetime’s

work. To whom did power belong? Did theChurch have both temporal and spiritualpower or had the temporal power beendelegated? Should the Emperor be subjectto the Pope? Ultimately, it was establishedthat the two swords were separate, thatreligious authority properly belonged to theChurch and secular power to the State.Although there is some intermingling withthe Queen being head both of her Churchand the State loyalty to her in one sphere isvoluntary, in the other a matter of duty.

This settlement – which took centuriesand many wars to achieve – is now underattack in the European Parliament. An ob-scure German bookseller wants to deny theright of Roman Catholics to follow thespiritual teaching of the Church if they are toplay a part in the secular European Com-mission. Martin Shulz is the leader of theSocialists in the European Parliament and abitter opponent of Silvio Berlusconi, whohumiliated him in the European Parliament.

Secular authority has often been hostileto the Church. There is a great deal of jeal-ousy of its power and wealth. This is exacer-bated by its ability to influence peoplevoluntarily without the compulsion neededby the State. Politicians are envious of thetrust and regard in which the priesthood isheld when they themselves are not trustedand often not liked. The higher calling ofreligion is not surprisingly upsetting forthose dealing with the minutiae of daily life.

Left wing politicians are the most hostileto the Church and to organised religion.

The left believes that the world is perfectibleif only people would do what they are told.The Communists and the Socialists expectthat efficient planning and control will leadto heaven on earth. The Church know thatman in his fallen condition is not perfectibleexcept through Christ and the grace of God.This is not difficult for the right tounderstand because it has no plans to createa utopia and expect to deal with the world asit is. The left find the concept of original sinextremely difficult because it makes itsefforts at perfecting human nature worth-less for even if it succeeds for a time by thenext generation it will fail.

So a clash between a Church that isaiming to save souls in the next world bypreaching a Gospel of forgiveness for thosewho acknowledge their fallen nature and aleft wing who aims to solve all ills now is notunexpected. Indeed, it has continued forcenturies, sometimes with the left beingrepresented by people who were Christian,as with the Puritans is England in the 17thcentury. Occasionally it has been verybloody, as with the French revolution wheremany in holy orders were murdered andduring the Spanish Civil War, when theCommunist massacred priests.

So we come to Shulz versus Buttiglione.Often those who are called to stand up forthe faith are objectionable individuals. StPaul himself was a Pharisee who hadpersecuted the fledgling Church. St ThomasBecket was a stubborn man, sometimes de-fending terrible abuses. St Thomas Moorewas a great heretic basher and even thegreat St Peter denied Christ. The fact that

Buttiglione has said and done some foolishthings proves that the essence of the matteris his faith. Shulz could have questioned himon a range of other issues but chose insteadto ask about sin. Mr Buttiglione gave theorthodox Catholic answer but added that herecognised the division of authoritybetween Church and State so that sin andcrime are not and ought not to be the same.

The left is not happy with this. It wants toextend the power of the secular authority tocover religious teaching so that non-politically correct views may be extirpated.This is part of a new campaign againstChristianity by secular forces. The SpanishGovernment is attacking donations to theChurch in an effort to undermine its influ-ence. A German court has damned nunsfrom wearing their habits when teachingand the European Constitution refused tomention God. This is the same left winginfluence that under Communism tried todestroy the Church in Eastern Europe andRussia. Since Russia has become free theOrthodox Church has blossomed while theCatholic Church saved the Polish nationand the Holy Father was crucial to defeatingthe great evil of Communism.

It is the duty of all those who lovefreedom whether believes or not to opposethis encroachment into the spiritual lives ofthe faithful. In Euro-speak it is not andnever can be a ‘competence’ of the EuropeanUnion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is a director of Lloyd Georgemanagement, an international investmentcompany.

You Will Be Assimilatedby Owen Paterson, MP

On Tuesday 5 October, in an obscurecommittee in a meeting room buried

deep in the labyrinth of the EuropeanParliament, a group of largely unknownpoliticians met – an event almost entirelyunreported by the popular media.

Yet this had an enormous significance forthe fishing industry as the event was themeeting of the European Parliamentfisheries committee (known in the jargon as‘Pech’) and their task was to interviewanother little known politician who, by

accident of history, is for the next five yearsto become the European Union commis-sion’s fisheries supremo – Joe Borg, theMaltese commissioner.

It is perhaps unfair to note that thiscommissioner designate shares his namewith a species of fictional aliens in thetelevision series Star Trek, half man, halfcomputer, which terrorise the galaxy bycapturing other species and turning theminto clones of themselves. Invariably, priorto capturing their unwilling recruits, the

Borgs utter their now famous catch-phrase,“Resistance is futile – you will be assimilated.”

British fishermen could, nevertheless beforgiven for believing that this is preciselythe process which they have undergone. Aonce-proud national fleet has been steadilywhittled down to a bare shadow of itself,while measures are finally in hand tointegrate (or ‘assimilate’) it into a EuropeanUnion fleet, bearing the single flag of yellowstars on a blue background.

An important stepping stone in that pro-

13

November 2004The European Journal In Depth

Jump to Contents

cess is the creation of a single, EU fisheriesinspectorate, with its own resources, its owninspectors, and even its own fleet of vessels,and that ambition came that much closerwhen the European Council approved inprinciple the Commission’s plans to estab-lish a Fisheries Control Agency in Vigo,Spain – described by journalist CharlesCover as the “world capital of illegal fishing”.

This plan came up for scrutiny to theHouse of Commons on 8 September, beforean equally obscure committee, known asthe European Standing Committee A.There, Fisheries Minister Ben Bradshawsought to convince us that this new agencywas merely a means to promote “co-ordination and fostering co-operationbetween Member States”.

As Shadow Fisheries Minister, however, Iopposed this plan, not because my party isagainst “co-ordination and co-operation” butbecause I had read the Commission’sproposal, known as COM(2003) 130 final –which the minister admitted he had not.There, in black and white, the Commissionstated that the agency would “assumeleadership in the deployment of means ofinspection and surveillance”. In my view, as Itold the minister, “that means that the newagency will ultimately be the top decision-making body.”

Mr Bradshaw – despite not having readthe crucial document – was quick to denymy claim, but things have now come to ahead with choice of Joe Borg as FisheriesCommissioner. In his written submission tothe Pech committee, he makes no bonesabout the role of the new agency.

It is “intended to organise the jointdeployment of the means of control andinspection”, he writes, in a document thatwould have been heavily guided by hisfuture officials. The word ‘organise’ is highlyrevealing. Its meaning is quite clear:organise means to take charge. It is not, asMr Bradshaw would have it, “co-ordination”or “fostering co-operation”.

Neither does it stop there. The Agencywill, according to Joe Borg, have to approve“joint deployment plans”, on the basis of“identified criteria, benchmarks, prioritiesand common inspection procedures”. By anymeasure, the Agency will be calling theshots, making it what the Commissiondescribed as the “controller of the controllers”– the ultimate fisheries enforcementauthority.

In addition to this, the Agency will havecontrol of a new EU fisheries monitoringcentre, which will use satellite monitoring totrack fishing vessels in the waters of EUmember states. More than likely, thesatellites will be part of the EU’s Galileo andGlobal Monitoring for the Environmentand Security (GMES) systems, giving itexclusive access to the information neededto monitor fishing vessels. The Agency,therefore, will be best positioned to directinspection vessels, putting it in the drivingseat when it comes to controlling theinspection efforts of member states.

But, according to Mr Borg, the Agency isalso considering operating its own fleet ofinspection vessels, which it intends tocharter and man, charging them out tomember states which are willing to usethem. Already, the precedent has been setfor independent agencies, rather thannavies, to patrol fishing grounds, with theScottish Fisheries Protection Agency oper-ating two vessels for fisheries enforcement.

By coincidence, or so it would seem, theseven Royal Navy Island Class fisheries pro-tection vessels are being replaced by three,larger River Class vessels but, unusually,they will not be owned by the Royal Navy.Instead, they have been chartered by theMoD for a remarkably short five years.

With the EU Agency planned tocommence operations in 2006, this wouldrather conveniently mean that threemodern patrol vessels will become availableshortly after it has become established, andmy suspicion is that the current government

would be only too pleased to get rid offisheries enforcement, and hand it over tothe EU.

Towards the end of this decade, therefore,we may see grey-painted ships, bearing theblue flag with a ring of stars, manned by EUinspectors, patrolling our seas, guided by anAgency in Spain using EU satellites to directoperations.

It is by no means fanciful, either, tosuggest that the Agency will operate its ownsurveillance aircraft – as does the ScottishFisheries Protection Agency – and somewill see these developments as anembryonic EU navy and air force.

Although this might be some time in thefuture, the plans are being laid on theground, here and now, as the evidence ofCommission proposals and Joe Borg’ssubmission testify. They are momentouschanges and they are not being given theattention they deserve. I have made myconcerns known through the Commonscommittee and it is now time, in my view, tostart ringing alarm bells.

As the captain of the Starship Enterprisehas so often shown, resistance is not futile.The Conservative Party is firmly committedto re-establishing local and national controlof British waters, up to 200 miles or themedian line; we will achieve this preferablyby negotiation but if necessary throughdomestic legislation.

I have already been to the Faroes andIceland to see successful fisheries run bysovereign states. I have just returned fromNewfoundland, Nova Scotia and NewEngland, the positive and optimistic lessonsfrom which I will be incorporating in myGreen Paper on fisheries, to be publishedlater this year.

Owen Paterson, MP, is Shadow FisheriesMinister and wrote this article originally forFishing News

… news in briefEU wants to continue to negotiate with Iran

The EU foreign ministers are intending to continue their negotiationswith Iran over its nuclear power programme and to reach an agreementby the end of the month. The EU Council President, the Dutch ForeignMinister, Bernard Bot, has said that he hopes the government in Tehranwill send out different signals from the parliament: on Sunday, Iraniandeputies voted a law shouting “Death to America” and “Allahu akhbar”,the purpose of the law being to require the government to continue theatomic energy programme. Iran’s President, Mohammed Khatami saidthat he was optimistic that the disagreement with the US on the nuclear

programme could be solved. The US accuses Iran of trying to buildnuclear weapons. The German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, hassaid that the discussions with Tehran are very difficult. Khatami has saidthat if the EU respects Iran’s right to use atomic energy for peacefulpurposes, then Iran was ready to guarantee that it was not seekingnuclear weapons. Iran might even be ready to freeze its programme ofenriching uranium. EU representatives and Iranian officials are to meetagain: the EU has set a deadline for the end to the uranium enrichmentprogramme, the end of the month. It has said that if Iran does not respectthis deadline, then it will join the USA in taking the issue to the SecurityCouncil of the United Nations. [Handelsblatt, 2nd November 2004]

14

The European Journal In Depth November 2004

Jump to Contents

The Belgian DiseaseJean-Paul Floru summarises a recent London lecture on

whether the government can deliver happiness through legislationwhich developed into a debate on how to tackle “The Belgian Disease”.

