Why the EU Constitution is bad for Britain and bad for the US
Why the EU Constitution is bad for Britain and bad for the US
By Charles Moore
(Filed: 19/02/2005)
Telegraph
London
In the stern old pre-Vatican II days, Roman Catholics used to be instructed not to read the Bible by themselves. The theory was that, if they did so, they might misunderstand what it meant and commit the error of "private judgment". Reading the Bible on your own was a Protestant idea, dangerous in the heady freedom it would give you. You might end up coming to your own conclusions.
I wonder if such a notion still lingers in the attitude of European governments to another process that began in Rome – the treaties that establish and extend the European Union. These are all drawn together in one new treaty, the European Holy Bible, otherwise known as the European Constitution. Several countries, including Britain, are committed to holding referendums on the subject. Spain is first off, on Sunday. According to the Spanish justice minister: "You don't have to read the treaty to know it's a good thing." In Spain, at least, it seems likely that the faithful will accept this secular bishop's advice: they won't read the constitution, and they will vote for it.
George W. Bush is a good Protestant, but I doubt if he has read the European Constitution. Why should he, indeed, since he is lucky enough to live in a country that will not be ruled by it? No reason at all, unless, as is rumoured, early drafts of the speech he will make in Brussels next week commit him to saying what a wonderful thing it is.
It is natural for Americans to like the sound of the word "constitution". They have the best one ever written in a single document. It consists, in the copy I have before me, of 12 pages, 11 if you exclude the list of the men who signed it. There are also amendments added over the past two centuries: they amount to another nine pages. If President Bush tucked himself up with it at his famously early bedtime of 9.30, he could finish it well before 10.
I should be surprised if the State Department, the Washington faction keenest on turning Mr Bush into a Euro-enthusiast, has encouraged him to go to bed with a copy of the European Constitution. My copy, published by TSO (note that the former name Her Majesty's Stationery Office has quietly been relegated), is 511 pages long. I do not claim it would keep Mr Bush up all night – in fact, I guarantee that, if he tried to read it, he would still be asleep by 10 – but it would wake him and the First Lady up with a start as it slipped from his nerveless hands and crashed, all 2lb 8oz of it, on the floor.
If he did spend 20 minutes with the document, however, the President would see that it was not what is normally meant by a constitution. Rather than confining itself to the division of powers by which a country should be governed – head of state, parliament, judiciary, what's local and what's national – it lays out scores of pages telling people how to run their lives. It supports positive discrimination, outlaws the death penalty in all circumstances, commits itself to high public spending, compulsory consultation with trade unions about changes at work, "the exchange of youth workers", "fat-free breakfasts", "distance education" and "the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen" (I made one of these up). And it imposes all these on nations that have their own governments and electorates.
It also contains a great bundle of miscellaneous provisions about such things as abortion in Malta, "Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2" for a steel company in the Czech Republic, some rather frightening-looking stuff about the nuclear power plant in Slovakia and "the right to provide services by natural persons who do not enjoy hembygdsrätt/kotiseutuoikeus (regional citizenship) in Åland". This is not a constitution, certainly not a constitution intended to be understood by those it affects. It is a vast agglomeration of decisions made by governments to take power over citizens of vastly differing countries.
If one had to point out only two aspects of the treaty to Mr Bush, I would first draw his attention to Article 1-16, which commits all member states to a "common foreign and security policy". "Member states," it goes on, "shall actively and unreservedly support the union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the union's actions in this area." That would seem, at a stroke, to prevent Britain (or any other member country) from acting unilaterally in military or political alliance with the United States ever again. In his interview with Alec Russell in today's paper, the President expresses his objections to the EU as a means of projecting global power and supplanting Nato: that is exactly what the European Constitution is trying to bring about.
Second, I would draw attention to the opening words of the two documents. The US Constitution begins, famously, "We the People…". The European Constitution begins, "His Majesty the King of the Belgians…". That gives you a fair idea of the different spirit of each document.
The European Constitution is a headache for President Bush because Tony Blair is his best friend abroad, and Tony says it's great for Britain. Thanks to Tory nit-picking over the war in Iraq, which they had supported, and to Tory pettishness about the White House's reaction to this, there has never been a time when the Conservative Party has had less influence with a conservative President.
So New Labour has the way clear. The classic diplomatic argument that our "influence" will nullify any potential problems that the document contains seems quite seductive. Endorsement of the European Constitution appears to be the electorally neatest way of claiming George's debt to Tony, and that is certainly what our very able man in Washington, Sir David Manning, and our very able reptile in Brussels, Peter Mandelson, will have been telling Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State. They have probably not urged her to remind the President that, according to the polls, the British are likely to vote "No".
Well, it is for America, and not for us, to decide whether it wishes to encourage the birth of a superpower whose big cheeses want it to be the global rival of the United States. All we British can and should say (which our Government won't) is that there's nothing in that for us, and hope that Americans therefore question whether it's really so marvellous for them. By all accounts, that question is being asked hard and repeatedly in the White House this weekend.
Soon, probably next year, we shall be asked to vote on the constitution ourselves. The No campaign has been arguing for quite a long time that every household should be sent a copy of the European Constitution. The Government is proving rather evasive on the point, but what possible objection could there be, apart from the health-and-safety threat to our postmen's spines?
It would weigh scarcely anything extra to throw in the US Constitution with each envelope, thus offering the most instructive possible comparison.
