MAJOR ISSUES BULLETIN
 
 

Est. 1994-

Policies-Elections 1997 and EU election 1999-Speech -1000's of Links - Archive-

IMMIGRATION

Top Topics and Stats

 

     
 

 

Lies, baloney and Peter Hain

 

The remarks of the Secretary of State for Wales conceal the single most important thing the public needs to know about the proposed Constitution for Europe.

 

According to Peter Hain, much of the case for a referendum on the European constitution amounts to “lies” and “baloney” [His lies and his baloney] His remarks made on the BBC television programme, The Politics Show on the 18th May, 2003, followed an interview with the Guardian five days earlier in which he declared:    I knew the Tories would play the eurosceptic card at some stage, but this is classic scaremongering by Little Englanders.”

 

In fact, support for referendums on a nation-by-nation basis (rather than an EU-wide basis) comes from MP’s in all main parties including his own, from pro-Federalist groups and from politicians in all of main EU member states including the French Prime Minister.  In addition, more than half the members of the EU convention- of which Mr Hain is a member- support the idea of referendums, while a recent poll conducted by YouGov demonstrates massive public support for a national plebiscite (see eurofacts for 16th may 2003).

 

More disturbingly than Mr Hain’s attacks on his critics, however, are his misleading descriptions of the likely impact of a Constitutional Treaty on Britain’s political future.  As the Government’s representative on the European Convention, Mr Pain has a responsibility that goes far beyond party politics, a responsibility that is betrayed if he is not candid about the implications of the document now emerging from the Convention (See details on our Eurofacts- notebook No 2)

 

Beginning with the present issue, we intend to monitor the statements made on the subject by Mr Hain and other ministers and to point out if, in our view, those misleading, partial or simply untrue.

 

The three most commonly advanced arguments in favour of the Constitution to which we would take exception are listed below:

(1) The work of the Convention is “ just a tidying-up exercise.”

 

Quite obviously this contradicts Mr Hain’s assertion that “three quarters of the new treaty will come from existing treaties”  (Guardian, 14th May) This can only mean that 25% is new; and even if Mr Hain’s calculation is correct a twenty five per cent extension to the body of EU law cannot be regarded as cosmetic.

 

Far more importantly, Mr Hain’s description understates the status and significance of the proposed treaty in quite a fundamental way. This is because the Constitution, which the new Treaty will bring into being, has as its central purpose the supplanting of member states and their existing constitutions as the supreme source of legal authority and the elevation of the new Constitution to that status.

This is the single most important fact about the proposed treaty. And, even if the Government manages to remove the ‘F’ word and succeeds in all of its other negotiating goals – an unlikely outcome – the ratification of the Treaty will still represent a qualitative leap forward in the creation of a unitary European state.

 

(2)        The new Constitution will ensure that the EU is more democratic, accountable and open – another Hain favourite. In fact, the Constitution pays lip service to democracy, but as Martin Howe QC pointed out to a meeting of the Bruges Group in London on 16th May 2003. It does so purely on a Europe-wide basis. An essential basis for democracy is a common political culture and heritage.

But this will not exist in a Union, which will soon grow to 25 countries. In other words of Mr Howe: “Even if the European electorate were capable of thinking and acting collectively, the mechanisms by which persons such as the new President of the Council are elected are labyrinthine and oligarchic. Indeed, if the Union applied to join itself it would be rejected on the grounds that its institutions are insufficiently undemocratic.”

(3)        The new Constitution will respect national parliaments – a claim advanced not only by Mr Hain, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.  It is in fact an absurd claim, one that insults the intelligence of the electorate.  True, members of national parliaments will be sent draft proposals, but their only power will be to send in a “reasoned opinion” if they believe that these would breach the principle of subsidiarity.  Even if a third of parliaments don’t like a proposal on those grounds, the only obligation of the Commission is to “review” it, after which it may be withdraw, amend – or simply maintain it. 

(4)         

Plainly, when it comes to baloney Mr Hain has few equals. Readers are invited to submit for scrutiny statements by ministers or MP’s on this subject, which they believe, misrepresent the character of the draft treaty, or its likely implications.

 

Unless you happened to be a constitutional lawyer with a month’s leave on your hands it was difficult to make sense of the Maastricht Treaty.  By comparison, the present draft treaty is a model of clarity and brevity; this time it is going to be far more difficult for ministers to mislead either themselves or the public about the enormity of what is at stake.

 

EUROFACTS

30th May 2003.

VOL8 No 16

*

 

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

http://www.ukip.org.uk

 

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?