How ‘a good European’ turned into
a eurosceptic whistle-blower
One
of the strengths of the eurosceptic movement has been that it has been able to
produce a stream of trenchant monographs and pamphlets whose arguments have come
to influence the wider climate of opinion. It is doubtful, however, whether any
have made such an explosive impact as that by Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP for
Birmingham Edgbaston.
This
was not due, of course, just to the trenchancy of her arguments. Ms Stuart was
not merely a member of the Giscard d’Estaing’s Convention on the Future of
Europe, but a member of its inner 13-strong Presidium. Moreover, the timing of
her pamphlet, which appeared as the inter-governmental talks on Giscard’s final
draft reached their climax, could not have been bettered.
Finally,
there is no concealing the fact that her paper makes complete nonsense of almost
everything the Prime Minister has said about the limited implications of the
proposed Constitution and about how well British interests were being protected
during negotiations. As a consequence, there can be no doubt that Ms Stuart,
who now wants a major reassessment of the EU’s role and aims, has succeeded in
influencing the terms of the future debate which will take place in her own
party, and more widely, on the future of the European Union and Britain’s role within
it.
A
mother who was a refugee from what are now the Czech Republic and a Bavarian
father brought up Ms Stuart in Munich. Both in Brussels and Westminster it was
consequently taken for granted that, while she would perform her role on the
convention conscientiously. She could be relied upon to act as ‘a good European’,
a phrase that, as she says herself, is susceptible to different
interpretations.
As The
Times recently pointed out, the French and German negotiators seriously
underestimated Ms Stuart’s sense of Britishness. ‘’The Germans could not quite understand
my attitude’’ she recently told a reporter. ‘’Then they discovered my origins,
and it was,’’Oh my God, a Bavarian Brit!’’
Ms
Stuart at first set about her work as a member of the Convention with
enthusiasm, believing that its task was to make an enlarged European Union
operate more efficiently
And
to make its workings more open and accountable. But she quickly discovered that
the widening of the EU was simply a pretext for deepening its institutions and
a means of strengthening the interests of its elites.
She
writes: ‘’Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention did
representatives question whether deeper integration is what the people of
Europe want, whether it serves their best interests or whether it provides the
best basis for the sustainable structure for the expanding Union…None of the
existing policies were questioned,’’
Not
only is Ms Stuart scathing about the obscure nature of Giscard’s prolix text
and the autocratic and underhand means by which he, the former Italian Prime Minister
Guiliano D’Amoto and the former Belgian Prime Minister Jean Luc Dehaene (aided
by the Machiavellian former FO mandarin Sir John Kerr in his role as Secretary
General) pursued their goals, she explicitly denies that the final draft possessed
the authority claimed for it:
‘‘:
It was not just the accession countries, which felt excluded. In the final stages
of the Convention, a number of delegates, myself included, made it clear that
we could not support the text as it stood and that it should be regarded as no
more than the basis for further discussion. Neither could we endorse the text
on behalf of the Parliaments who had sent us.
Yet hardly was the ink dry on the Draft when all
those present turned this into an endorsement and governments were warned not
to open up the carefully achieved compromises. The ‘consensus’ reached was only
among those who shared a particular view of what the Constitution was supposed to
achieve.’’
It
is possible to criticise Giscard’s draft from a variety of perspectives. Many have
done so from the prospective of national economic and political interests,
including the Poles and Spaniards who torpedoed a deal. Ms Stuart’s pamphlet,
however attempts no assessment of what Britain may get out of it.
Having
arrived in Brussels with a passionate desire to encourage cooperation between
European peoples and Institutions and an equally passionate desire to make the
more Democratic, all of her judgments reflect that perspective. She strongly
believes, however that these goals- currently blocked, she says, by
self-serving and self-appointed anti-American elites – can only be achieved by
returning Sovereignty to National Parliaments.
Her objection to the Constitutional draft backed up with
accounts of revealing exchanges with the President of the Convention, is that
it moves us rapidly in the opposite direction. She therefore believes it is time
to return to the drawing board. One suspects some of our readers would disagree
with her about the scope of future co-operation between European states, but few will fail to be
impressed by her Courage, Clarity and her Unwavering (and very British)
commitment to self-government and to Openness and Decency in Politics.
www.junepress.com
The above
extract from Eurocrats – a fortnightly publication from June Press -priced at
£1
Vol 9 No7 –
16th January 2004
‘The Making
of Europe’s Constitution’
by Gisela
Stuart
Fabian
Society Pbk 60pp
Available from June Press priced £6.95 plus p&p
*
www.eutruth.org.uk
*
www.thewestminsternews.co.uk
*
www.speakout.co.uk
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs
*
VOTE
MAY -2007
TO
LEAVE
THE
EUROPEAN
UNION
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE
TO SET YOU
FREE
THE
UK
INDEPENDENCE PARTY
www.ukip.org
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE
PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER
BUT
SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT
SPIN AND LIES.
*
ONLY
PRO-PORTIONAL
REPRESENTATION
WILL
BRING
DEMOCRACY
BACK
TO
THE
ENGLISH
PEOPLE
*
Home Rule for Scotland
WHY NOT
HOME RULE for
ENGLAND
*
MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate
bulletin
THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER
‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY
THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’
-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?