Britain could "veto" EU constitution (nat'l control of def, tax, foreign)

[papau]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1504&ncid=1504&e=4&u=/afp/20031125/ts_afp/eu_constitution_britain_031125064124

Britain could "veto" EU constitution

LONDON (AFP) - Britain has signalled for the first time that it may veto the European Union (news - web sites)'s constitution rather than lose its right to retain national control of defence, foreign and tax policies, London newspapers said, quoting an unnamed Foreign Office official. <snip>

The government's tough stance came after British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, holding summit talks in London on Monday, said NATO would remain the cornerstone of European defence policy despite plans to strengthen EU ties in security and defence. <snip>

Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, speaking late Monday, reiterated his opposition to any move as part of the constitution to harmonise member states' taxes -- saying it would undermine Europe's economic competitiveness.

"With Europe's intergovernmental conference now entering its final stages, it is important that Europe responds... without ambiguities that might, if unravelled, undermine even the best of intentions -- to the detriment of jobs and economic dynamism," Brown told a business conference in London organised by the Wall Street Journal. He said the EU needed to develop a "strong transatlantic economic partnership" with the United States and not succumb to the pressure to become an "inward looking" regional trade bloc. <snip>

[rjbcar27]

1. Cool

Brown is making sense.

[Kellanved]

2. is he?

Doesn't make sense to me. If the UK wants to pull out of the EU : he should say so. Blocking the most important development in the EU, and doing so with the arguments used by the American conservatives (shortly after a summit) isn't acceptable for me. There was plenty of time to object, but the UK has to do it at just the moment, when it might destroy the whole process.

[rjbcar27]

3. Yes he is.

On issues of tax, defence, social security it should remain a matter for the individual countries. It's not a case of pulling out of the EU, and no-where did he intimate that. And it's not just the UK, other countries are going to have a referendum on this (sadly the UK aren't) and for the constitution to become a reality, all member states must ratify it.

[Paschall]

5. And VAT?...

VAT, the principle source of government revenu in numerous EU nations, is already controlled largely by the EU.

I fear Brown is putting Britain's interests above the Union's, because it would be British competitivess vis-à-vis the Union that might be reduced if taxes, particularly employer and corporate taxes, were more fully harmonized.

In fact, the following quote on VAT applies to harmonization generally, because rather than "reducing Europe's competitiveness," as Brown claims, lack of harmonization hinders the expansion of the EU as a force on the global market.

"The broad autonomy of Member States in setting the VAT rates leads to the fragmentation of the internal market." (Value Added Tax in the European Community NYU School of Law, Jean Monnet Center)

VAT harmonization began, by the way, in 1960. Your sweeping remark about national control of taxes surprises me a lot. Don't you realize how much control the EU already wields over British taxes?

[T_i_B]

6. Well the way I look at it

We are not part of the Euro-zone, we are not likely to be a part of it any time in the foreseeable future and as such I do not think that we should give up control of matters such as tax which are far more relevant to countries who are actually in the Euro.

Some matters yes, but not others. And the EU constitution would need something like the US 10th ammendment guaranteeing a certain degree of national soverignity as well IMHO.

[Paschall]

27. Doesn't Article 9 of the Draft cover that (10th Amendment)?

Article 9: Fundamental principles
1. The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral. The use of Union competences is governed by the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

2. Under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Constitution to attain the objectives set out in the Constitution. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Constitution remain with the Member States.

3. Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.•The Union Institutions shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the Constitution. National Parliaments shall ensure compliance with that principle in accordance with the procedure set out in the Protocol.

4. Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Constitution.

[T_i_B]

30. Not as good as the 10th ammendment

and certainly not as straightforward and as clear cut as I would like. I don't think this is anything like as good a guarantee of local control as the 10th.

BTW, since you have the goods here, where can I find a copy of the EU constitution online?

[Kellanved]

31. here

http://european-convention.eu.int/

ANd: I don't think that the EU would ever develop to a point, where the national Goverments have less control than that of a US state .

[T_i_B]

34. Thanks Kellanved

I will come back to you lot when I have fully perused it. :-)

ON EDIT: That is one f**king big document. Could they have not made it a little smaller? Do not expect any sort of instant reaction on this one.

