02 July 2004 Blog Home : July 2004 : Permalink
The Britain in Europe group have a briefing on the constitutional treaty which is nice to compare and contrast with the EU referendum analysis (hosted on this very website as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago). If you do read the full PDF then one thing jumps out at you. Although it seems reasonably long - 13 pages vs the EU referendum document's 16 - it is less an analysis of what has been agreed to than a series of attacks on the wilder statements of those opposed to the EU. In only a few places does it actually mention what has been agreed and cite sections and paragraphs and nowhere does it actually quote them. I wonder why? could this be because the impenetrable bueaucratese that is in the various sections is liable to be off-putting...
Anyway lets look at the introductory text and see what it says:
The draft EU constitutional treaty is a long and complicated document.
We agree here. The document is extremely long and filled with clear as mud sentences such as
Where a provision of the Constitution which may be applied in the context of enhanced cooperation stipulates that the Council shall act unanimously, the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article I-43(3), may decide to act by qualified majority.
Unfortunately, anti-Europeans have further muddied the waters by spreading myths and misinformation about it. Some people go so far as to forecast the end of our country as we know it. Many inaccurate ideas about the Treaty's contents are circulating. This briefing aims to set the record straight.
Since we can't defend the treaty we'll try and distract your attention by attacking the critics.
People have legitimate differences of opinion about Europe and the constitutional treaty. We relish the opportunity of putting the pro-European case in a big national debate about Britain's future. But let the debate be based on fact, not fiction.
Another bit we can all agree on but that is probably the last point where agreement can be reached.
Most of the claims made by anti-Europeans about the constitutional treaty are simply untrue. Not differing interpretations - just plain wrong. Whatever you think about the merits of European integration, the EU president is not going to replace the Queen as our head of state, the EU foreign minister will not oust Britain from its seat on the UN Security Council and the EU is not about to acquire tax-raising powers.
Oh look the strawman tactic. What you do is make an outrageous claim and then demolish it fialing to mention that a slightly less exaggerated version would be harder to laugh away. Taking the three mentioned in turn:
Moreover, many of the objections to the constitutional treaty are directed at aspects that are not new. EU law, for instance, already takes precedence over domestic law. It would make no sense to pass EU laws and then to allow member states to have laws which conflicted with what had been decided by Ministers. This does not imply a European superstate now - as even The Sun concedes - so why should it suddenly do so once the constitutional treaty is adopted? The primacy of EU law in some areas does not entail the end of British independence; it just means that member states must abide by the rules of the club they have signed up to.
Well I think the point we are getting at is that we think that the chaps and chapesses in Brussels seem to be passing too many of the wrong sort of laws. We all know that politics involves compromise but us sceptics are beginning to think that the proportion of silly laws is greater than the proportion of sensible ones.
Although we strongly disagree with them, those who call for withdrawal from the EU are entitled to do so. But they cannot be allowed to pretend that leaving the EU is cost-free. Nor should they get away with inflated estimates of the financial burden of being a member of the EU.
Although I note that you fail to mention any numbers here. The implication is that the costs would be greater than the money paid currently to Brussels. Since according to Britain in Europe's own figures the UK is a net £3.7Billion contributor each year the costs of withdrawal would need to be of that order to make it a net loss.
Likewise, some may urge that the British people reject the constitutional treaty in a referendum. But it is a fantasy to suggest either that a No vote would leave Britain with the same relationship with Europe as prior to the constitutional treaty debate, or that it could lead to a reconfiguration of that relationship entirely on our terms.
Ah heare we go strawman again. There are a couple of assumptions built in here: the first is that the UK would be the only country to reject the treaty and the second is that any subsequent renegotiations would be worse for the UK. How about an alternative strawman? what if the UK was one of say half a dozen countries to reject the treaty - what then?
Voting No would give political momentum to those who favour our withdrawal from the EU.
Really? you don't say. I'd never have guessed that if you hadn't told me.
And if Britain votes No to a treaty that the other 24 EU countries have approved, we should not fool ourselves into believing that those 24 will allow our objection to deflect them from the common path they have chosen. They may make minor concessions to secure Britain's support, but they will not ditch the treaty altogether. In short, if the choice facing the British people in the referendum is not "in" or "out" - it is certainly "in" or out on the margins.
Note the assumption that all the other nations accept the treaty. Also I like the suggestion that if we reject the treaty we might get lucky and get some better conditions for a next time. This kind of hints that just maybe the current treaty is not as wonderful as it might be because surely if it were perfect then no one would dare to meddle with it... It also has the implication that being left out is bad, just the way the lemming that decides not to join his family and friends on their migration is a bad boy.
Thanks to Tim Worstall for giving me the incentive to sign up to Britain in Europe and read their tosh.