“We must never forget that Hitler obtained ademocratic mandate,” observed guestspeaker Professor Steven Schwartz (BrunelUniversity). The Adam Smith Institute washosting one of its very popular earlyevening lectures, where people of all agegroups and from all walks of life discuss theprinciples of individual freedom.

His remark provoked a poignantquestion from the floor: “How to change thesystem if a democratic majority of thepopulation lives directly or indirectly fromstate handouts?” In other words: TheBelgian Disease. Where a majority says tothe minority: “Give us your money.”

With a population of 10 million, Belgiumemploys about 1 million people in the statesector. Another million are full or part timeunemployed. Add to these pensioners,people on incapacity benefit and povertyallowances, and their immediate familymembers, and one has a clear majority of thepopulation. Belgium is by no means the onlycontinental country which suffers from thisdisease. It appears to be contagious. Initialresearch suggests that it has infected amajority of the populations of Germany andFrance. It is thought the strain originated inGermany – on the continent the politicalsystem under which it survives is sometimescalled the Rhine Land Model. The firstrecorded symptoms occurred underBismarck, who contaminated his peoplewith a welfare state system to prevent thedeadly disease of socialism. For the sake ofthe argument we will discuss possible curesin the light of the clear-cut case of Belgium.

For the last 50-odd years Belgium has notknown any exciting political upheavals.Election after election, the diseasedpopulation returns the same policies topower. Which parties or politicians are inpower is irrelevant, as they all believe in thewelfare state.

In the eighties some thought a cure wasnear. The then young chairman of theFlemish Liberals, Guy Verhofstadt, wasportrayed as the Flemish Thatcher. Hewanted to privatise. He wanted to cut taxes.The whole political establishment shunnedhim and after ten years in the wilderness hechanged his tune. And guess what? Afterthat the majority allowed him to become

Prime Minister. So it is that his last twogovernments want to ‘fine tune’ the welfaresystem, rather than to reform or abolish it.How to change this impasse?

“You can emigrate,” someone in the roomsuggested. London is overflowing withBelgians and other continental Europeancitizens. It is a mistake to think that theyonly consist of bankers or highly educatedprofessionals. Walk into any restaurant ofthe West End and the staff, if not French, isbound to be Spanish, Italian or Polish.London benefits from Belgian cleaners,Belgian shopkeepers, Belgian travel agents,and Belgian lawyers. The flow is largely oneway traffic: few Brits work in Belgium,unless they have been sent there by theirinternational employer or are taken on bythe European institutions. Once the initiallure of good food and cheap flats has wanedoff, most of them quickly return. The factthat after two years they become liable toBelgian tax rates plays no small part in thehasty retreat. One can compare the popu-lation streams from continental Europewith the net population migration out ofBritain before Thatcher, and the net positivemigration after she transformed Britain.

“Laws which suppress minorities areunjust. Therefore minorities are allowed toinfringe them. Civil disobedience is the way togo. One should withdraw into the blackeconomy. The black market is the freemarket.” This remark came from a fellowBelgian. Dodging laws and taxes areheresies in Britain, and the silence at the ASIdid not surprise.

The black economy is huge in Belgium. Itis a widely accepted topic of conversation atdinner parties. Everybody is at it, and thosewho deny it are probably lying. In Belgiumfew would dream of asking for an invoicefrom a plumber or a builder, unless they candeduct it from their corporation tax. Theplumber or builder is likely to refuse the jobif it’s to be ‘in white’. I once heard a salesmantell his client: “If you want an invoice, youmust go to someone who will give you one.”The size of the black economy becomesvisible in the abundance of goods orservices which can be purchased with blackmoney: restaurants, antiques, expensivecars.

Brits are law abiding because they sufferless regulations and taxes. This is also whyEuropean regulations hurt so much harsherin Britain than in continental countries: theBrits follow the rules, the others usuallydon’t.

“The Constitution should protect theminorities.” Wrong again. Britain does nothave a written constitution, and so themechanisms by which written constitutionsoperate may be less clear. I do not have exactnumbers, but the Belgian Constitution hasbeen changed many times by qualifiedmajority over the last fifty years. ItsConstitution means very little. Itsworthlessness is very good ammunition forthe opponents of the coming referendumon the European Constitution.

“In the end people will choose for change.They will turn their backs to zero growth.Look at what happened in New Zealand,”said Professor Schwartz. The problem is thatthe decline of welfare states is usually notsevere enough to make people change theirvoting patterns. Usually countries likeBelgium, France and Germany still have a 1or 2% annual increase in GDP (when thegrowth is occasionally higher Belgiansthink a new Golden Age has reached theirshores). The economies in free countrieslike the United States and Britain growmuch faster, but the average Belgianwouldn’t notice this. As long as they haveforty channels on cable and a weekly steakfrites, they won’t rebel. It is only when theygo on holiday to the UK that they suddenlyrealise their euros are worth nothing. Theythen do not realise why this is so. ManyEuropean politicians see the Europeanconstruction as a method to shield thepopulation from the economic reality: thatsocialist Europe is declining, and that intwenty years time it will no longer havemuch input in the world economy and thusworld politics.

Is Belgium lost? Belgians can only hopethat the economic decline will become sosevere that people revolt at the ballot box.But by then all the free marketeers may haveleft for sunnier shores.

Jean-Paul Floru is a non-practising solicitor.

15

November 2004The European Journal Up Front

Jump to Contents

Should EU Vote for an Early Christmas for Turkey?by Struan Stevenson, MEP

The big debate now unfolding inBrussels is about whether or not Turkey

should become a full Member of the EU.The Turkish Prime Minister - Recep TayyipErdogan - was in Brussels recently settingout his stall. He seems to have done a goodjob in convincing the European Commis-sion. He had to reassure them that tortureand human rights abuse are a thing of thepast and that adultery will not become acriminal offence in Turkey, despite hisknown support for the policy. Thiscontroversial proposal had been part of apackage of laws set for approval in Turkeyand now shelved following protests fromthe EU. The shelved package also containedproposals to ban virginity tests, outlawhonour killings, ban the forced marriage ofa female victim to her rapist, and outlawgenocide and people-trafficking. All ofthese things will, at least in the meantime,remain legal in this aspiring Member State.

But this is not why there is a growingnervousness about Turkish accession,particularly from the Germans, who claimthat they are simply keen to protect Europe’sChristian heritage. Germany currentlyenjoys the position of being the EU’s biggestMember State with the biggest population(82 million) and therefore with the biggestnumber of MEPs and officials. But Turkishaccession would see even Germanyswamped. The population of Turkey iscurrently 71 million. It is estimated that bythe time they join the EU in ten to 15 years,their population will have risen to 110million, while the population of the rest ofEurope will have slumped. This is whatreally worries the Germans. They fear theloss of their dominant position in the EUand perhaps with good reason.

There are already an estimated 15 millionMuslims within the 25 existing MemberStates. This would mean a Muslim bloc ofover 125 million in an expanded Europe of575 million people. In other words they

would have almost a quarter of the totalpopulation of Europe. They would behugely powerful and Turkish officials woulddominate many of our key Europeaninstitutions. Once Albania and Bosnia withtheir predominantly Muslim population ofaround 12.5m join the EU, the situation willbecome even more pronounced. This isdangerous stuff.

It is nevertheless worth remembering thatTurkey is a secular state and has put a greatdeal of effort into fulfilling EU membershipcriteria. She has been a stalwart member ofNATO for 50 years. She has a flourishingdemocracy, a lively free press and a stablegovernment.

It would be dangerous folly suddenly toannounce that all of their hard work andeffort had been in vain and that she was nolonger welcome in our exclusive ChristianClub. This could bring about the downfallof the secular government and would playinto the hands of the fundamentalistIslamo-Fascists. Clearly this is not anoption.

But to offer full membership to Turkeycould sow the seeds of destruction of theentire Community. Turkey is not only verylarge, it is very poor. Its population enjoys astandard of living roughly a quarter that ofthe average across the existing 25 MemberStates. It is predominantly an agriculturaleconomy with one third of its peopleengaged in farming, so the impact on theCAP, currently straining at the seamsbecause of Poland’s accession, would beenormous. There simply isn’t enoughmoney to go around. Even CommissionerFischler sounded stern warnings aboutTurkish accession in a recent speech.

The UK is one of the big net contributorsto the EU budget. We pay in £4 bn perannum more than we take out. More than£2 bn of this goes directly to farm subsidiesunder the much discredited CAP. In otherwords, we are subsidising our direct

competitors on the Continent, while ourfarmers struggle to survive. The Commis-sion announced recently that £1.8 bn hasgone missing from the CAP budget. This ismoney that has been fraudulently claimed,mostly by fictitious olive growers in Italy ornon-existent wine growers in France. Themoney has just disappeared. It cannot bereclaimed. It doesn’t take much effort toimagine how much worse the situationcould become after Turkish membership?

According to the Commission, Turkeywould absorb up to £18.4 billion a year insubsidies when it joins the EU. That is £160 ayear for every 4-person household inEurope. Turkey’s farmers would get £5.5billion a year in subsidies. The Commissionsays that for at least the first ten or fifteenyears of membership, Turkey’s economiccontribution to the Community would beminimal. In other words Turkish accessioncould destroy the CAP and possibly destroyEurope. There must be another way.

If Europe continues to pursue theFranco–German vision of a politically inte-grated, European Superstate as envisaged bythe EU Constitution, then Turkey must notbe allowed to join. On the other hand, weshould welcome Turkey into a Europeshaped by the Conservative vision – ACommon Market – a Europe of inde-pendent nation states working together tocreate a flexible, dynamic single market,taking down the barriers to trade andcreating jobs and prosperity for all.

A European Superstate dominated byFrance and Germany would be bad enough.A Superstate dominated by Turkey, Franceand Germany would be intolerable,unworkable and could ultimately destroythe community.