[aneerkoinos]

35. Not so very big

if one considers the amount of existing treaties and stuff (acquis) the constitution replaces (tens of thousands of pages). The actual constitution is the part I, Definition and Objectives of the Union (about 40 pages), part II is the already existing Charter of the Fundamental Rights, the rest gets more and more technical. Pocket size book anyway (with small print), as was ordered.

[aneerkoinos]

7. Why?

Why should tax, defence and social security remain a matter for the individual countries? WHY?

You think race to the bottom is cool, you think minimum wage and labor rights are uncool? You think giving up the fight against corporate globalism is cool, and EU shouldn't be used as a tool to make Europe and World more socially just and responsible, to defend the European social model?

What's wrong with the little Englanders, do they really really really like the Thatcherian neoliberal paradise with Labour party continuing Thatcherian policies of privatized "public services" that are neither?

Please, let the little englanders have their referendum, let it be a serious vote on euro, constitution, and membership in EU at the same time, then please vote to get the hell out of EU and go join US or whatever, we don't want members who don't like the EU we are building and are doing their best the ruin the project. We'll keep Scotland, Wales and NI, mind you, I think they wan't to stay in the union with us continentals where there are some real socialists left, with a union that treats them better than royal union ruled by english thatcherites.

Please please please little englanders, get out of EU, we continentals are very tired of you and your nationalism, militarism and neoliberal policies holding the rest of us back, we are sick of Blairs and Browns and other Thatcherians. Other than that (and English football), you are OK chums :).

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. National sovereignty

Funny how some nations get touchy about that.

[aneerkoinos]

10. I agree

National "sovereignty" is ridiculous.

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. You may think so

Clearly, in Britain, they disagree. In fact, I think citizens of most nations would equally disagree.

[aneerkoinos]

13. You may disagree

But majority of EU citizens agree with the idea of shared sovereignity.

Our experience shows that nationalism is the root of fascism, sadly US has not yet accepted that truth regardless of ample evidence (McCarthy etc.) and with increased nationalism, scared middle classes and best propaganda machine in the world US is well on it's way becoming a fascist state.

Also nation states are too weak to have independent policies, they have no options but to follow the current of corporate globalization and adapt to it. EU might be big enough to allow politics to matter, democracy to matter in decision making, instead of doing what corporate interests and race to the bottom dictate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. Nationalism

Can be the root of many things -- good and bad. In America's case, it also brought us democracy.

Personally, I have no stake in whether you guys stay together in the EU or not. It's the choice of the people in each nation.

[Paschall]

16. Please define what you mean by "national sovereignty"...

...in regard to the issues under discussion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. The ability of a nation state to act on its own

For defense, security, taxes, etc.

[Paschall]

29. Sound bite

Maybe I should have specified that your definition, to serve as any sort of basis for meaningful discussion on a subject this complex, should at least exceed 15 words. :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Perhaps instead of trying to be snide

You could have engaged in friendly discourse and given me an idea what you were actually looking for.

[aneerkoinos]

40. I'll try

If you are on the progressive side and don't believe in some mythical Ein Volk, ein Reich mumbo jumbo, it's really not about sovereign nation states but the ability of people to conduct democratic POLITICS in any 'polis' (community), locally, nationally, supranationally and globally. The problem is, power of politics, power of democracy, is limited by globalization, global market forces, and any single nation state, including US, is too weak to conduct indepentend, SOVEREIGN, policies.

There are roughly three kinds of progressives or "left of center":

1. Nostalgic nationalists living in denyal. Mostly former stalinists, nationalistic leftwing/extreme righwinger loosers in modern society, birth ground for populistic leaders and fascist and other totalitarian movements.

2. Defeatists of the so called Third way; Clintonites, Blairites etc; neoliberals under progressive cloak. Either they think Washington consensus of orthodox economics is just fine and dandy or accept is as fait accompli and nothing can be done to change these realities, it's not even worth a try. Very cynical, power is more important than what to do with power.