__________________
Why the EU Constitution is bad for Britain and bad for the US
By Charles Moore
(Filed: 19/02/2005)
Telegraph
London
In the stern old pre-Vatican II days, Roman Catholics used to be instructed not to read the Bible by themselves. The theory was that, if they did so, they might misunderstand what it meant and commit the error of "private judgment". Reading the Bible on your own was a Protestant idea, dangerous in the heady freedom it would give you. You might end up coming to your own conclusions.
I wonder if such a notion still lingers in the attitude of European governments to another process that began in Rome – the treaties that establish and extend the European Union. These are all drawn together in one new treaty, the European Holy Bible, otherwise known as the European Constitution. Several countries, including Britain, are committed to holding referendums on the subject. Spain is first off, on Sunday. According to the Spanish justice minister: "You don't have to read the treaty to know it's a good thing." In Spain, at least, it seems likely that the faithful will accept this secular bishop's advice: they won't read the constitution, and they will vote for it.
George W. Bush is a good Protestant, but I doubt if he has read the European Constitution. Why should he, indeed, since he is lucky enough to live in a country that will not be ruled by it? No reason at all, unless, as is rumoured, early drafts of the speech he will make in Brussels next week commit him to saying what a wonderful thing it is.
It is natural for Americans to like the sound of the word "constitution". They have the best one ever written in a single document. It consists, in the copy I have before me, of 12 pages, 11 if you exclude the list of the men who signed it. There are also amendments added over the past two centuries: they amount to another nine pages. If President Bush tucked himself up with it at his famously early bedtime of 9.30, he could finish it well before 10.
I should be surprised if the State Department, the Washington faction keenest on turning Mr Bush into a Euro-enthusiast, has encouraged him to go to bed with a copy of the European Constitution. My copy, published by TSO (note that the former name Her Majesty's Stationery Office has quietly been relegated), is 511 pages long. I do not claim it would keep Mr Bush up all night – in fact, I guarantee that, if he tried to read it, he would still be asleep by 10 – but it would wake him and the First Lady up with a start as it slipped from his nerveless hands and crashed, all 2lb 8oz of it, on the floor.
If he did spend 20 minutes with the document, however, the President would see that it was not what is normally meant by a constitution. Rather than confining itself to the division of powers by which a country should be governed – head of state, parliament, judiciary, what's local and what's national – it lays out scores of pages telling people how to run their lives. It supports positive discrimination, outlaws the death penalty in all circumstances, commits itself to high public spending, compulsory consultation with trade unions about changes at work, "the exchange of youth workers", "fat-free breakfasts", "distance education" and "the physical and moral integrity of sportsmen and sportswomen" (I made one of these up). And it imposes all these on nations that have their own governments and electorates.
It also contains a great bundle of miscellaneous provisions about such things as abortion in Malta, "Hot Rolling Mills Nos 1 and 2" for a steel company in the Czech Republic, some rather frightening-looking stuff about the nuclear power plant in Slovakia and "the right to provide services by natural persons who do not enjoy hembygdsrätt/kotiseutuoikeus (regional citizenship) in Åland". This is not a constitution, certainly not a constitution intended to be understood by those it affects. It is a vast agglomeration of decisions made by governments to take power over citizens of vastly differing countries.
If one had to point out only two aspects of the treaty to Mr Bush, I would first draw his attention to Article 1-16, which commits all member states to a "common foreign and security policy". "Member states," it goes on, "shall actively and unreservedly support the union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the union's actions in this area." That would seem, at a stroke, to prevent Britain (or any other member country) from acting unilaterally in military or political alliance with the United States ever again. In his interview with Alec Russell in today's paper, the President expresses his objections to the EU as a means of projecting global power and supplanting Nato: that is exactly what the European Constitution is trying to bring about.
Second, I would draw attention to the opening words of the two documents. The US Constitution begins, famously, "We the People…". The European Constitution begins, "His Majesty the King of the Belgians…". That gives you a fair idea of the different spirit of each document.
The European Constitution is a headache for President Bush because Tony Blair is his best friend abroad, and Tony says it's great for Britain. Thanks to Tory nit-picking over the war in Iraq, which they had supported, and to Tory pettishness about the White House's reaction to this, there has never been a time when the Conservative Party has had less influence with a conservative President.
So New Labour has the way clear. The classic diplomatic argument that our "influence" will nullify any potential problems that the document contains seems quite seductive. Endorsement of the European Constitution appears to be the electorally neatest way of claiming George's debt to Tony, and that is certainly what our very able man in Washington, Sir David Manning, and our very able reptile in Brussels, Peter Mandelson, will have been telling Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State. They have probably not urged her to remind the President that, according to the polls, the British are likely to vote "No".
Well, it is for America, and not for us, to decide whether it wishes to encourage the birth of a superpower whose big cheeses want it to be the global rival of the United States. All we British can and should say (which our Government won't) is that there's nothing in that for us, and hope that Americans therefore question whether it's really so marvellous for them. By all accounts, that question is being asked hard and repeatedly in the White House this weekend.
Soon, probably next year, we shall be asked to vote on the constitution ourselves. The No campaign has been arguing for quite a long time that every household should be sent a copy of the European Constitution. The Government is proving rather evasive on the point, but what possible objection could there be, apart from the health-and-safety threat to our postmen's spines?
It would weigh scarcely anything extra to throw in the US Constitution with each envelope, thus offering the most instructive possible comparison.
__________________