Struan Stevenson is a Conservative MEP forScotland and Party Spokesman on Fisheriesand Deputy Spokesman on Agriculture in theEuropean Parliament.

… news in briefNorthern League against European Constitution

In a cabinet meeting, the three ministers from the Northern League inthe Italian Government, including Roberto Castelli, the Minister ofJustice, have voted against the law providing for ratification of theEuropean Constitution.

Castelli said that his party would also vote against the Constitution inParliament. But he said that the opposition was more about method

than substance. Silvio Berlusconi announced at the signing ceremonyon 29 October that the Italian Council of Ministers would vote on thenew treaty the same afternoon, “the first in Europe”. The motion votedin the Council of Ministers will enable the treaty to be submitted toParliament. Berlusconi said that the League’s vote was predictable andthat, in any case, the Constitution would be supported by a largemajority in the Italian Parliament. [Corriere della sera, 29th October2004]

16

The European Journal In Depth November 2004

Jump to Contents

Lord HansonA tribute from the European Foundation

James Hanson personified the British entrepreneurial spirit set free by Thatcherism. During the 1980s, he andhis old friend and partner Gordon (later Lord) White were able to build on their existing successes so as to createa vast and highly profitable transatlantic business. Though sometimes denounced as predatory, their corporatestrategy was based on the sound principles of efficient management and delivering shareholder value.

Hanson realised that it was necessary for entrepreneurs to engage with politics if Government was properly tounderstand the needs of business. He was a lifelong Eurosceptic who supported the aims of the EuropeanFoundation and he contributed to the European Journal. His companies contributed to the Conservative Partyfrom 1968. The high watermark of his involvement in politics was his support for Margaret Thatcher during theWestland crisis, when Michael Heseltine had planned to use the demise of the company, which Hanson helpedavert, to spur European defence integration.

As well as being an exemplar of enterprising capitalism and constructive engagement in the political process,Lord Hanson was a man of exacting standards and great personal charm. His is the loss of a great figure in Britishpublic and private life.

Please note our new mailing addresseffective

29 November 2004

The European Foundation7 Southwick MewsLondon W2 1JG

All written correspondence and subscription renewals should be postedto our new address. We are awaiting installation of our new telephone/

fax lines and will notify you as soon as these numbers become available.

All email and website addresses remain the same.

17

November 2004The European Journal In Depth

Jump to Contents

The Commission is Dead. Long live the Commission.by Paul Howard

Last week the president of the EuropeanCommission, Jose Manuel Barroso,

decided to withdraw his proposed team ofcommissioners in the face of much self-righteous wrath fomented in the EuropeanParliament by prospective Italian Commis-sioner Rocco Buttiglione’s illiberal views onhomosexuals and women.

Cue much gnashing of teeth and wringingof hands from distraught commissionersand other guardians of the EU project at thisdemise. Cue also much disingenuous anddeceitful trumpeting of a victory ofdemocracy for the people of Europe.

Thanks to the Parliament exercising itspower of veto over the proposed Commis-sion, so the argument goes, a blow has beenstruck for the people of Europe over theseemingly unfettered powers of theCommission. Directly elected MEPs haveunseated government appointed bureau-crats, de-railed the gravy train and thepeople of Europe are the winners.

Yet such analysis – or spin, to be moreaccurate – does not bear close scrutiny. Fora start, just consider the extent to which theEuropean Parliament actually embodiesrepresentative democracy.

Or rather, fails to embody representativedemocracy. The Europe-wide ratio ofelectors to MEPs in the current Parliamentis a massive one to 480,833. In the UK thesituation is even worse: there is one MEP forevery 566,000 voters. By contrast, the figurefor general elections in the UK, a processfrom which too many people already feelalienated, is around 68,000. How can anybody where representation is diluted by afactor of seven claim democraticlegitimacy?

Proof, if any were needed, of the degree ofdisenfranchisement such lack of represent-ation engenders, manifests itself in twoways.

First, look at the anonymity of ‘our’representatives at the European Parliament.Apart from that practised self-publicistRobert Kilroy-Silk, and perhaps Glenys

Kinnock, how many other MEPs have apublic profile – and therefore degree ofpublic accountability – commensurate withthe power they wield? Without names orrecognisable faces it is impossible for us tomake them answer for their actions.

Second, consider the appallingly lowvoter turnout at EU elections. Fewer thanhalf the electorate voted earlier this year –this in spite of four countries havingcompulsory voting systems. Yet, this is notthe fault of apathy or protest againstdomestic political establishments as hasbeen portrayed by EU spin doctors. It isbecause the representative democracy itpurports to offer the electorate ismeaningless. If it means nothing, peoplewon’t vote.

In fact, the current system of elections tothe European Parliament is so un-representative as to be positively dangerous.It uses its theoretical democracy as a cloakto disguise the autocratic, inherentlyfederalist and potentially quasi-totalitarianagenda of the EU as embodied by its currentinstitutions.

The rejection of the proposed Com-mission, which on the face of it is a blow tothe European project, is a case in point, for itreveals the incestuous relationship betweenCommission and the Parliament.

Both institutions recognise the need forthe fig leaf of democracy to assuage publicopinion and ease the passage of theEuropean project. Hence the Commission isprepared to yield various powers to thepseudo-democratic Parliament, includingrunning the rule over the new Commission.By and large the common agenda of the twobodies keeps both parties satisfied.

This symbiotic relationship only comesunstuck when uppity MEPs get above theirstation and are not dissuaded from exer-cising their rights by Commission tauntsthat they are undermining the Europeanproject by rejecting the whole Commission.

Or perhaps it only appears to comeunstuck.

The apparent setback suffered by theCommission is in fact only a temporaryhiccup. The EU in its current form cannotfunction without a Commission, which isthe body responsible for instigating mostnew EU legislation.

As a result, once the inevitable comprom-ises between vested interests have beenreached, a deal that satisfies the Parliamentwill be done (a deal over which we haveeven less influence than the shenanigansthat characterise the relationship betweenBlair and Brown) and the relationship willbe restored. The Commission will continueits business of enshrining its role throughlegislation and red-tape, the Parliament willbask in the glory of its apparent politicalmuscle, and the common agenda of aEuropean state will be back on track.

In fact, the Commission (with thepossible exception of Signor Buttiglione)will no doubt be secretly rejoicing at the‘setback’ of its rejection – especially giventhe way Eurosceptics have had the windtaken out their sails by the enthusiasticrepresentation of this apparent faux-pas as avictory for democracy.

Nothing could be further from the truth.Not only does the rejection of theCommission further the dangerous myth ofEuropean representative democracy (whichas we have seen is a sham); it also uses thismyth to add legitimacy to the nextincarnation of the Commission.

Moreover, it will strengthen the presidentof the Commission’s hand in negotiationswith national governments over who shouldbe their representative – further diminish-ing the role of nation states.

In this context, the real losers of this boutof political infighting are not the Commis-sion. As always, it is true democracy and theinhabitants of Europe who will suffer.

Paul Howard is a journalist and authorspecialising in international affairs, sport andthe environment.

… news in briefGovernor of Sicily accused of Mafia links

Toto Cuffaro, 46, elected in July 2001 on the Berlusconi ticket to the postof President of the region of Sicily, has been accused of complicity withCosa Nostra, the Sicilian Mafia. His trial, and that of twelve others, willstart next February. He has said that he will demonstrate his complete

innocence. “Who knows me knows that I am an enemy of the Mafia and ofall Mafiosi.” According to the charges, Cuffaro told the Mafia boss inPalermo that he was under judicial investigation. His defenders saythat it is significant that he has been accused of “connivance” and notfor “violation of the secrecy of enquiry”. [Richard Heuzé, Le Figaro,4 November 2004]

18

The European Journal In Depth November 2004

Jump to Contents

Constitutionfor Europe

(Referendum) BillLord Blackwell,

speaking in the House of Lords, 10 September 2004Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I beg to movethat this Bill be now read a second time.

I am grateful for the time of the Housethis morning and I would like to thank inadvance all those who are participating. Ilook forward in particular to the maidenspeeches of the noble Lord, Lord Laidlaw,and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury.

The purpose of this Bill is to be helpful tothe Government in fulfilling one of theirmost important commitments. I wasdelighted that, after long debates in thisHouse and outside, the Government andthe Minister accepted the case earlier thisyear for a referendum on the Europeanconstitution and committed to hold areferendum before the UK ratified thenecessary treaty. That decision properlyreflected the crucial importance of thisdecision to the country. In many ways, adecision on the European constitutionrepresents a crossroads for both theEuropean Union and the United Kingdom.

Following the meeting of the heads ofgovernment in June, we now have an agreedproposal for the constitution, with a date forformal signing and publication of the finaltext on 29 October. As yet, however, we havehad no firm proposal from the Governmenton how they intend to proceed with seekingUK ratification, including the process andtimetable for the promised referendum.This Bill is therefore intended to help theGovernment by providing a mechanism fortranslating their commitment into anappropriate Act of Parliament and bysetting out what I hope is a reasonableproposal for the timing, wording and otherarrangements for that referendum.

Of course, I recognise that there may bediffering views around your Lordship’sHouse on some of those aspects and I amvery open to suggestions that may improvewhat I have proposed. I hope that theGovernment themselves will also take thisopportunity to set out any alternativeproposals that they may favour. However,given the huge constitutional importance ofsigning up to the proposed Europeanconstitution, it is vital that these issues are

properly considered and that there is noquestion after the event that the referendumprocess was managed in a contentious wayor that the procedure was rushed throughwithout proper consultation. The Bill, it is tobe hoped, provides an opportunity toengage in that debate, and to set outamendments in Committee that will allowParliament to come to a settled view on thebest way forward. So, in that spirit, let menow turn to the substance of the Bill.

The first point, in Clause 1, is the proposalthat a referendum should be held withinfour months of the publication of the finaltext – in other words, four months from theend of October on the current schedule. Myargument for this time scale is to provide asensible balance that takes account of boththe need for proper public debate and thedesirability of the UK reaching a firm viewas early as it can. I believe that an earlyresolution of the UK’s position would beadvantageous, which ever way yourLordships believe that decision should go.