3. Other kind of world is possible! World Social Forum. NGO's. Lula. Soros. Greens. Socialist internationalist pragmatics. Politically aware trade unions. Grassroots. Those who see that only through shared sovereignity can we defend democracy against market forces and corruption.

"Sovereign" nation states lead to fascism, only sharing sovereignity can save democracy and possibility of politics.

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. A fair response deserves one in kind

I think you could best say that I used to more actively fall into the third category, though none of the groups specifically. I certainly have spent much of my life as a globalist supporting what I am fond of referring to as the "Star Trek" future. One world, one government, everybody getting along.

Now I am much more pragmatic or realistic in my approach to such things. Honestly, I just don't think mankind/the world is ready for such an eventuality and may not ever be. Perhaps we do indeed need aliens, as supposed in, "Lathe of Heaven" to make mankind fear something else so bad that we all decide to get along.

In the meantime, I support world cooperation in a more limited form. Ideally, something like the UN would be good. In practice, that seems to NOT be the case. They ignore problems in places that lack popular support like Africa and focus on problems that carry popular support like Palestine. I saw in the paper today that the number of new HIV cases in Africa is down to single digits for the year -- which works out to about 3 million people. And that is supposed to be good news because it is a big decline. Where the hell is the UN? WHO? Etc.?

So, the world unity thing is not working and neither is the D.C. thing. So I guess I fall some in both camps for now and looking for a better camp.

[aneerkoinos]

45. Age don't come alone

I'm not young anymore, either. But more important than that is what kind of information we are (mostly) exposed to. I once asked about WSF in North America here on DU, and got no replies.

It seems that USA'ns are currently the most information deprived people on the globe, sadly including many of the Seattle veterans and other Globalization critics. Today avant-garde progressive thinking comes from Third world, especially Latin América, and World Social Forum is what happens and where it happens. Next (fourt or fifths?) WSF is in India, Europe had just second ESF, Asia has had Social Forum, there have been thousands of local Social Forums, but none in North America? One can't trust media to pass information, information is active, a process that happens through dialogue, it is not handed on silver plate. What you get handed on media silverplate is someone, anyone to blame, consumerist ideology of scape goat of the latest fashion, but never anything that empowers We the people to make a difference.

You, citizen of US, can make a big difference, bigger than the rest of us, because US is the leading country and therefore biggest (not only) obstacle of better democracy and making UN more democratic and effective, Tobin tax or global C02 tax. Global democracy and global regulation can take many forms, not necessary world parliament and world governement. IMHO they are bad ideas, since representative democracy without complimentary forms of participatory and straigh democracy is bad idea.

It's all about democracy, more and not less democracy. Not defeatism but pragmatics of bold hope.

[rjbcar27]

21. Is this the same EU that doesn't enforce it's own rules?

regarding the Stability Pact. I'm looking at the two biggest culprits, Germany and France. Is this the EU that for the 9th year running cannot verify it's budget due to massive amounts of corruption and fraud?

I'm not anti-Europe, I love europe, but I'm damned if I want to let Brussels have any more power than absolutely necessary.

[Kellanved]

22. the stability pact was a mistake from the start

One of Kohl's displays of spectacular incompetence (along with artificially raising the DM before joining the Euro).
Corruption has to be addressed: that is one of the reasons I want the reforms England might be blocking. Without something resembling a functional Government, how can Europe escape the trappings of partisanship? The British statement is an excellent example for the faults of the unanimity principle.

At the moment the Euro is too stable - with the buttery-soft dollar it might be a problem soon. France and Germany can stomach debt far better than the US can (doesn't mean that I like the debt one bit), as the citizens save a lot of money (Us citizens save virtually nothing). The saving ratio exceeds 10% - so economically speaking the dangers of the debt are far smaller.


The EU is moving from being a free Trade zone to becoming a federal nation. If you liked the free trade zone better, that's fine by me. But don't expect others not to move ahead just because you like the place.

[rjbcar27]

23. Fair enough

I personally don't like the idea of a federal nation.

[aneerkoinos]

24. Where's the culprit?

Stability Pact: who doesn't enforce it? Commission wants a hard line, sanctions for France. But in the Counsil only two members supported Commission's position, Holland and Finland. (UK doesn't have a say, since they are not part of the Stability Pact.) So it is not Brussels to blame for the impunity of France, but governements of the member states, as usually.

