Blair: No hesitation recommending Constitution

[Andoreion]

10.09.2004 - 09:33 CET | By Marit Ruuda

The UK's referendum campaign got underway yesterday, as the government published its case for the Constitution.

The Referendum is likely to be at least a year away, but the campaign has started, with the UK government publishing, yesterday (9 September), a 49-page guide to the Constitution.

"I have no hesitation in commending it to the country as a success and as a major step forward in creating the kind of Europe that the British people want", Mr Blair wrote in the foreword.

It establishes clearly where the EU can and cannot act, and confirms the EU is a union of nation states, Mr Blair added.

The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told MPs he believed "very strongly" that British people will approve the Constitution. "We are going into this referendum campaign in order to win", Mr Straw added.

The opposition Conservative party condemned the document by claiming it was another spin "designed to deceive the people of Britain".

However while Mr Blair is working hard to win support for the Constitution, Chancellor Gordon Brown appeared to undermine the prime minister's position by sending a warning that the EU must sort out its problems with economic growth.

"It is the weakness of European Union growth that lies at the root of imbalances [in the world economy]", the Chancellor wrote in the Financial Times.

(Source: EuroObserver)

[Andoreion]

Related topic (same source):

Top French socialist puts conditions on supporting Constitution

10.09.2004 - 09:33 CET | By Lisbeth Kirk

French Socialist support for the EU Constitution hangs in the balance today, as an influential party figure places conditions on his endorsement of the text.

Former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius said last night (9 September) that deficiencies in the text need to be rectified before his endorsement at the upcoming French referendum.

Speaking in a France 2 television interview Mr Fabius stopped short of calling for the text to be revised but said it was insufficient for creating a social Europe.

"It is too late to amend the text which does present some advances but also a lot of insufficiencies" he said, "I want a new employment policy put in place that guards against jobs going abroad", he said.

The former PM also called on the French president Jacques Chirac to ensure tax harmonisation across the 25 EU countries and protect public services.

Mr Fabius in addition demanded a change of the euro rules, known as the Stability and Growth Pact, into a "Stability and Employment Pact" and he called for an increase of EU spending on education and research.

Impact

The Constitution was agreed only after difficult and lengthy negotiations among heads of state and governments from the 25 EU countries in June.

Getting a heavyweight such as Mr Fabius on the 'no' camp could have a major impact on an internal party vote of the Socialist party on the issue to be held in November.

The leader of the socialist party Francois Hollande and a number of leading party profiles are in favour of the Constitution, while the left wing of the party is opposed.

Laurent Fabius became France's youngest prime minister in 1984 when president Francois Mitterrand appointed him at the age of 38.

He is now one of the potential candidates of his party for the 2007 presidential elections in France.

Some 40 percent of the Socialist Party's membership is estimated to be opposed to the Constitution.

Ten countries have pledged to hold referendums on the European Constitution. The French President Jacques Chirac announced in July that France could vote on the Constitution in the second half of 2005.

France's last European referendum on the Maastricht treaty in 1992 saw voters split by the narrowest of margins, with 51% voting for the text and 48% against.

[Edric O]

Speaking of constitutions...

Isn't it about time Britain itself got a written constitution?

[Anathema]

What for exactly? They did pretty well without one for almost a millenium.

[Dude_Doc]

Britain don't have a constitution?

[Andoreion]

They don't. And as a result, they have quite an interesting legal system.

[nemafakei]

Yes. The creation of important new legislation is not crippled by the possibility of being 'unconstitutional' because a there is an oversight in an existing document (and if the laws are being changed, it's definitely not because previous systems have overlooked nothing).

[Dunenewt]

10.09.2004 - 09:33 CET | By Marit Ruuda

"I have no hesitation in commending it to the country as a success and as a major step forward in creating the kind of Europe that the British people want", Mr Blair wrote in the foreword.

