---

EU Constitutional Treaty

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Blackwell for initiating this debate. It sounds a paltry excuse, but I missed the Question tabled on 4 May by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on the EU External Action Service because I was waiting for the gasman. But I read the exchanges and, I might say, there seems to have been a lot of gassing but not much shedding of light. On that occasion I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, complained that if noble Lords continued to ask the same Question, they would continue to get the same Answer. Some of us live in the hope that eventually we will get an Answer that makes sense. We will then lapse into silence, no doubt in a state of shock. On 23 April the Sunday Times ran a detailed account of how the Commission has been busy setting up in all but name the External Action Service, which is provided for in the constitution. It has been acquiring grand mansions in Moscow, Washington and throughout the world, and some are already housing people on the EU payroll who are, to all intents and purposes, ambassadors. One such is John Bruton, the former Irish Prime Minister. John Bruton, we read, is occupying as his residence a mansion in the Sheridan-Kalorama neighbourhood of Washington. Apparently it was built for a steel and railway tycoon in 1923 and has just been renovated at a cost of £1.4 million. We are told that it has 16 bedrooms, a grand dining room and a hall of polished marble—all equipped to entertain 150 guests. It has an Italianate garden complete with classical statues in bronze and a swimming pool. It is ridiculous to suggest that all this magnificence is for a trade mission like those that have been set up by the Commission over the years under its general powers. It is absurd to pretend that Mr Bruton is just the humble head of a trade mission, doing his best to persuade Americans to buy more champagne, cuckoo clocks and pasta machines. It is as plain as a pikestaff that while the External Action Service has not been formally set up, considerable sums of money are being spent now in preparation for its coming into existence, and people like John Bruton are bedding themselves down into the posts in which they will be installed formally if and when the constitution comes into force. As only the constitution makes provision for the External Action Service—and the constitution is not law—where, I ask, is the legal cover for this expenditure? As there plainly is none, have the Government complained to the Commission about its illegality? If not, why not? Finally on this point, will the Minister tell the House how much this so-called trade mission to beat all trade missions is costing us in Britain and what are we getting for our money? Are not Britain’s trade interests in the US already well represented? Have we not staff to promote trade, not only in Washington but in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Houston, Atlanta and Denver? I repeat: what is it costing us and what are we getting for our money? Perhaps I may now turn briefly to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which also was to be given legal effect when the constitution was ratified. The constitution—surprise, surprise—has not been ratified, but the charter is already being given legal effect. Of that there is no doubt whatever. The EU has issued an edict, DOC COM (2005) 172, which requires the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be enshrined in all new legislation. If that is not implementing the constitution by the back door, I am a Dutchman. But the matter does not end there. In 1997—I am not a Dutchman—the EU set up a monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia in Vienna. Last summer, that body was suddenly converted into the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights. One does not have to be an Einstein to understand why that happened and why it happened just then. It happened, of course, because the member states had agreed on a Charter of Fundamental Rights and had also agreed, at the same time, that there should be an Agency for Fundamental Rights to monitor its operation. The Government have played a direct part in all this. The agency was established, as my noble friend said, by the use of Article 308 of the treaty establishing the European Community—and Article 308 can only be used if there is unanimity. Why did the Government agree to the agency being set up? Why did they agree when they were busy telling us that they would have nothing whatever to do with the implementation of the constitution by the back door? We are entitled to an explanation. Perhaps I may finally say a word about the role of the Prime Minister. After signing up to the constitution, he recommended it to the British people in the last general election, saying it was good for Britain and good for the new Europe. But at St Antony’s College, Oxford, in February this year, Mr Blair was singing a very different tune and telling his audience that the constitution was not so hot after all. It failed, he said, to address the concerns of European citizens. The drive for more institutional integration had become,"““almost self-perpetuating and certainly self-absorbing””." The EU, he said, had put ““a political decision”” before getting the economy right. No one knew what the constitution was meant to solve. Europe, unable to solve its actual problems, had taken to solving imaginary ones by regulations no one wanted and which were implemented in ways which everyone hated. Those are all passages from the speech made by the Prime Minister. Can we please hope that for the rest of his term in office, Mr Blair does not sign first and think afterwards? I object to the constitution being introduced by the back door, but implementation by the front door would be infinitely worse. I simply do not understand those who argue that the constitutional treaty is just like any other treaty and there is not really a constitution at all. If this treaty is ratified—and I sincerely hope that it will not be—a constitution will come into existence which will have this effect: the EU will cease to be a collection of states that have chosen to share sovereignty over agreed aspects of their affairs. Thenceforward, the EU will derive its powers not from the treaties but from a constitution with its own authority. The EU will become a legal entity in its own right. When we joined the EEC, we accepted the primacy of EU laws over the laws of member states. But Article 1.5 of the constitution states:"““The Constitution shall have primacy over the laws of the member states””—" the constitution, not just such laws as may be agreed by the Council of Ministers—and that the constitution will be interpreted by the court to make the people of Europe ““united ever more closely””. That is why we must never adopt this or any other constitution for Europe.