For those of your Lordships who will beadvocating in the referendum that the UKagrees to this treaty, there must be a strongcase for getting the UK’s membershipconfirmed – and current uncertaintiesremoved – as soon as possible in order toallow the UK to exercise its full weight inshaping the institutions, processes andagenda that will follow the formation of thenew Union. With Germany, Spain and othermajor countries now moving to commit togoing through their own ratificationprocesses as early as possible in 2005, theworst of all worlds would be for the UK toeventually sign up at the last moment after aprolonged period of uncertainty when wehad once again let others make the running.But I suspect others of your Lordships maybe able to make that case better than I can.

For those like me who will be advocatingthat the UK rejects this treaty, however, thearguments are equally strong that we arebetter off reaching that conclusion soonerrather than later. For the sooner we can startnegotiating a preferred outcome – apreferred treaty – the more chance I believewe have of reshaping the proposals in a way

that suits us.Let me take a minute to explain what that

alternative might be. I start with apresumption that, however much the UKpopulation – and indeed much of thecontinental population – may dislike thedrive under this proposed constitution tointegrate the countries of Europe into asingle European State, the momentumamong the political elites of many of ourneighbours is such that, unless they arestopped in their own referendums, they willnot settle for rolling back Europe to the kindof alliance of nation states that might suitus. If the UK says no, they will, as they havemade clear, continue to seek some way bywhich the core group of EU states cancontinue down the road to the politicalintegration that they seek without us. Ourbargaining power comes from the fact that,as the treaties currently stand, they cannotuse the institutions and processes of theEuropean Union as the basis for their moreintegrated union without our consent; andto contemplate replicating those institut-ions and the body of laws, case law andacquis that support them in some com-pletely new legal structure would be almostunthinkable in terms of the cost, delay andthe loss of the current Communitymomentum. We therefore hold the trumpcard if we reject this treaty and seek toamend in it ways that better suit us.

Our opportunity, and one I believe weshould grasp, is therefore to have areferendum as soon as possible that settlesonce and for all, I hope, that the UKpopulation will not agree to be part of asingle European state, and with that claritythen engage with our partners to negotiate anew settlement for the UK as our price forallowing them to continue with the closerintegration they seek. I suspect that manyother members, particularly some of thenew ones, would join us eventually in thatposition.

At minimum this new settlement wouldbe a whole array of opt-outs from thepolitical and constitutional provisions ofthe new treaty. In shorthand, it would be aposition where we were part of the common

19

November 2004The European Journal In Depth

Jump to Contents

market, but outside the common politicaland legal structure, and only engaged inother initiatives across Europe when we hadagreed to participate on an intergovern-mental basis. And I believe that we are morelikely to use our bargaining power toachieve that if we seek to bring thatrenegotiation about early on than if wedelay until most countries have gonethrough the ratification process and haveinvested huge legal and political capital intreaties that we then want to revise.

Of course, some will argue that we shouldsimply sit back and wait for some othercountry to vote against the constitution,and avoid the need to take any decisionourselves. I do not think we can rely on thatas solution, nor do I think it would resolveour own situation, since we would still beleft unclear as a country as to whether weshould be putting our weight and effortbehind those seeking to put the proposalback together, or using the situation torenegotiate the kind of alternative that Ihave described. So it is in our interests toresolve the issue earlier.

Why, then, four months? The answer isthat it seems to me to be both the minimumand maximum reasonable time period afterthe final treaty is published. I am assuming– and I would welcome the Minister’sconfirmation of this – that the first step willbe for the Government, if they wish torecommend the new treaty, to put that infront of Parliament to take a view. However,given that the agreed text has been availablesince early summer, and has changed onlyon the margins from draft texts that havebeen debated and discussed in Parliamentand the press for over a year, it seemsentirely reasonable to me that the Bill toratify the treaty should be presented as soonas the new Session of Parliament is sitting –presumably at the end of November orDecember this year.

While the Government may like to gratifyall of us today by announcing a verygenerous timetable for further debate whenthat Bill comes before us, it also seems likelythat, since the substance of the constitutioncannot be amended, the passage throughParliament could be fairly rapid. If that werethe case, then I believe it would be sensibleand desirable to take advantage of thepublic and press attention that would havefocused around the parliamentary debateby putting the issue to the country fairlysoon afterwards. I have allowed forpotentially one or two additional months ofcampaigning after the parliamentary vote,

by which time I would suggest that mostpeople will have had about as much of thearguments as they can absorb.

The danger of allowing the debate to goon much longer is that the public will startto lose interest, and we will be in danger of avote determined by relative levels of apathyrather than by informed public discussion.As I have said, however, I would welcomethe views of the Government and others inthis House on whether these arguments andtimescales are reasonable, or whether weshould seek at Committee stage to consideralternative proposals on their merits.

The second clause sets out the proposedquestion, and the context in which it shouldbe set. I have suggested what I believe is thesimplest and least contentious question;namely,

“Should the United Kingdom ratify theTreaty establishing a Constitution forEurope?”

This is, I believe, also the most factuallyaccurate form of the question, since theissue is not just about whether the UnitedKingdom should sign up to the constitutionfor itself, but also whether it should agree tothe constitution in its current formreplacing the current treaties across thewhole of Europe.

The appropriate wording of this questionis of course a vital matter and one on whichthe independent Electoral Commission isrequired to have an independent voice.Indeed, my understanding is that thepresentation of this Bill to Parliamentshould have already initiated that process,and I should be grateful for the Minister’sconfirmation of that. However, I believe itimportant that the final wording should beagreed in Parliament through this Bill,incorporating whatever amendments to myproposed wording as are generally agreed tobe fair improvements. Again, it would beinteresting to hear the Government’s view atthis stage on both the wording proposedand the process for agreeing it.

The third clause then links this Bill backto the provisions of the Political Parties,Elections and Referendums Act 2000, andacknowledges that the general provisions ofthat Act will govern the conduct of thereferendum unless otherwise amended. Forclarity, the Bill makes it explicit that no localor general elections should be held withintwo months of the date of the referendum. Iwould not expect that to cause anyparticular difficulties for the Government,since the four-month timing I haveproposed would mean a referendum has to

be held before the end of February 2005,which would still make a General Electionpossible at any time after the end of April.However, I would of course be fascinated tolearn from the Minister if that constraintwas seen as cutting across any currentelection plans.

There was, of course, extensive debateabout some of the provisions of the PoliticalParties, Elections and Referendums Actwhen it passed through Parliament fouryears ago, particularly as it affected thelevels of funding available to differentcampaign groups. I have not sought toreaddress those issues here, but it is ofcourse open to any noble Lord to take theopportunity, in the light of experience sincethen, to propose amendments to this Bill atCommittee stage that would address anyparticular areas of remaining concern.

So there we have it, my Lords. I believethat this Bill sets out a very reasonable set ofproposals to give effect to the Government’scommitment to a referendum, and that itprovides a timely opportunity for theseproposals to be debated, amended andapproved in good order, so as to ensure thatwe have an agreed process on the statutebook through which this major constitut-ional development can be addressed.

Given the Government’s somewhatchequered record in consulting on andgaining consent for constitutional change, Ibelieve that it is particularly important thatthe process for this constitutional changeshould be transparent, and that there can beno charge after the event that the timing orhandling had been manipulated to affect theresult. It seems to me that a PrivateMembers’ Bill such as this, which can attractall-party support, is a good route to avoidthat charge. I hope therefore, that it will bewelcomed by the Government as anopportunity for them to set out their ownviews on how this process should behandled, and for Parliament to debate andagree the best amendments to what I haveproposed, taking into account the views ofthe Government, other noble Lords andMembers of another place during thepassage of the Bill. I commend the Bill to theHouse.

Moved, That the Bill be now read asecond time. – (Lord Blackwell.)

Extract from Hansard, © ParliamentaryCopyright 2004

20

The European Journal In Depth November 2004

Jump to Contents

Lord Rees-Mogg: My Lords, I thank thenoble Lord, Lord Blackwell, for introducingthe Bill, which has led to what can only be auseful debate in moving forward thereferendum that the Government havepromised. It is thoroughly helpful.

I should also like to congratulate thenoble Lord, Lord Laidlaw, on an excellentmaiden speech. It was thoughtful, informedand thoroughly valuable. The House willlook forward very much to hearing him infuture.

Perhaps I may add a comment from myown knowledge – a knowledge more of thenoble Lord’s business than of him. For someyears in the 1990s I was the chairman of acompany now called Informa, which wasand is the main British competitor with IIR,the company that the noble Lord createdand runs. You get to know the real quality ofa company that is your main competitor,better than in any other way – just as theOpposition Front Bench have a shrewdknowledge of the excellent quality of theGovernment Front Bench.

Not only was the noble Lord’s businesswell run, as one would expect, and veryprofitable – it was usually more profitablethan we were – but the work his businesswas doing was consistently of real socialvalue and of advantage to this country andto the many other countries in which he wasoperating. I am glad that we should havesomeone with his international businessexperience, at the relatively small-businessscale, coming to this House to add to ourknowledge.

I am not supposed to congratulate thenext maiden speaker on her speech beforeshe makes it. However, to find myselfspeaking before a maiden speech by thenoble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter ofYarnbury, has brought back for me thehappiest memories of the last BaronessBonham-Carter of Yarnbury to speak to thisHouse. Lady Violet was a person for whom Ihad the greatest fondness, for herintelligence and her loyalty to her party. Ifthose noble Lords are sitting on thoseBenches with a party that to all appearancesis now thriving in the country, they owetheir position to those who kept the Liberalfaith during the dark years of the emergenceof the Labour Party and the dominance ofthe Conservative Party in the middle of theprevious century. Therefore, the name

Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury is aname which I hold in the highest regard andrespect.

It is an appropriate moment for us to bediscussing this issue. A major change is tak-ing place in the politics of this country, andthe referendum project is one which has tobe considered in the light of a shift of ideasthat is fundamental to our politics. In Som-erset we have a number of village celebrat-ions next month to record the anniversaryof the death of the great liberal philosopherJohn Locke in 1704. What seems to behappening is that in all the parties a newspirit which could be described as ‘neo-liberalism’ is rapidly spreading.

I should like to use today’s issue of theFinancial Times as a document to illustratethe point. It starts with quotations from MrMilburn, who is taking over responsibilityfor development of the policy of thegoverning party before the next generalelection and for the next Parliament. Whathe says is therefore of the utmostimportance. I hope the House will allow meto read out some quotations at the head ofthe article.

Mr Milburn starts with what one couldcall a radical assertion. He states:

“We must not turn back. It is time to pushforward.”

Perhaps that does not mean much initself, but he continues:

“A third New Labour term should be aboutmoving power from the state and giving it tothe public.”

