---

EU Constitutional Treaty

My Lords, we are still talking in this debate about constitutional treaties, but I agree—although for different reasons—that the irony of the realpolitik around the Blair comments on the idea of the treaty and then a referendum still amazes some observers and journalists. The Tories had originally, of course, refused a referendum on Maastricht, in my view quite rightly, and Tony Blair said that it was not necessary for the new treaty as well—unlike for the euro, on which he then broke his solemn pledge to campaign hard to appease an incompetent, nationalistic and power-hungry British Treasury and the increasingly tedious Chancellor. Blair then changed his mind abruptly on TV—as he did with fox hunting, you will remember—presumably responding poodle-like to tabloid newspaper pressures. This, in turn, produced gigantic pressure on President Chirac, who was unhappy about a referendum as long as the Council of State, and perhaps also the Constitutional Court in France, said that it was okay for both Houses to vote it as a treaty. With high unemployment and an unpopular French Raffarin Government, the result was a fairly narrow non. This is what happens when the balance in the Union between the collective good and nationalism in each state is distorted by press hyperbole, the foolish remoteness from the people of the EU institutions and a degree of pusillanimous reaction by national politicians. However, it was not only that. The treaty document was, as has been said earlier, long-winded, tedious, pompous and looked like a École Nationale d’Administration working lecture document, thanks to the insouciance of Giscard d’Estaing—and, indeed, we should mention the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in this context as well. Any new text in the future must focus on homespun common-sense truths about the need for modern 20th-century machinery to ensure that the Union functions smoothly and efficiently. Most citizens of most member states, I believe, are in favour of the European Community family acting in concert—indeed, with daring majority voting sometimes when required—when a Union-wide policy is the only route to success. This is, logically, covering more areas as time goes on. Europe is also a major part of the global village. Within this sub-global component, the whole EU—the citizens of the Union as well as national member states—want common-sense rules to permit them to live, work and enjoy life wherever they choose. This does not mean that they are not patriotic citizens of their own countries mostly—although for many wise people these notions do not have to be primordial all the time, I am glad to say—but they want a sensible, pragmatic, hedonistic Europe as well, with plenty of new jobs. They now need reassurance that the period of reflection will, at long last, produce an empirical solution as to the processes of modernisation referred to by the Commission and by comments in this debate. Meanwhile, well over half the member states have already ratified in accordance with their own national constitutional procedures, and the EU institutions are producing important suggestions, some of which have been mentioned today. The European Parliament had a very important, constructive debate in January and there have been some committee meetings of the Parliament since then, quite logically, rationally and justifiably, to elaborate ideas. The Commission has responded to the period of reflection with its own new communication last week on a citizens’ agenda and Delivering Results for Europe. Meanwhile, even if it wants to go beyond 25 plus two in due course, the Union cannot enlarge further until these mechanistic and practical measures are sorted out. That is the practical reality that we must face. Moreover, as was stated at Hampton Court, the agenda last October included the development of the knowledge-based economy and the emphasis on jobs and growth. Even allowing for treaties and constitutional documents, that must be the priority. Some of it will, I am sure, be written into these texts in the future. Obviously something more than just a technical issue is arising. For instance, if it is eventually agreed that a modernised treaty document will be re-presented in due course—the European Parliament’s suggestion is 2009—will this text then just be ratified by the remaining countries which have not yet agreed or does the whole thing have to be redone? I presume it might be the latter. How will it relate to the existing text ratified by 15 states so far? These are complex issues. Meanwhile, although inhibited by the absence of the operational leeway offered by full ratification by all, the Union has rightly not ceased to function, agreeing various important steps through the Council of Ministers and the European Council, scrutinised by each national parliament according to its own procedures. We have had the long-term budget to 2014; the relaunched agenda for jobs; a reformed stability and growth pact; co-ordinating measures on tackling international crime, drugs and pornography; the beginning of a common energy supply framework for all countries; and legislation on services respecting the countries of origin. As the latest document from the much-attacked Commission declares, Europe has to be democratic rather than just administrative. How we all manage to achieve that is the key, for we know the reality here. The Neanderthal creatures who hate the union of sovereign states working through agreed collective institutions and using qualified majority voting where needed—how daring, how terrible—are still a force in the UK, partly because of the pompous myth of our unique links to the USA. These dark souls, living in the caves of dotty nationalism at all costs up and down this otherwise enlightened country, are determined to fight to stop the Union having a proper democratic structure, alongside the robust parliamentary democracies represented in each member state. It suits them to leave the Commission and Council, and even the European Parliament to some extent, in a remote and overcomplicated state, not endorsed by well informed public support in the member states. Common ownership of the Union by the electorates everywhere is just as important as their ownership of these civic rights and duties in each member state. In some ways, it is more important because this is still the formative stage of some important common policies in the European Union. These ideas and policies all subsist in the original Treaty of Rome, and Maastricht itself was merely a reinforcement of those realities. These are simply continuous processes—nothing brand-new and sinister has actually been proposed in this document. At least the Neanderthals, true to their lust for business and commerce at the expense of anything else, have always supported the single market, a piece of federalism if ever I saw one—the only segment where excitable Thatcherites insisted on the noble principle of majority voting at all costs. So to let the single market be the key to modernisation, just to please everyone, would be a rational suggestion. Let us ensure that single markets develop everywhere, not just in the standard economy and farming, but in all services: banking, mobile phones, airline travel, energy, insurance policies, mortgages—especially with often lower marketplace interest rates in the euro-zone. The Commission is launching its own fundamental review of what gaps remain in the single market. It will be up to the people of France and the Netherlands to be left in peace to decide how they will respond to these issues. They might conceivably decide to remain outside any new treaty proposals sanctified by 23 plus two. We shall see. Clever lawyers can argue the toss on that for a long time. If, for instance, the European Council decides unanimously that a new text should be offered eventually, the United Kingdom will presumably support that in view of all that has been debated, discussed and gnawed over ever since Blair welcomed a period of reflection, lasting for perhaps 50 to 100 years. As we all now know, other member states want to make reasonable haste. While the Commission scrupulously avoids pre-empting any outcome for treaty mark 2, a step-by-step approach may be the best way. Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which has brought so much to the people of Europe. Perhaps that would be the time to start.