|
In June 1975, the British people endorsed overwhelmingly the UK's
membership of the European Union. Since then, the EU, under numerous new
Treaties, has expanded from 9 Member States to 25 nations by next week.
Twelve of the existing Member States have adopted the Euro as their common
currency and some of the new Members about to join are likely to do the
same.
Such a large group of nations forming the European Union is
unprecedented in history. No wonder it is difficult to identify a system
that is efficient, practical and acceptable to such a diversity of
nations. Each Member State, large or small, is eager to retain its
national sovereignty and share of the benefits of EU membership. Some
members are net payers and others net beneficiaries. This transfer of
wealth and human resources within the EU of 15 Member States has raised
the living standard of European citizens. Before EU membership, citizens
of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland earned less and experienced
difficulty in finding jobs. Since membership, they have witnessed a steady
rise in income and prosperity. Their dependency has transformed into
demand for goods and services creating markets and prosperity for
providers in the larger more prosperous nations
Each of the EU Member States currently has one or two Commissioners
and holds the Presidency of the Council of Ministers for six months on a
rotational basis. Each expansion of the EU required the introduction of
additional languages for translation of proceedings in the European
Parliament and its Committees. It required locating new EU institutions in
the new Member States. The 25 Member States in an enlarged EU requires a
change in the architecture of the EU institutions.
Should we have additional Commissioners to manage the same EU
budget? Is rotation of Presidency of Council desirable and practical with
25 Member States for a 5 year parliamentary mandate? Should the EU have a
President of Council as well as the President of the Commission? How can
we have a voting system that reflects the different populations of Member
States as they range from 400,000 in Malta to 90 million in Germany?
Should there be a veto so that one Member State can block any major change
in the working of the EU?
The Giscard Convention proposed a draft constitution that covers
existing EU treaties and suggests essential changes in the architecture of
EU institutions. It defines competence for areas of common interest where
the EU will require Member States to pool their sovereignty under
decisions taken by Qualified Majority Vote (QMV). It identifies areas of
policy where the Subsidiarity Principle would allow any Member State to
veto or opt out of an EU initiative. It suggests that the EU should have a
legal identity, a President and a Foreign Minister, so that the EU may be
represented as a block at the UN Security Council and in other world
agencies.
Britain has enjoyed the longest period of stable parliamentary
democracy in the EU. Since the Union with Scotland about 300 years ago,
the United Kingdom has not experienced any internal wars or occupation as
a result of World Wars. Most other Member States in the EU have
experienced civil wars, military dictatorships and occupation in the World
Wars. Britain has achieved peace and stability, based on parliamentary
democracy and its monarchy, without a constitution. Other Member States,
overthrew their monarchies and had constitutions imposed on them as a
consequence of war or civil unrest. Insecure about their own national
stability, it is easier for Europeans on the continent to accept an EU
constitution. It is neither easy, nor necessary, for us in the UK to
accept an EU constitution. We can accept changes based on Treaties between
nation states, but not a constitution that will change our system that has
worked so well for so long.
Britain and the British people do not need an EU constitution. They
need a Europe that offers freedom – to work, feel safe and to live
without interference from bureaucracy and government.
|