That is consistent with the PrimeMinister’s change of mind in favour ofhaving a referendum, which some Euro-fanatics oppose. I am sure that the PrimeMinister was right.

Although I am not sure whether MrMilburn’s comments are from one speech orare interesting extracts from several, hecontinues:

“Where it is feasible for users to exerciseindividual choice – as over elderly care orschools or hospital operations – that shouldbe the norm.”

Another extract says:“The balance of power needs to move in

favour of consumers over producers.”When one listens to those views as the

central beliefs of the man who will decidethe policy of the Government as they gointo a general election and, if they are re-

elected, the policy of the Government in thenext Parliament, what is striking is not howcontroversial the ideas are but how theyhave spread through the parties. They haveeven spread to the figure whom the press,probably wrongly, build up as the great rivalto Mr Milburn. I never pretend tounderstand the internal workings of anyparties. A Cross-Bencher should not try.

However, in the same issue of theFinancial Times the Chancellor of theExchequer, who is certainly a powerfulfigure in determining the future of his party,takes a surprisingly similar line aboutEurope. He says:

“Europe has a special responsibility to riseto the challenge and, starting today, makenew commitments on economic reform. Thisis no time for complacency or consolidationbut for pushing forward boldly withliberalisation.”

There we have what people might call thetwo wings of the Labour Party taking thesame view. What about the Liberal Demo-crats over there? Here is an article by SirSamuel Brittan, who is well known to manyof us as the brother of a distinguishedMember of this House and who is a leadingliberal theoretician in the press. He says, inreference to a new Orange Book, which Iregret that I have not yet had theopportunity to read, Reclaiming Liberalism:

“It has for some time been highly likely thatsome Lib Dems would conclude that the partyhad more to gain from going back to the freemarket roots of Liberalism.”

As I understand it, the Orange Bookadvocates courses and policies of that kind.Indeed, the only thing that surprises meabout that is that, in other articles that Iread, it is clear to me that if I were a memberof the party of the noble Lords in the othercorner of the House, I should be regarded asa Young Turk and no doubt would regardthem as obstacles to change and barnacleson the bottom of the liberal ship.

And what about the Conservative Party? Ithink that the reshuffle that theConservative Party has carried out and theAugust policy statements all tend in thesame neo-liberal direction. What, onemight say after reading the papers, about theappointment of Mr Redwood back to theFront Bench on the shadow side? But MrRedwood is not only a neo-liberal; he is anextremist neo-liberal.

Constitution for Europe (Referendum) BillLord Rees-Mogg, speaking in the House of Lords, 10 September 2004

21

November 2004The European Journal In Depth

Jump to Contents

So we have a situation in which ourpolitics have changed in a neo-liberal andLockean direction. What is the situationwith the European constitution that is beingproposed to us? It is not a neo-liberaldocument; it is not even a liberal document.It belongs, quite honestly, to the 1950s, whenthe first work on creating the new Europewas being carried out. It is a documentderived from the constitutional ideas of19th century Europe, some of which wereheld by well intentioned Popes, some ofwhich were developed in the First and ThirdEmpires by the two Napoleons and some ofwhich were owing to Chancellor Bismarck.Indeed, many of the ideas about the powerof bureaucracy to change society derivefrom the days of the Prussian empire. But itis not in any way a document which showsan underlying liberal ideology.

One can see that in the constitution veryclearly. There is no proposed reform of theacquis communautaire. The acquis commun-autaire has developed over 50 years. Any

institution which has developed over 50years is ripe for reform. That is universallytrue in human history. And the fact that theacquis communautaire is not only takentotally for granted and is totally protectedbut that it has also been imposed withoutchange – 85,000 pages of it – on every newmember of the European Union shows thatthis is an anti-radical document and wecannot afford to sterilise Europe at the pointat which it is reached.

There is no return of powers to the inde-pendent elected national Parliaments –none. Nowhere does it say that powerswhich in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or1990s went to the centre should now bereturned in order to get them nearer to thepeople. There is not a word on that. There-fore, this is a document which must berejected. We have gone down a blind alley.We have gone backwards in history towardsthe 1950s and the 19th century and we haveproduced this absurd constitution, which isitself incapable of reform and an obstacle to

reform.Now we have – I very much welcome it – a

Labour Party which is bursting out with allthe leaves of spring. It has decided that it isgoing to be a liberal and democratic party –a decision that some people asked it to takesome little while ago. We have a LiberalDemocrat Party in which the brightest andbest of young people are urging their elders– tugging at their coat-tails – to go back tothe fundamental ideas of liberty on whichthe Liberal Party was founded. We have aConservative Party which shares this mag-nificent consensus. And, sitting on the CrossBenches, I can say that there are quite a fewneo-liberals on the Cross Benches as well.

We have a European document which isflatly contrary to all those ideas. Of course,it will be swept away. The only question is:when? And the answer is: the sooner, thebetter.

Extract from Hansard, © ParliamentaryCopyright 2004

Advertisement forThe Essential Guide to the

European Unionby Ruth Lea

Centre for Policy Studies

22

The European Journal And Finally… November 2004

Jump to Contents

FACTSby Sean Shortell

Sean Shortell is currently studying Political Science at Marist Universityin New York state and is a research assistant at the European Foundation.

1 Wind taken out of EU whistleblowerThe EU concluded a 28-month inquiry with the

dismissal of Marta Andreasen without severance pay. MrsAndreasen questioned a £130 million discrepancy betweentwo accounting books for 2001. She also criticised EUbookkeeping practices in general, calling the £63 billionbudget “an open till waiting to be robbed”. Tried at a privatetribunal, Mrs Andreasen was dismissed, though internaldocuments support her claim. She is planning an appeal. [TheDaily Telegraph 14 October 2004]

2 Call for co-ordinated referenda on ConstitutionA resolution passed on 14 October calls for all EU

member states to have held referendums on the EuropeanConstitution by June of 2006. This gives member states just 20months to take the necessary action in order for a referendumon the European Constitution to take place. Spain is the onlystate that has so far set a date – 20 February 2005. The formalsigning of the Constitution took place on 29 October but thedocument will not be effective until all member states haveratified it. [Euobserver.com 15 October 2004]

3 Lithuania is first member state to ratify ConstitutionOnly two weeks after the official signing of the EU

Constitution in Rome, politicians in Lithuania made a swiftmove to ratify the document. 84 members of the 141-strongSeimas (parliament) voted in favour of the Constitution. Fourvoted against, three abstained and 50 members were absentfrom the vote, with some of the lawmakers who voted againstthe document claiming the EU was merely a replacement offormer Soviet bureaucracy. Egidijus Klumbys, a member ofthe National Progress Party, voted against it, stated, the“Lithuanian state will cease to exist. Our constitution willbecome a piece of worthless paper.” The Seimas’s decision nowawaits the signature of President Valdas Adamkus to formallyvalidate the ratification process. [International Herald Tribune12 November 2004]

4 More money for Euro MPs?Members of the European Parliament are seeking a pay

raise of £17,000 a year. MEPs claimed the raise was to coverincreasing staffing costs as well as an increase in theirsecretarial allowances. Initially proposed by the Parliament’spresident, Joseph Borrell, the initiative will become effectivein January, if passed by the whole Parliament. Yet, some MEPsexpressed restraint in disbursing more money, citing a well-known scam for MEPs to ‘employ’ their wives as research andpersonal assistants. MEPs must produce contracts for theirstaffs, which include their salary; working hours however arerarely looked into. [The Sun 18 October 2004]

5 Medical research at high risk from EU directiveThe EU’s Clinical Trials Directive may severely hinder

studies of medical products, thus making it increasinglydifficult for academic and non-commercial research to carryout progressive or ground-breaking research in leading fieldsof medicine. Higher costs and red tape have discouragedscientists from taking on new projects. It’s also worth notingthat of over 400 doctors, in a survey conducted bydoctors.net.uk, only 40 per cent were aware of the newdirective and its implications. Many cite poor legislativedrafting as the root cause of the dilemma. Essentially, bigbudget commercial research is unlikely to be affected, whileacademic and non-commercial research could be severelyrestricted. [The Daily Telegraph 4 October 2004]

6 Beckham’s Euro snubDavid Beckham has become the latest endorsement

target of the ‘Yes’ bandwagon for the European Constitution.With both sides rallying support for the anticipatedreferendum on the European Constitution, Beckham is thenewest celebrity to be drawn in to the political fray. Manyobservers expect the football star to snub the Euro-fanatics asthey attempt to woo him into endorsing the controversialpolitical issue. As a spokesman for Beckham said: “We havenot received an invite.” [The Sun 19 October 2004]

7 Spain questions legality of EU ConstitutionPrime Minister Zapatero is leading Spanish debate over

the legality of the EU Constitution. He is seeking a legalopinion on whether Article I-16 of the newly signedConstitution conflicts with Spain’s own Constitution. Forthe first time in an EU treaty, the article sees an explicitexpression of the primacy of EU law over national law.Zapatero has requested an answer within two months, prior toSpain’s referendum which is to be held on 20 February 2005.Despite his concern, the Prime Minister is hoping Spanishvoters will accept the Constitution, thus setting an example toother member states. [euobserver.com 3 November 2004]

8 EU net laws causing rough waters for fishermenThe EU’s insistence on fisherman using nets with 80mm

mesh rather than 110mm has caused widespread disruptionamong the commercial fishing industry. Aside from being abane on business, it’s also environmentally detrimental. Up to90 per cent of catches with the 80mm nets must be thrownback, often dead. Some fisherman see such net requirementsas purely political, as 80mm nets benefit the Belgians andtheir fishing of Dover sole, a highly sought after fish that canescape from 110mm nets. [The Daily Telegraph 18 October2004]

23

November 2004The European Journal And Finally…

Jump to Contents

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

From Mr Richard Corbett, MEPDear Sir,

So, “the European Union wants to scrapthe British rebate” according to AnnunziataRees-Mogg (volume 11, number 8). Does it?When did the EU decide that that is what it“wants”? The answer is that it didn’t: such adecision would require the unanimousagreement of every member state.

What Ms Rees-Mogg is referring to, ofcourse, is the fact that the European Com-mission has put forward such a viewpoint.But she should know that the Commissiondoes not decide – it merely proposes.

In this light, her railing against MsSchreyer as an “unelected Eurocrat” issomewhat misplaced. Ms Rees-Mogg claims

From Mr Walter J. AblettDear Annunziata Rees-Mogg,

It was published that there was muchamusement when Eurostat omitted show-ing Wales on its map of Europe.

