skip to nav

Signing the EU Treaty

ARGUMENTS FOR:

Though the Treaty retains at least 90 per cent of the proposed Constitution - rejected by referenda in France and the Netherlands - it is less than a Constitution and is only a treaty signed (if it is signed) by sovereign states. The distinction is important.

The new treaty reforms some of the EU's institutional structures. Such a reform has been made necessary by the enlargement of the EU, which now comprises 27 member states. No country pushed harder for enlargement than Britain. It would therefore be illogical for us to object now to reforms which are the consequence of that enlargement.

The power of veto will be removed from some 60 areas and replaced by what is called qualified majority voting. (Big countries like Britain, France and Germany have more votes than small ones.) It is true that the UK will therefore no longer be able to block proposals by a veto, and instead will have to build an alliance to do so. But it works both ways: any proposals Britain makes can no longer be blocked by a single dissenting member state.

The second purpose of the Treaty is to enhance European co-operation in matters of common interest such as combating terrorism and taking measures to deal with climate change. The replacement of the six-month rotating Presidency by an elected President will give Europe an identifiable voice in such matters.

The European foreign affairs spokesman or minister will represent Europe only where there is an agreed policy position. The UK and France will retain their permanent seats on the UN Security Council, since this is guaranteed by the UN Charter.

Despite the comparatively modest nature of the treaty, Britain's special position has been recognised by the 'red lines', negotiated by Tony Blair, which allow us to opt out of certain provisions of the new treaty. These will be respected, simply because it is a treaty, just as the opt-out from the Social Chapter, which John Major negotiated at Maastricht, was respected, until unilaterally abandoned by the Blair Government - a British, not a European decision.

None of the positive measures in the treaty applies only to Britain. Their purpose is simply to make the EU work more efficiently, and this is surely desirable.
The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

However it is dressed up, the Treaty represents another step towards the "ever-closer Union" envisaged in the original Treaty of Rome, and therefore marks another step towards a European super-state and the loss of national sovereignty. Other countries may be content to surrender sovereignty; we aren't.

The abandonment of the veto in so many areas also impinges on our sovereignty. It leaves us unable to block measures which may be harmful to our interests.

The substitution of an elected President for the six-month rotating Presidency inevitably enhances the political consequence of the EU. Less than ever will Council of Ministers meetings be debates between equals. The appointment of an EU foreign minister will inevitably restrict our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy according to our perception of British interests.

Since European Law takes precedence over national law, we will find our liberties encroached upon. The European Arrest Warrant, which dispenses with the need for extradition hearings, is only one example of how this will affect us.

Any concessions granted now - the so-called 'red lines' - are likely to prove only temporary. The relevant Committee of the House of Commons has warned that within five years the 'red lines' will be smudged, and then obliterated.

The treaty is the Constitution ill-disguised. Ratification cannot be a matter for Parliament alone. It must be put to the people in a referendum. If it is as good for us, and as protective of our interests, as the Government claims, what do they have to fear by putting it to the vote?

FIRST POSTED OCTOBER 16, 2007

News & Comment: News & Politics