Corruption and fraud: What is massive amounts and where's the blame? There's less corruption in Brussels than in member states, and most corruption is happening in programs on the national and local levels. By any standards EU is now quite clean, thanks to auditors and EU-parliament having balls.

But that, of course, is of no interest for those people who get their EU info from Murdoch media.

[rjbcar27]

25. EU accounts fail to pass muster

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3279675.stm

The European Union's court of auditors has failed to give EU accounts a clean bill of health for the ninth year.
The court has criticised the system of accounting used by the European Commission and the way in which much of the 100bn euro annual budget is spent.

The auditors can give assurance to less than 10% of the European Union's annual budget for 2002, they say.

The news came as European Commission President Romano Prodi faced a grilling over a multi-million dollar EU fraud.

<snip>

That just fills me with confidence.

[aneerkoinos]

26. Yep

It fills me with confidence that problems are taken seriously, the system is working and mending itself.

Your glass is half empty, mine is half full?

The real point I was trying to do was that the mythic "Brussels" is very handy for national governements' spin machines. If EU good, it's thanks to our governement's efforts; if EU bad, it's them faceless Brussels eurocrats and Germany and France!

[sam7]

33. The auditors can give assurance

"to less than 10% of the European Union's annual budget for 2002, they say."

Incredible! no accountability.

[WingNOT]

12. IMHO this is a political/election ploy for the 2005/6 general election

Just my 2-penneth worth... but with the 'fear' of the Murdoch papers supporting the arch-Tory (prince of darkness!) Michael Howard at the next general election - Labour are preparing to go Euro-sceptic at the next general election.

Sadly this could mean more of a shift to the right on various policies. (TiB - I know you find it hard to believe that NL could BE more RW... watch!)

The last UK general election was fought with the Tories raving mostly about Europe and the Euro. My favourite image was from the satirical "Private Eye" magazine, a picture of the, then, Tory leader - William Hague - holding a pound coin with the caption,

"A pound for anyone who votes Conservative" !! A not-very-subtle reference to his "10 days to save the pound...9 days.... 8 days ..." countdown/"tactic". Which was shown to be the nonsense the electorate thought it was.

For the record I'm fervently pro-Euro and pro-Europe and think we should join. Also think we eventually WILL join. Give the UK holiday- going public a couple of years to visit say France and Spain, use the same currency and say "oooh that's easy - one currency" and the argument will start to swing towards the Euro.

[T_i_B]

32. Euro-Sceptic Blair?

The "new" labour EU policy since 1997 has actually been moderatly euro-sceptic anyway, it's just that Blair says one thing then does another on Europe same as he does on every other fricking subject! Even if they wanted to take us into the Euro, they would not be able to win the referendum. I cannot see that changing any time soon.

The difference here is that the end result is reasonbably satisfying for a moderate euro-sceptic like myself. I don't want Britain to join the Euro and, as to the EU constitution, I can support that in principle, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and until I read the thing in full I cannot say whether or not I support it in pratice, which is what matters.

I don't think that Blair is going to go openly Euro-sceptic. Pragmatic at best, but I can't see Blair going down that route. I can't see Blair dropping the spin on this one because if he does, his EU policy may end up being seen as even more alarmingly similar to that of John Major than it is now!

[BonjourUSA]

4. De Gaulle was right !

GB will remain an island forever.

I need explanations, how a "bloc" of 350 million of inhabitants (and much more in some months) can be only an "inward looking regional trade bloc" ?

[aneerkoinos]

9. Exactly

If US want's to go back to protectionism and not play it by the rules, so be it. Let's stop trading with US and continue trading and negotiating FTA's with América, Arab countries etc. Hell, US is allready way over acceptable debt limit, it's not very smart to sell them stuff they can't afford to pay in the first place. A total embargo against US? Hmm...

[WingNOT]

14. What about the 'chunnel'?

And didn't you hear we opened our first stretch of "Euro-style" high speed rail link recently ? Admittedly only 10 years after the French... but hey !

