Yorkshire Post, 21st June 2007

Ruth Lea: A different treaty, but the same old integration

By Ruth Lea

IT is widely expected that today's summit of European leaders will agree a framework for the new EU Treaty.

Provided all goes according to plan, an Inter-Governmental Conference will start in July, with the objective of finalising the draft for signing by all 27 member states in December.

This Treaty will almost certainly be closely modelled on the unfortunate Constitutional Treaty (the "Constitution") which was rejected by the French and Dutch electorates in 2005.

But it is now clear that these "petulant" outbursts of democratic expression have not just failed to stop the process of integration. They have barely altered the nature and scope of the next EU Treaty.

With commendable openness, if less commendable cynicism, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has pushed on with the new Treaty with remarkable alacrity. Her expressed intention has been "to use different terminology without changing the substance".

In other words, there has been a cosmetic make-over, hence the word "Constitution" has been dropped. And this, along with the removal of references to the symbols of "statehood" such as the flag, the anthem (Beethoven's curiously joyless Ode to Joy from his 9th Symphony), and the motto (Unity in Diversity), is apparently considered sufficient to prevent further referenda and potential embarrassments.

The Treaty will almost certainly include a permanent President, a reduction in the number of vetoes, a Foreign Minister, a re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers making it harder for Britain to block legislation and, somewhere and somehow, reference to a legally-binding Charter of Fundamental Rights.

All these elements change the relationship between the member states and the EU and, therefore, have constitutional implications.

Protest as Tony Blair may, this agenda does not just amount to a bit of institutional tinkering to "make the EU work better". In 2004 he promised a referendum on the original Constitution and he, or more accurately Gordon Brown, should not renege on this promise.

It is reported that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are working together closely on Britain's position for the summit. If this is the case, then Mr Brown should be regarded as responsible as the outgoing Prime Minister for this week's outcome and any consequences and difficulties arising from it.

We in Global Vision, a new campaign group arguing for a looser relationship between Britain and the EU, recently commissioned some Populus polls. A staggering 83 per cent of respondents thought there should be a referendum on the new Treaty. A mere 14 per cent thought not.

Next week Gordon Brown will be Prime Minister. Surely he will not want to start his premiership by denying the British people the referendum they were promised.

Of course, the British Government will argue that they will protect Britain's interests with their so-called "red lines", which they regard as inviolate. These are variously reported as relating to foreign policy, Justice and Home Affairs (especially on criminal matters), the Charter of Fundamental Rights and social policy.

They may well succeed with some or even all of the red lines. But whatever the final outcome, the overall impact will be the further loss of sovereignty, grudgingly agreed to by a Britain that is seen within the EU as one of "the awkward squad".

With every treaty, there is always anguished hand-wringing in Britain about the inevitable one-way direction of the EU with its objective of the "ever closer union of the peoples of Europe".

The EU does not have a reverse gear. Angela Merkel has, for example, said: "As far as I am concerned, there is no alternative to the road to European unification." She is fully entitled to this view and, given her country's history, it is perfectly understandable.

But this sentiment is relatively rare here. It is surely time for a major political debate about what sort of relationship this country would like with the EU.

To date the debate that has happened on Britain and the EU has been polarised between those arguing for staying in the EU or simply withdrawing.

We promote a third option, and a perfectly feasible one, of

using our current membership clout in order to negotiate a new looser relationship based on trade and mutually beneficial cooperation, while opting out of economic and political union.

The closest extant "model" is Switzerland's with the EU. At any treaty change Britain can, and if necessary should, use its veto to negotiate the new relationship.

In our Populus poll, we offered the three options. Some 34 per cent of respondents wanted to stay in and 21 per cent wanted to withdraw. Our third option, a negotiated looser relationship, was the option of choice, supported by 43 per cent.

Of course we should have a full debate on the future of this country. But, as a start, Mr Brown, a referendum on the new Treaty is a "must".