(Source: EuroObserver)

What? So he's saying it'll get us out of the EU :D

[nemafakei]

Heheh!

Well, he could be correct - we could refuse to sign it and end up outside the EU.

[Dunenewt]

That's what I think.  The Constitution seems a bit like blackmail; you're either with us, or you're not.

[nemafakei]

To be honest, there's also a real danger the one or two countries most likely to refuse (Britain and Denmark, if I remember correctly) will wield significant power to name terms. (No, Sard, before you say it, that won't include the right to pillage or demand Danegeld from the decadent Europeans).

[Andoreion]

Heh..not like it's that easy to leave the EU right now. ;) Current European legislation prohibits countries from leaving, unless all countries in the EU unanimously vote in favor of it. This is changed in the constitution btw. If I recall correctly, a nation can leave the Union if it gives a two years notice. I have a hard time understanding though, why some many of the British are opposed to a constitution they don't know the first thing about. You guys should try reading it. It pretty much fixes many of the points EuroSceptics have been wailing about for years. :) Speaking of the EU, here are some points from the glossary of EuroSceptic beliefs.

Introduction

In the run-up to the Single Market, the process of removing internal barriers and setting up EU-wide standards meant a leap in the amount of EU-level legislation. This process had many different impacts

[Andoreion]

"Europe is undemocratic. The power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats."

Democracy in the European Union operates in different ways. The most powerful decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, is responsible through its members to parliaments and electorates in every EU country. Each country decides how to make its ministers accountable.

Direct elections to the European Parliament have created a body with a clear mandate from the electorate. MEPs are accountable for their work on legislation and in scrutinising the other EU institutions.

The unelected European Commission is often cited as the source of a 'democratic deficit' in the EU. However, Commissioners are nominated by elected governments and pass through the scrutiny of the European Parliament. Just as importantly, the Commission's work does not take place in a vacuum. Proposals for legislation result from a long process of consultation with national governments and interest groups. The Commission's management role is exercised with the national governments in hundreds of committees meeting week by week. All its work is subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament and by an independent financial watchdog, the Court of Auditors.

Of course, it goes without saying that the influence that a British voter can have in a Union of 370 million is less than that in a country of 59 million - in the same way that the voice of an individual Birmingham voter counts for more in a local authority with a population of one million than at national level. But by convention and by law, there are many safeguards to ensure that the representatives of every EU country are heard - and the EU always tries to reach a consensus, even when the rules allow decisions by majority rather than by unanimity.

    * In 1998 there were more than 3,000 meetings of the Council of Ministers at ministerial or official level - so in any given week there are an average of 60 formal meetings where the 15 EU governments forge policy.

    * Opportunities for public consultation have grown in recent years. In spite of the reduction in the number of legislative proposals, the number of green and white papers issued by the Commission rose from nine in 1992-93 to 18 in 1996-97.

    * The proportion of proposals for new laws coming out of the Commission on the Commission's own initiative is relatively small. It has been calculated that 20% of proposals follow a request from the Council, the Parliament or national governments; 35% are to implement international agreements; 25-30% are to update or modernise rules; and 10% are routine, such as the annual fixing of farm prices. Fewer than 10% of proposals come from the Commission's own initiative.

"The EU budget rips us off - we want our money back"

The idea that EU membership can be measured purely in balance-sheet terms is a long-standing sceptic belief. The fact that most EU policies - the Single Market, competition policy, common foreign and security policy, trade negotiation, justice cooperation, the euro - have little or nothing to do with the EU Budget is conveniently forgotten. In reality it is impossible to quantify the financial impact of all these policies.

EU Budget revenues come from a variety of sources, including customs duties and a share of VAT revenue, as well as payments based on the wealth of each EU country. EU Budget spending is limited to areas of EU responsibility, with more than 80% devoted to agriculture and regional support. Not surprisingly, these revenues and spending programmes affect different countries in different ways, in the same way that UK taxes and UK spending have a variable impact on different parts of Britain. The effects also vary year by year.