I was not amused when I obtained a copyof the approved ‘EU Map of the EURegions’. It showed Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland as EU Regions. England was deletedand substituted with nine EU Regions. JohnPrescott is trying to implement Regions inEngland but he omits stating that they areEU Regions.

Yours sincerely,Walter J. Ablett, C. EngChelmsford, Essex

From Lord Stoddart of SwindonDear Sir,

A number of people have protested to meabout remarks made by Mr Denis Mac-Shane, Minister for Europe, in an interviewin the Daily Telegraph of 7th August last.

Referring to Britain in the interview, hesaid “I am afraid we have got a dark streak ofxenophobia and racism in our mentality andour nature. Anti-Europeanism allows it to geta lot closer to the surface.” He went on to say“Euroscepticism is a misnomer. What we aretalking about is a hatred of Europe and asense of superiority which has always beenthe Achilles heel of Britain throughout theages.”

Those remarks were a disgraceful attackon Britain and the British people, theirattitudes, beliefs and their history which, ifmade against almost any other racial groupwould have brought down a barrage of criti-cism on Mr MacShane’s head from manyquarters including, I would have thought,the CRE itself. But criticism has been mutedand it seems that Mr MacShane has gotaway with it and I would be interested toknow whether the CRE has taken or intendsto take any action and if not, why not.

I should add that, as someone who couldbe described as a Eurosceptic, having neverbeen in favour of joining the CommonMarket in the first place and believing thatBritain should, in the interests of theeconomy, democracy and self-government,leave the EU as soon as possible, I do notmind being attacked by Mr MacShane, oranyone else for that matter, for my deeplyheld beliefs.

I do, however, take grave exception togeneralised, ignorant and cruel attacksmade on my country and fellow country-men, especially when such attacks comefrom Ministers of the Crown. Furthermore,Mr McShane, of all people, should under-stand that over the centuries British peoplehave sacrificed their lives, property andeconomic well being to go to the aid ofEuropean countries under assault from avariety of imperialist adventurers, includingtheir intervention in 1939 to rescue Polandand Europe from the dictatorship andhorrors of Hitler and his Nazis.

A people who make such sacrifices, ashave the British, to help their fellowEuropeans cannot be xenophobic, racist

and anti-European. Certainly, for myself, Ilike our continental neighbours. I lovemany of their characteristics, I enjoy theirculture and respect their institutions but Isimply do not want to be ruled by them.That goes for a huge majority of Britishpeople and they should not be subjected toracist attacks for it.

Yours faithfully,Stoddart of SwindonChairman - Campaign for an IndependentBritainHouse of Lords

From Lord TebbitDear Sir,

I was very sad indeed to that in TheEuropean Foundation Intelligence Digest of23 September it had succumbed toGuardian / BBC / Labour propaganda onso-called “far right” political parties.

In the item headed “German Far RightParties Want to Enter Bundestag” there is areference to the NPD as one such party.However, Udo Voigt, its leader, is quoted assaying that the goal of his party is toovercome “the liberal capitalist system of thefederal republic”.

That certainly puts him in the same boxas Hitler who led the National SocialistGerman Worker’s Party, Stalin, and morerecently, Saddam, the leader of the IraqiBaathist Socialist Party, but not with anyright wing party.

Yours faithfuly,Right Honourable Lord Tebbit, CHHouse of Lords, London

that Ms Schreyer highlights two “inherentflaws in the EU” namely that she is a“stereotypical socialist bureaucrat” and that“she is not elected and has no democraticauthority over British tax payers”.

In fact, she is a Green, not a Socialist. Herauthority, such as it is, derives from theCommission holding and maintaining theconfidence of the elected EuropeanParliament (not unlike our own ministerswho are appointed but must, collectively,enjoy the confidence of the House ofCommons). But she does, in any case, nothold any “authority over British tax payers”,as the EU budget is adopted by the Euro-pean Parliament within a framework laiddown by the member states of the EU.

So neither of these “inherent flaws” bearup to scrutiny and the British rebate in anycase only be changed if the House ofCommons agrees. Time for Ms Rees-Moggto stop dreaming up scare stories?

Yours,Richard Corbett, MEPLabour spokesman on EU constitutionalaffairs

24

The European Journal And Finally… November 2004

Jump to Contents

BOOK REVIEWSEurope Recast:

A History of the European UnionBy Desmond Dinan, Palgrave Macmillan, 371 pp, 2004,

ISBN 0-333-98734-9, £52.50

Reviewed by Dr Lee Rotherham

TV historians can be said to fall into twocategories. The first is the AJP Taylor type,who stands in a locked room for an hourand delivers a monologue on Why ThingsHappened. The second stands in the middleof a field, possibly in a marvellous skimpyAmazonian girly dress, showing with theaid of five foot Saxon axes or Roman readymix concrete How Things Happened. Thisbook falls in the first category, because thereis no cleavage.

The text at times is deadbeat. The authoris aware of it, even apologises for it, thoughrevels in having weeded out as many of theacronyms as humanly possible. I am lessconvinced that dodging the term ‘acquiscommunautaire’ was a wise move, however,as by skipping the vocabulary he runs therisk of sanitising the philosophy.

Overall, however, the work achieves itsobjective of escorting us through thedevelopment of the European project in arelatively balanced manner, perhapsredolent of a North American lobbyist’sperceptions as recounted to a young acolytein a bar off the Grand’Place. Now and againwe can take issue with the odd inter-pretation. There are some hiatuses, such as ajump on the relative Euro-enthusiasm of theDutch during the time of Adenauer. There isa readiness to consider US willingness forUK entry to the EEC as sufficient reason initself for the UK to join - the British positionin the Messina Conference could have beendeveloped more in this context. The etch-a-

sketch map on page 33 of East and WestGermany with their capitals is superfluous.And whilst most authors talk of it heatingup, this author’s reference to a drop in temp-erature in the Cold War simply confuses.These flaws are, however, survivable.

I suspect that, like me, most readers willfind the earlier sections more useful. Per-plexingly, the author does not link hostilityin France to the European Defence Com-munity with the related European PoliticalCommunity, despite earlier dismissingpolitical concerns expressed on the issue.But he does intriguingly relate how in 1957,France was already pushing the SocialChapter – to the chagrin of the other fivestates, who saw it as a competitive burden.EFTA provided some tantalising glimpsesof what might have been: Erhard, the fatherof the German economic miracle and laterChancellor, accepting the EEC grudginglyand preferring the alternative UK offer of asimple free trade area for industrialproducts.

What is least useful about this work is thatit deals in fine detail with the veneer ofEuropean development, but occasionallymisses the chipboard beneath. The weakestpart is towards the end. For instance, JohnMajor is described as having “adamantlyrefused the Social Chapter” without men-tioning the detail that this position wasforced on him. The UK opt-outs ofSchengen to retain control over its ownborders, but the connected issue of ID cards

is ignored. Conservative Euroskeptics [sic]were said to have strength disproportionateto their numbers; but this fails to mentionMajor’s parliamentary majority, or morewidespread grassroots feeling. Theresignation of the Commission in ’99 onlyhappened because of the activism of a fewMEPs, though this you would never haveknown. The EU Constitution section is tooshallow and deals only with what thegovernments and Commission wanted tosell as controversial – voting rights, QMVthresholds, Council changes: in short, theinstitutional twitches and not the real powershifts to Brussels. The extension to QMV isdescribed as uncontroversial and creditable.Whistleblowers are practically airbrushedout, but Kinnock’s reforms get a page.Something is dreadfully wrong when PatCox’s views on corruption get aired but thewhistleblowers aren’t even named.

I suspect that the final section is weakestbecause it has been lifted from the web sitesof the European institutions. Theimpartiality of earlier chapters (while notperfect) is lost.

The footnotes, meanwhile, are quite ade-quate (and demonstrate all too worryinglywhat EU funds for academic work is beingspent on).

This book does serve a useful purpose intaking the reader through the long andcomplex development of the European pro-ject. The author achieves this in a mannerthat is understandable, and – even morecreditably given the subject – occasionallyeven interesting. Unfortunately, the authorloses his credibility sometime betweenMaastricht and Amsterdam. Since mostJournal readers will be most familiar withthis period anyway, this doesn’t disqualifyEurope Recast from your bookshelves.

Dr Lee Rotherham is a consultant on EUaffairs.

… news in briefGermany might allow referendums

The red-green governing coalition in Germany is to present a bill whichwould allow referendums. They have not been part of the Germanpolitical process since the end of the war. A bill is to be presented toParliament this autumn which would allow the people to vote on simplelaws as well as on amendments to the constitution and internationaltreaties. Referendums on individual laws would depend on publicpetitions which collect at least 400,000 signatures in favour of a bill onwhich the Parliament would then vote. This is the effectively the systemin Austria. The system for constitutional amendments and international

treaties would be different: both would require a majority whichcomprised at least 25% of the total number of registered voters. Treatieswould be subject to referendum only if the Parliament decides by a two-thirds majority that they should be. This bill itself requires a two-thirdsmajority because it represents a constitutional change, and therefore thegoverning parties will have to appeal to deputies from the oppositionChristian Democrats and Liberals. Support might be obtained fromthese parties if the quorums are raised slightly: they have traditionallybeen opposed to referendums on principle. It is possible, therefore, thatthe European Constitution might be subject to a referendum inGermany. [Peter Dausend, Die Welt, 19th October 2004]

25

November 2004The European Journal And Finally…

Jump to Contents

Off WhitehallBy Derek Scott, IB Tauris, 288 pp, 2004, ISBN 1-85043-677-0, £18.95

Reviewed by Dirk van Heck

In the main, the media have treated thisbook like a TV magazine: worth reading,

because it delves more deeply into the plotof a soap-opera than anything you’ll see ontelevision. This is a pity, because it is in fact abook the political importance of which goeswell beyond the turf war between Number10 and Number 11 and the personalanimosities that drive it.

Derek Scott was an adviser to DenisHealy before he became Economic Adviserto Tony Blair, and spent the interveningperiod working in the City. His authorialvoice exudes intellectual honesty; indeed herecalls being dressed down (in the disci-linary sense) for the politically unhelpful(i.e. objective) economic advice he gave tothe Prime Minister in front of other Labourpoliticos. He is, fundamentally, a Labourman with a socialistic political philosophy;a loyal leftist taking his counsel outside theNew Labour politburo in frustration.

