The Convention on the Future of Europe

Separating Fact from Fiction By Robert Evans MEP

In a blaze of publicity and with scare stories in some tabloids, suggesting a ‘1000 years of UK independence’ is at risk, the current debate on the whole future of Europe has grabbed the recent headlines. But what is it really all about?

Next year the European Union (EU) is enlarging from 15 to 25 member countries so EU leaders decided on a new approach to prepare for the next Inter Governmental Conference or IGC. The Amsterdam and Maastricht Treaties were the result of previous IGCs. A European Convention was established in March last year with members drawn from national parliaments, the European Parliament and government ministers from all the existing EU countries and the new member states. Parallel discussions were held with representatives of the voluntary and community sectors as well as business and the Unions. The idea was to widen the debate and open the whole process up to more public scrutiny. This Convention, chaired by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing is reaching its conclusions this summer.

The EU was founded by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 with six countries. Over the years, new countries have joined and new Treaties have been drawn up to give the EU new powers or to adapt its institutions to developments. Traditionally, new treaties have been written by civil servants and negotiated by Foreign and Prime Ministers at these summits or IGCs. They have then been subject to ratification in each national parliament - either by a simple vote (like the UK) or by a referendum, depending on each country’s national legislation.

Most of those people who are vocal against the Convention are in general against British membership of the EU and want to reopen that debate. They are not interested in discussing the real facts. When they suggest the new Constitution would be a wholesale transfer of power to Brussels they are not telling the truth. In fact the Convention is actually proposing to give more powers to national parliaments who would have a duty to assess whether new EU laws meet the "subsidiary criteria", in other words that there is added value from action at EU level rather than nationally.

For nearly fifty years, since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, EU law has had primacy over national law, but only after national governments have so agreed. This makes sense. For where we have signed up to Europe wide legislation, for example, rules on food safety, it would ridiculous if this could be overturned by a vote in a single national parliament. But this doesn’t mean Brussels is replacing of the House of Commons, for the EU only has power in a limited number of areas, where those powers have been delegated to it by governments in successive EU Treaties.

When we joined the EU, we accepted that in certain areas, we would pool our sovereignty with other countries to increase our world strength and power. On trade for example, by speaking with one EU voice in world trade negotiations, we have a lot more clout than if we spoke as one country. In the fight against terrorism and cross-border crime our efforts would be in vain if they were not coordinated with our European neighbours. However, in key areas of national sovereignty such as foreign policy and national taxation, the UK government will retain a veto.

The call for a referendum on the Convention’s proposals would be a break from tradition in the UK and could serve to undermine all the progress that has been made over the last half century. Currently all Treaty changes to the EU have to be agreed unanimously by national leaders, before being ratified by the individual parliaments of each member state. Some countries however, Ireland being one, have in their own constitutions a requirement for a referendum for any EU Treaty change. In the UK we ratify EU Treaty changes through Parliament. In its own constitution Ireland has to have a referendum on everything, divorce laws, abortion and Europe.

This new European Constitution will affect British sovereignty less than previous other major Treaty changes eg Maastricht (signed by John Major) or the Single European Act (signed by Mrs Thatcher). Those who call for a referendum on this issue must be hoping to use it as a ‘wrecking amendment’ that would stall all progress on European unity.

The Convention is also proposing some other changes, like the establishment of an EU foreign minister who would merely represent EU Foreign Policy as agreed by national governments and would in no sense replace the UK Foreign Minister and a President or Chairman of the Council of Ministers. I think this makes sense if again, Europe is to use its strength as a group of nations with a population twice that of the USA.

Far from taking power away from the nation states, these proposals would strengthen the position of the Council of Ministers, in which the national Governments are represented. As such they are explicitly anti-federal, and have been opposed by both the smaller states of Europe and the European Commission.

Increasingly in Britain we are an island only in the geographical sense. So much of what we do is very closely allied with continental Europe. Our shops are full of food from all over Europe, our cars and washing machines are as likely to be made elsewhere in the EU as in the UK, we take holidays across Europe and we drink their wine and beer. We share frontiers and customs with our neighbours, we face the same challenges and our past and future are inter-twined.

To me therefore, it makes logical sense to work more closely with France, Germany and all the other countries. To build on what we have in common and strengthen the ties that unite us. Together, Europe has a great future. Isolated the UK is worse off and Europe is not complete with us being a full participant. That’s why the Convention on the future of Europe is important and it’s why I hope we have a serious and sensible debate about its proposals before they are ratified In the House of Commons.

If you have any comments or questions regarding the Convention or any other European issue I would be pleased to hear from you. My contact details are outlined below.

Robert Evans MEP

Email: robertevansmep@btclick.com

Website: www.robertevansmep.net