Inevitably, some EU countries find there is a greater proportion of EU revenue collected in their countries than their share of EU spending. This has recently been the case for Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the UK. Partly because the UK is one of the less well-off countries in the EU, a special mechanism was agreed in 1984 to reduce the UK's payments to the Budget.

The EU Budget increased significantly from the mid-1980s, but recent years have seen a ceiling applied to spending, and a decision to hold expenditure broadly stable for the period 2000-06. This has combined with new efforts to ensure better value for money in EU spending, which lies behind policy changes such as CAP reform and institutional changes to improve financial management.

    * The EU Budget takes up a small share of EU GNP compared to national public expenditure. A ceiling has been agreed on EU expenditure limiting spending to a maximum of 1.27%, though the 2000-06 Budget agreement will see a fall to 1.13% by 2006 (this figure includes post-enlargement costs). This is a small proportion of the total share of GNP taken by public spending in the EU, which averages 47% (the UK figure is under 40%). The EU Budget in 2000 totals euro 94bn (57bn).

    * In 1997 the share of the EU Budget financed from Britain was the third largest, and the UK received the fifth largest proportion of EU spending. The greatest differences between the share of EU revenues supplied by each Member State and the share of EU spending was : (for net contributors) Germany 15.4%, the Netherlands 3.2%, UK 3%; (for net recipients) Spain 7%, Greece 5.3%, Portugal 3.3%.

    * The UK abatement amounts to a two-thirds reduction in the difference between the UK's contribution to VAT-based revenue and the amount of EU spending in the UK. Over the past four years, the UK rebate has been worth between 1.4bn (euro 2bn) and 3.2bn (euro 5.7bn) a year. The Treasury has estimated that over the same period, the total UK contribution has varied between 1.6bn (euro 2.3bn) and 4.6bn (euro 6.8bn).

"Brussels finances propaganda in Britain"

Eurosceptics seem to define any information they do not like as propagandist. So even the most basic factual information prompts this accusation. Their real objection is to the whole concept of the European Union and its institutions. The European Commission is attacked as a way of attacking the EU as a whole.

Every public authority has a responsibility to provide information to the general public about its work. The Commission is no exception. Though the primary duty to explain EU policy lies naturally with national governments, the Commission has its own responsibilities. So when national governments and the European Parliament agree the EU Budget each year, they ask the Commission to help them in the task of keeping the public informed, and set aside funds for that purpose.

Propaganda must, by definition, involve forcing misrepresentations onto an unwilling public. But the Commission provides information on demand only. For example, information for use in schools is only sent to those schools which request it.

The euro presents a special case in the UK. The Commission has a responsibility to uphold the EU Treaty in its entirety - including the right for the UK to make its own mind up about whether to apply to join the euro. So though the Commission has a duty to explain the benefits of EMU for the EU as a whole as laid out in the Treaty, the same duty requires it to uphold the freedom of the UK to determine its own policy on the euro.

    * Information work is designed to be "an effective channel of communication and dialogue between the people of the European Union and the Community institutions. [Actions] take account of specific national and regional characteristics, in close cooperation with the Member State authorities." (The EU Budget)

    * An information service set up by the UK Government and the European Commission received 11,000 requests for EU information from the education sector during the course of 1999.

"The idea of an EU foreign policy is a joke"

The EU is not a single government. On some policies, EU countries have decided to pool powers and make laws at the EU level. In other areas - like foreign policy - the EU is more about cooperation than law. The EU's voice is more influential as a bloc than as 15 countries. That is why world leaders from President Clinton to Premier Jiang Zemin to President Mbeki have set up structures to ensure regular meetings with their EU counterparts.

Of course, different EU countries have different historical priorities. So Spain has particular ties with Latin America, Finland with Russia and so on. There are also different foreign policy traditions, most obviously for those Member States which are 'neutral'. But as the process has developed, confidence and coordination have gradually increased.