Scott makes it clear that whilst he is anadmirer of Tony Blair, he considers him a bitof a lightweight when it comes toeconomics. (One story involves a mandarinsheepishly suggesting to the Prime Ministerthat he might like to take some economicstextbooks on holiday with him – thesuggestion was not taken up.) Yet Blaircomes across as being somewhatinsubstantial on the politics as well: Scotttells us that the PM had an oft-repeatedmantra that, “the political case for joining theeuro is overwhelming,” but that he neveractually bolstered the assertion byarticulating that case. Scott believes thatBlair has been less candid about the politicsof EMU than other leading Europeanfigures, which he backs up by quoting WimDuisenberg, who was at the time presidentof the European Central Bank, “EMU is andwas always meant to be a stepping stone onthe way to a united Europe.”

Scott seems to find New Labour’sdissembling on Europe quite offensive:“One of the arguments often introduced intodiscussions on Europe was the charge thatthose with doubts about EMU or theproposed Constitution, wanted to ‘disengage’from Europe… [but] the issue is how best tocooperate in partnership with other countrieswithin the EU and what is the mostappropriate political and economic frame-work for that to take place.” And he is

contemptuous of the Government’s ‘in orout’ line on the European Constitution: “…it served the Prime Minister’s purpose tosuggest that those who opposed theConstitution were really setting out to secedefrom the Union. Some may have been, but itdoes not have to be the case and to suggestotherwise is simply disingenuous.”

The economics of the Europe issue are,Scott believes, important in their own right,and that, whatever the (elusive) politicalcase, they are fundamentally wrong. Scottworries about the political consequences ofhigh unemployment and ‘asymetric shock’in the eurozone. He also frets that GordonBrown is not ideologically opposed to theeuro, but that his euroscepticism has beenmerely an incubus for ‘the TB-GBs’. The‘five tests’ for euro entry “only addressedsecond-order questions,” although Scottinsists that they were drafted by mandarinsand not concocted in the back of a black cabby the Chancellor and his apprentice, thegoblin of the Treasury, Ed Balls.

In the course of the book, which is more awork of political economy than a highpolitical expose, Scott dutifully treads overthe essential narrative ground (thedevelopment of the European project, thecollapse of Bretton Woods and the ‘snake’)and makes all the proper arguments tosupport his case (the continuing tensionsbetween French and German thinking, thesymbiotic relationship between economicand political union, the vitality of exchangerate flexibility, the outdated, bureaucratic,undemocratic nature of the whole EUenterprise). With the Government claiming,as a crucial plank of its re-election cam-paign, that Bank of England independenceis the macroeconomic foundation of a new-found stability in Britain, how will evensuch an accomplished magician of logic asTony Blair be able to claim, in the samebreath, that it is our “patriotic duty” now tocede its function to a political EuropeanCentral Bank?

Scott’s final chapter is a eurosceptic tourde force. It argues that the UK must remainoutside the euro to achieve its full potentialinfluence; that the economics of the euroare “fundamentally flawed”; that the eurothreatens the new EU Member States with afuture of boom and bust; that, ultimately, itis a threat to political stability in Europe.

The EU’s big bang expansion has been amissed opportunity, mistakenly culminat-ing in the backward-looking Constitutionfor Europe. Competence over areas of taxand social legislation should be returned tothe Member States in order for competitivemarkets to function efficiently. All thesearguments will be familiar to readers of TheEuropean Journal, but Scott’s analysis hasthe distinction of being written from aLabour point of view and is exceptionallywell organised: he gets his ducks in a row,then shoots down the canards, one-by-one.

Having put forward some alternativemodels for the new Europe, Scott movestowards his conclusion: “In the end, TonyBlair was forced to agree to a referendum onthe Constitution as a matter of politicalexpediency…

“If a referendum were to take place, somepoliticians may believe that the British peoplewould be frightened into submission over theEU Constitution if they thought thealternative was to leave the EU. In the samevein, they might even eventually be bulliedinto accepting the single currency, and theimplications of the Constitution would makeresistance more difficult. However, suchtactics could backfire and in any case is [sic]an unnecessary choice to present to theBritish people so long as our political leadersstand ready to use the veto to protect Britain’sinterests in any political settlement proposedfor the EU.

“Of course, if politicians are not ready to dothat, then that is another matter, but suchpoliticians would have declared themselvesunready and unworthy to defend Britishinterests, in or out of the single currency.” Thisparting shot could easily be interpreted as acall for Tony Blair’s resignation.

This is an excellent book. It is frank,informative, intelligent and spiced withanecdotes and wit, for example in thechapter headings, which I particularlyenjoyed. Don’t expect it to reward you in thesame way as TV magazine, though; itrequires rather more work than that.

Dirk van Heck is Head of Research at theEuropean Foundation.

26

The European Journal And Finally… November 2004

Jump to Contents

Malta also achieved its Biblical significance as the location of StPaul’s shipwreck.

Arabs also settled in Malta from the 9th to 11th century and whilethere is little physical evidence of their stay, their mark on theculture was significant. Their influence on the language is seen inthe names of the towns such as Marsa, Mdina and Rabat. Arabicinhabitants did however leave behind one significant physicalmarker in Malta – a distinct terraced landscape, which resultedfrom new agricultural techniques introduced to the islands duringthis period.

In 1090, the Normans wrestled the islands from the Arabs andsubsequently inhabited the region. During Norman control, theislands were cast off and forgotten as a mere outpost. Much of thepopulation plunged into poverty or slavery. For nearly 500 years,Malta was passed around the royal families of Europe until 1530,when the island was granted to Knights of St John. Maltese traditionbegan to flourish and Valletta was established as the Knights’ capitalcity. The Knights contributed immensely to the baroqueatmosphere of Valletta and fortified the harbour with extensivedefences built upon the Mount Sceberras Peninsula.

In 1565, the Ottoman Turks, sworn enemies of the Knights of St.John, launched a massive siege upon the islands. 40,000 Turksattacked Malta, which was defended by a mere 700 Knights and8000 Maltese citizens. At Valletta, the Turks lay siege to St Elmo forsome 36 days until they finally overran it at a cost of 8000 men. TheOttomans later moved on to attack St Angelo, the last fortifiedposition in Valletta. Still thoroughly outnumbered, the Knightsturned back each of the Ottoman’s advances in a stalemate thatlasted the entire summer of 1565. The siege finally ended on 8September of that year, following the arrival of reinforcements forthe Knights. This day is still a celebrated public holiday.

Following the siege, the Knights continued to develop Valletta’sinnovative layout of grid streets, which was a new concept in the 16th

century. The grid layout allowed for fresh air from the harbours tocirculate throughout the city. The city was also among the first inthe world to have fresh water piped in, as well as sanitation. Upon its

VALLETTA CITY GUIDEby Sean Shortell

initial completion in 1571, Valletta was a sizeable and prosperousfortress city set amidst one of Europe’s most coveted and importantharbours. The most impressive architectural remnant of this era iscertainly St John’s Cathedral, credited as the first complete exampleof high baroque architecture.

The Knights controlled Malta with relative effectiveness andstability for another 250 years. However, in 1798 Napoleon seizedMalta for his empire, but was unable to effectively rule the entirearea. Napoleon’s troops remained isolated and without authoritybehind the walls of Valletta’s great fort. Britain sailed into theharbour in 1800, removing the French and taking Malta underBritish control. As part of Britain’s sprawling empire, the harbourand fortifications of Valletta were utilized to protect imperialinterests.

Under British rule, the Maltese people were linked to the fate ofBritain. During both World Wars, Malta served as a crucial supplyand recovery base for troops. It was during World War II that theislands gained their fame for enduring a siege and bombardmentlasting 154 days. Pushed to the brink of starvation and capitulation,the Maltese people persevered and King George V awarded theGeorge Cross to the entire population. Devastated by war, theislands were granted some £30 million by the British government torebuild.

Finally, on 21 September 1964 the Maltese people were givenindependence from Britain. Malta is still a member of theCommonwealth and in 1974 Malta became a republic within theCommonwealth. Shortly thereafter the last of the British militaryleft. Malta still has a proud British tradition ingrained in its society;along with Maltese, English is an official language.

In 1990, Malta applied for membership to the EU and wasgranted full membership in 2004. Malta has a thriving touristindustry and has developed and diversified its traditional industriesin recent decades. Today Valletta is a thoroughly modern city, actingas the nation’s government and business centre as well as main itsmain point of entry, while maintaining its classic architecture andstyle.

Traditionally enjoying a strategic locat-ion in the Mediterranean, Malta has proud

history of defence as it has guarded the traderoutes of many of Europe’s greatest empires. Asdevoutly Catholic nation with a long andcelebrated history dating back to the CopperAge, Malta’s historic past is it’s biggest sellingpoint. 7000 years of history await visitors uponarrival, as well a several world heritage sights.

Originally settled and colonized by thePhoenicians around 800 B.C., the islands ofMalta later came under Roman control atabout 200 B.C.. The Romans introducedChristianity to the islands, which was to play asignificant role in Malta’s future. During thistime, Malta was first mentioned in written his-tory and prospered from the wealth of Romantrade. The famous Roman senator, Cicero,commented on the importance of the islandsand their temples. During the Roman era,

27

November 2004The European Journal And Finally…

Jump to Contents

Sean Shortell is currently studying PoliticalScience at Marist University in New Yorkstate and is a research assistant at theEuropean Foundation.

GETTING THERE

British Airways: www.ba.com or 0870850 9850Flights from Gatwick from £94Air Malta: www.airmalta.com or +3562169 0890Flights from Heathrow from £196

ACCOMMODATION

Le Meridien Phoenicia****The Mall, tel. 08000 282840www.lemeridienphonecia.comBuilt in the 1940’s but thoroughlymodern in its services, the Phoenicia iseasily the finest hotel in Valletta. Somerooms have balconies overlooking theharbour or gardens. The hotel is withinshort walking distance of the GrandHarbour, Mediterranean CongressCentre and the city’s business anddiplomatic core.Rooms from £51 to £136 per night.British Hotel***40 Battery Street, tel. +356 2122 4730 www.britishhotel.comThis affordable, family-owned hoteloverlooks the Grand Harbour andfeatures a comfortable sun deck with barand lounge. It is set just outside the city,but is still only a short walk from themain attractions. The quaint atmo-sphere makes this an ideal choice forbusiness and leisure travellers alike.Rooms from £80 to £130 per night.Osborne Hotel***50 South Street, tel. +356 2124 3656www.osbornehotel.comSituated in a renovated 16th centurybuilding originally used as a hostel forthe Knights of St John, this hotel is full ofcharacter and history. It is nestled on aquiet side street, but only minutes fromthe centre of Valletta. Each roomfeatures modern amenities and manyoffer stunning views of the old city andit’s harbour. The hotel includes a pool,spa, bar and lounge as well as conferencefacilities. Rooms from £80 per night.