Don't have a source but I'm convinced that the UK does around 50% of it's external trade within the EU. Probably much higher since I remember seeing that figure a few years ago.

Parts of the Tory party would LOVE to dynamite the chunnel - float the UK into the Atlantic and become the 51st state. I'd actually be in favour of bringing back hanging for those particular loonies ! :evilgrin:

[Paschall]

17. A note on trains and Brits visiting France

A new TGV high-speed train was inaugurated in France this year primarily to serve Britons travelling to southern France, where an estimated half-million of them have invested in holiday property.

Thank French taxpayers. For what it's worth.

[WingNOT]

19. I wonder if those Britons are pro-Euro by now...? eom

[BonjourUSA]

20. Blair included !

[BlackFrancis]

28. Like Britain has control of it's foreign and defence policy now

They have roughly the same amount of autonomy in those areas that the Ukraine did pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union.

They would have much more of a say in an EU alliance than they would at present as Junior Partner (or more accurately lackey) of the US.

[aneerkoinos]

36. Blair: It was Straw, not me!

"Straw reprimanded for claim that deal on EU blueprint is 'not absolutely necessary'
By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor, and Stephen Castle in Brussels
26 November 2003

Tony Blair moved swiftly to distance himself yesterday from claims by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that agreement on a new European Union constitution was "not absolutely necessary".

In a marked shift from Mr Straw's remarks on Monday, Downing Street made clear that the Prime Minister was not going into next month's Brussels summit expecting failure."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=467289



What? Blair getting so weak he's afraid to piss of even pro-Europeans now (afraid of the Old Europe is getting ready to kiss UK goodbuy if it threatens with trouble and/or pro-European Blairites possibly starting to jump to LibDems?)

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. the whole thing smells of political manoeuvering to me

On the BBC last night, some analysts said they couldn't actually find anything in the constitution, as currently drafted, which did cross Blair's "red lines" on defence, taxes etc., and this looks more like a posture to allow them to claim later that they don't take any crap from the rest of the EU, when the final draft still doesn't cross the lines.

There seems to be a conflict between this claim that fundamental sovereignty is at stake, and the government's stance that there's no need for a referendum because the changes aren't that large.

[T_i_B]

39. Ah, the referendum question

There seems to be a conflict between this claim that fundamental sovereignty is at stake, and the government's stance that there's no need for a referendum because the changes aren't that large.

That is something that has not been touched on to that great a degree in this thread. The whole matter of whether or not we should have referendum on the EU constitution. Some EU member states are having a referendum on this and Euro-sceptics are exeedingly voiciferous in their demands for a referendum on this matter and "new" labour is trying to avoid a referendum. The reason the euro-sceptics want it and "new" labour and many euro-philes do not is that the Euro-sceptics would hand the pro-EU crowd their arses on a silver platter in such a poll.

My own view? Well I don't think that one or two nations holding the rest up with referendums should be allowed to hold those whose people do want it up......

I think that if there is to be referendums on this matter they should not just be for one or two states, let the whole of the EU have a poll on this! We already have EU-wide parliamentary elections. Besides, the EU would have the opportunity to learn valuble lessons from such a course of action regardless of the result.

[aneerkoinos]

41. I couldn't agree more

"let the whole of the EU have a poll on this! We already have EU-wide parliamentary elections. Besides, the EU would have the opportunity to learn valuble lessons from such a course of action regardless of the result."

One single Eurepean wide referendum on the constitution in all 25 members. Majority of EU-citizens decide their constitution. If constitution proposal accepted:

National votes are also counted. If voters in certain member state do not accept constitution, two options (decided be national parliament?): 1) accept the will of majority 2) leave the union.

This was suggested at the Convention, too bad it won't happen.

[Kellanved]

42. IMHO that's the second step before the first

First there has to be a basis for an EU wide referendum - and that basis can IMNSHO only be the constitution.

[aneerkoinos]

44. Legalistics

I get your point, but I understand that in international agreements it is not unusual to make the ratifying proces part of the agreement - same case with EU constitution. So this and other reasons I think the legal argument is weak, and not very interesting.