The constitution has been abandoned - oh no it hasn't

Radio 4's Today programme had another pointless debate this morning; David Miliband declaring that there was no need for a referendum as the Treaty was not the same as the EU Constitution, whilst William Hague declared that it fundamentally was. As usual a Labour Minister used as the key part of his argument that all 27 Countries had declared that the EU Constitution was abandoned. Not a lot of light and in truth not much heat either; William Hague has to sound reasonable - being scared of the Conservatives being accused of "banging on about Europe", whilst David Miliband knows that it will take a Parliamentary miracle to defeat the Government and so can just poo poo arguments that he doesn't want to debate.

Since the Toady programme wasn't going to correct a Labour Minister, I will. The phrase that was actually in the mandate for the Reform Treaty was this "The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing Treaties and replacing them by a single text called 'Constitution', is abandoned". So it is the concept of replacing all the existing Treaties with a Constitution that has been abandoned. Instead of this concept, the new plan was to get the same result but by amending the existing Treaties. As Giscard d'Estaing, the prime architect of The Constitution said "This text is, in fact, a rerun of a great part of the substance of the constitutional treaty... the public is being led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly."

This is important, the Government line is a lie, a deliberate lie. They are using the line that the "constitutional concept... is abandoned" to "prove" that the Constitution and the Reform Treaty are "as alike as fish and fowl". This is disingenuous as the results of passing the Constitution and the results of passing the Reform Treaty are substantially the same. As EU Referendum say, "Pedantry it might seem, but since the "constitutional concept... is abandoned" lie has developed as one of the central planks on which the Labour government is basing its case for refusing a referendum, it seems logical that attempts should be made to debunk it."


You might like to read this piece I wrote last July following a PMQ in which David Cameron concentrated on the Reform Treaty.


You might also care to peruse this article from the European Movement. It is entitled "European Reform Treaty as an important step forward: The Constitutional Process should go on." In it the European Movement:

Appreciates that "That the Charter of Fundamental Rights becomes legally binding and that introducing qualified majority voting as a rule for decision-making in the council, merging the functions of the Commission Vice-President for Foreign Affairs and the High Representative of the European Union will contribute to a better decision-making in the EU and will allow the EU to speak with a stronger voice on the international scene"

Disapproves of "The removing of European symbols from the new “Reform Treaty” such as the flag the anthem and the motto which are elements for the identification with the EU"

Believes "That not renaming regulations and directives into EU-laws and the High Representative into Foreign Minister and not mentioning clearly the supremacy of the EU law is counterproductive for the better understanding of the EU by the citizens"


Most importantly, the European Movement makes these two points:

Is Confident "That the majority of the Union citizens is in favour of the concept of a single treaty and the vision of a “European Constitution” and that the constitutional project including the double legitimacy of the EU as a Union of states and citizens, will not be abandoned"

Reiterates "Its demand for an easy readable new Treaty in which the values, principles and citizens rights of the EU are defined"