SIGHTS

Upper Barrakka Gardenstel. +356 2123 4141Originally private, the gardens openedto the public in 1924. From the terrace,one can overlook the harbour and takein views of the three cities built by theKnights. Among pistachio trees, statues

of famous contributors to Maltesesociety and culture line the walkways.National Museum of Fine ArtsSouth Street, tel. +356 2122 5769 / 21233034This restored 16th century palace hasserved as the residence of British NavalCommanders, but now the space hoststhe works of several Italian masters andincludes priceless landscapes of theMaltese countryside and ancient coinsand metals of the Knights of St John.Fort St ElmoSt Elmo Street, tel. +356 2122 2430Situated at the tip of the city, the oldgarrison is still a working fort. It is homeof the Maltese Police Academy and theWar Museum, which documents thefort’s historic past and use through fivecenturies and nearly every majorEuropean war. Guards in full 16thcentury costume parade the groundsand perform re-enactments of the Siegeof 1565.St John’s CathedralSt John Street, tel. +356 2122 5639While at its most festive and vibrantduring the summer and Christmasholiday, St John’s Cathedral is not bemissed. Described by Sir Walter Scott as“the most magnificent place he’d everseen,” the Cathedral is sure not todisappoint. Its architecture pays tributeto the Knight’s military heritage and ishailed by many as a revolutionarylandmark that helped launch theBaroque movement of the 17th century.The Cathedral is also the burial place ofthe sons of many of Europe’s royalfamilies.

EATING

The Carriage22/5 Valletta Buildings, South St, tel.+356 2124 7828The stylish Carriage includes anambitious menu and meals are servedwith flare. The atmosphere is that of aprivate club and the view of the harbouris an added bonus for those withwindow seating. Jacket and tie required.Giannini23 Windmill St, tel. +356 2123 7121Valletta’s top venue for the entertainingset. Rub elbows with politicians,diplomats, international businessmoguls and Malta’s own fashionable set.

SHOPPING

Silema and St Julian’s are two towns setjust across the harbour from the citycentre. Here, you’ll be able to find Italian,British and other continental fashions aswell as a plethora of music, book andspecialty stores. In Silema, head forBisazza Street and Tower Road forleading chains, but be sure not to neglectthe interesting options offered along theside streets.

In Valletta, there are several options asshopping arcades are dispersedthroughout the ancient city. Republicand Merchant Streets offer small craftand bookshops, as well as perfume,cosmetics and jewellery. Be sure not tomiss the local markets either.

GOING OUT

Manoel Theatre115 Old Theatre Street, tel. +356 21246389 / 2122 2618www.teatrumanoel.com.mtAt 275 years old, few halls in Europe canmatch the historic aura of the Manoel.The theatre hosts live acts throughoutthe year in genres spanning from opera,comedy and drama to classical andother special events.If you’re looking for serious clubs anddiscos, head up the coast to Pacevilleand St Julian’s. There are several options,as a number of high-end clubs anddiscos dot the coastline. Most have adecidedly continental feel.Paceville and St Julian’s also offer worldclass gambling at seaside casinos. TheOracle and Dragonara are by far themost popular. Oracle: +356 2157 0057www.oraclecasino.com / Dragonara:+356 2138 2362 www.dragonara.com.

Enjoy top Maltese-Italian cuisine andservice as you gaze out over the harbour.Lantern20 Sappers St, tel. +356 2123 7521Family owned and operated, thisrestaurant is less flashy than otherselections, giving it a friendly,comfortable atmosphere. StandardMaltese cuisine does not disappoint.Call ahead, opening times vary.

28

The European Journal And Finally… November 2004

Jump to Contents

TobyMorison

C H U N N E LV I S I O N º Once made a speech involving reference to the following: Panzers; Up Yours

Delors; Napoleon; Julius Caesar; Matthew 22 verse 21; handbags; The French(with a capital T); Volvos. One point per item.

º Displays Raj Tendencies. Five points.

º Drinks English Sparkling wine when no TV cameras are present. Two points.

º Member of Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB). Fifty points. Bit of agiveaway, this one. If you are uncertain of your candidate’s loyalties, why notinvite them to join this cross-party group? It beats throwing him into a pondand seeing if he floats.

º Confuses pro-Europeans by (a) having married a continental (b) speaking aforeign language as good as a local taxi cab driver (c) having run some smallcountry’s entire business sector for them. Four points each.

º Mobile phone ringtone is the Dambusters theme. One point.

º Known on circuit. One point for each time has been in the same room asIdris Francis.

º Survived attempt by Party Whips to fix his brakes. Twenty points.

º Has been to Brussels. Came back even more outspoken despite attempts atbribery with the prospect of barrels of silver, tuns of Brabant beer, and the offerof the Order of the Golden Croissant. One point.

º Unpopular with the Commission. Two points per lunatic Directive broughtto public attention.

º Calls for a Commission on Costs-Benefits on Membership. Five points.Actually, this is quite a serious one. There have been attempts in the Commonsand Lords by backbenchers to do precisely what ‘middle ranking’ Treasuryofficials started doing in 1998 before Gordon Brown pulled the plug, i.e. run anactual study of what the EU actually costs the UK. There have been severalacademic costings over the years (Professor Minford’s in ’96, for instance), butone authorised from Government, and conducted fairly and transparently,would carry great weight in any debate on the country’s future. It could have adual mandate of the economic and the democratic aspects, and be authorisedto conclude with a cost/benefit of non-membership. Every sceptic – and everyfederalist in his heart – knows that whatever the debatable advantages ofcontinued membership, there are clear massive financial, constitutional andlibertarian costs. Denis Macshane wants openness in the debate: let’s have it!Twenty points if the candidate accepts withdrawal is an option.

º Member of the Advisory Board of a leading Eurosceptic European journal in atawny yellowy cover. Eight and a half points.

º Shifted the debate. Five points per call for repatriation per competence peryear ahead of the official party line.

º Annoy people constantly by correcting you every other sentence when you sayEurosceptic rather than Eurorealist. Three points.

º Owns European pet (Dachsund, Alsatian, rabid rodent). One point. Pit Bullnamed George or such like. Two points. Bulldog, ideally trained (by Beagles)to smoke Havana cigars. Four points.

º Favourite Chrimbo film is the Great Escape. One point.

º Wears sickly lemon rosette. Minus eight hundred points.

º Reading this. Zero points. Go and make yourself a cuppa then put your coaton – you should be out leafleting!

Dr Lee Rotherham is a consultant on EUaffairs.

TargetAcquisition

by Dr LeeRotherham

Further to our recent

ponderings, it seems thatpreparations for the HuntingSeason on MPs are trulyunderway. Officially, Spring ’05will see the blunderbusses,wheel-locks and assortedpowder musketry unleashed inthe general direction of thatCommons fowl, the Lesser-Anticipated Sceptic Duck.Technically, the creature is anendangered species and there issome debate on the preserv-ation of their habitat. Part ofthe problem is the closeproximity of their cousin, theHugely-Overrated Fake BlahBlah Bird, which has beenknown to change its plumageevery four or five years or so inorder to blend in with itsassociates.

As part of our public servicecommitment, there follows apoint card in order to facilitatedistinction between the twospecies.

Please enclose your cheque made out to “The European Journal” and return this form to:Subscriptions, The European Foundation, 7 Southwick Mews, London W2 1JG

Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7706 7240 E-mail: euro.foundation@e-f.org.uk

I enclose my annual subscription of £ (minimum £30, Senior Citizens & Students £20.00)

plus postage: UK nil, Europe £4, Outside Europe £8 made payable to The European Journal.

Name (in capitals): Title:

Address (in capitals):

Postcode:

Tel: Fax: e-mail:

✂

UK: Minimum £30; UK Senior Citizens & Students: £20.00; Europe excl. UK: £34; Rest of World: £38

Subscription Rates & Donations

Donations should be made payable to “The European Foundation”; subscriptions to “The European Journal”.

The European Foundation

Activities

The Foundation pursues its objectivesby:

• organising meetings and conferencesin the UK and in mainland Europe;

• publishing newsletters, periodicalsand other material and participatingin radio and television broadcasts;

• producing policy papers and briefs;

• monitoring EC developments and theevolution of public opinion and itsimpact on the political process in themain EC countries;

• liaison with like-minded organ-isations in other EC and EC applicantcountries and elsewhere;

• liaison with trade associations andother professional bodies .affected byEC action and policy.

Objectives

The objectives of the Foundation, set outin its constitution, are as follows:

• to provide a forum for the develop-ment of ideas and policies forthe furtherance of commerce anddemocracy in Europe;

• to increase co-operation betweenindependent sovereign states in theEuropean Community and thepromotion of the widening andenlargement of that Community toinclude all applicant European nations;

• to resist by all lawful democratic meansall and any moves tending towards thecoming into being of a Europeanfederal or unitary state and for thefurtherance and/or maintenance ofsuch end;

The Foundation

The Foundation addresses itself to thegeneral public and to politicians,journalists, academics, students,economists, lawyers, businessmen,trade associations and the City.

It concerns itself with the followingmain topics:

• industrial and commercial policy;

• economic and monetary matters;

• foreign policy;

• security and defence;

• environmental issues;

• the Common Agricultural Policy;

• the reform of Communityinstitutions;

• the developing world.

The Great College Street Group was formed inOctober 1992 in order to oppose the MaastrichtTreaty. The group, consisting of academics,businessmen, lawyers and economists, providedcomprehensive briefs in the campaign to win thearguments in Parliament and in the country.The European Foundation was created after the

Maastricht debates. Its task has been to mount avigorous and constructive campaign in theUnited Kingdom and throughout Europe forthe reform of the EC as a community ofindependent sovereign states. The Foundationcontinues to establish links with other like-minded institutes across Europe.

Rates show will be correct at least until Summer 2001. After this date please check by ‘phone/fax/e-mail before subscribing.