An EU foreign policy has made a difference. Sometimes this has been down-to-earth, with the EU financing work such as mine clearance in Angola or the international police in Albania, for which no alternative funding was available. The EU has not found a magic solution to the problems in the Western Balkans. But it has helped peace and stabilisation from the Baltic to Central Africa.

The extent of coordination is without precedent. Many times every day, governments across Europe are communicating, both electronically and in person, exchanging opinions, intelligence and proposals. There is now a new system in place to bring these threads together. This will allow the EU to plan its foreign policy more strategically, and to ensure that it is clearly articulated to partners worldwide.

    * EU countries agreed 163 policy statements in 1998, on issues ranging from the trial of the Lockerbie bomb suspects to the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan.

    * EU countries pay for 38.7% of UN peacekeeping operations (the USA share is 30.5%). The EU paid for 54% of international support to the Middle East Peace Process in 1993-97, and 73% to Central and Eastern Europe in 1990-97.

    * The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) allows the foreign policy instruments of the 15 Member States to be used to best effect, backed up by the influence gained from the EU's economic weight and able to draw on the EU Budget for development aid and humanitarian assistance. The 15 EU countries now also regularly coordinate with the 13 applicant countries, for example in the United Nations.

    * A High Representative has now been appointed to coordinate CFSP (Javier Solana, the former Secretary General of NATO).

"Europe wants british soldiers to fight under the European flag"

Sceptics often attack any decision to pursue cooperation as a threat to national identity. Attempts to achieve common goals by working together are attacked as a threat to the nation. Security and defence cooperation is a good example.

NATO has been the bedrock of European defence since the Second World War. But the security aspirations of EU countries have evolved in the years since the fall of the Berlin wall. It makes sense to try to maximise the ability of Europe to bring its security capability to bear, and this suggests new structures to complement the existing NATO systems. Already EU countries cooperate in terms of logistics, intelligence and development of new weapons systems - as well as deploying troops side by side in areas such as Kosovo. EU countries - led first by Britain and France - are now keen to take this one step further, to help make the Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective by ensuring that EU countries' military capability can work in tandem with foreign policy goals. Such a capability would be used for tasks like peace-making or peace-keeping. This would not be a threat to NATO: NATO itself endorsed this approach in the Washington summit in April 1999.

British and other troops are not being dragooned into some single force to fight under the European flag. Nobody is looking to bring defence arrangements under normal EU decision-making procedures. Nor does it mean that the neutral EU countries will be forced to sign up to NATO-style agreements on collective defence. EU leaders have made clear that the goal is not collective defence. What it means is EU countries again working together in the belief that cooperation is the best way to maximise the effective pursuit of common goals.

    * At the Franco-British summit at St Malo in December 1998, the UK and France agreed that the EU needed "the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so".

    * NATO's 1999 Washington summit concluded: "NATO embodies the vital partnership between Europe and North America. We welcome the further impetus that has been given to the strengthening of European defence capabilities to enable the European allies to act more effectively together, thus reinforcing the transatlantic partnership."

    * The December 1999 Helsinki summit agreed to: "develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. This process will avoid unnecessary duplication and does not imply the creation of a European army."

    * The Helsinki summit also agreed a precise goal - by 2003, the EU should be able to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50-60,000.

[Dunenewt]

*yawns*

Anyone can mindlessly quote biased opinions.  And I will.  Just wait till I go to the school library and get out the big book about the European Debate.  Most people in Britain wouldn't like to join the Euro, or the European Constitution, and as we are a democracy, it would only be fair if we didn't join these things.  Unfortunately, Blair has a lot of power, more so than Bush, and it seems to have gone to his head.

And as regards to the military, Britain's military ties are closer with the US than the EU, and we conduct many joint exercises with them.  Our armed forces are the best trained in the world, the biggest in Europe, and the best in the world.