Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Jul 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		A slow-motion coup d'état Speech to the Constitutional Affairs Committee - Wednesday, 28th June 2007 Chairman: Jo Leinen MEP, the prominent federalist Mr Chairman First may I correct a misconception in your earlier remarks? You said that the United Kingdom does not have a Constitution. It does. But its Constitution was developed over many centuries. We British believe that this may be better than a Constitution recently drafted in the small hours in Brussels. It seems that all of us in this room agree on one thing, and that is that the new Treaty agreed at the weekend is, in terms of substance, the same document as the Constitution that was rejected by the French and Dutch voters in 2005. Many members have said so. You yourself, Chairman, have said that it contains "the essentials of the Constitution". European leaders are queuing up to say it contains 90% of the Constitution. Our colleague Alexander Stubb MEP has just said it is 99%. Thank you for that, Alexander. It will be relevant to the debate in the UK. The failed Constitution was due to face referenda in many of the EU's member states. But this new Treaty is unlikely to face that test, except possibly in Ireland and Denmark. Mr. Voggenhuber eloquently regrets the fact that we have changed the terminology, and he speaks cogently of respecting the rights of the citizens. So why will we not give the citizens the right to express their view on this major constitutional change? Because you know they will vote it down. Chairman, you say that in the negotiations "we gave due attention to democratic principles". And Elmar Brok says the objective was to "bring Europe closer to the people". You say we are "A union of values based on democracy and the rule of law". Yet you are running scared of the people's verdict. Mr. Chairman, you circulated a document to MEPs last week in which you described Angela Merkel's "presentational changes" as "a subliminal deception of the electors". You have the right idea, but you were too modest. Your determination to press ahead with the failed Constitution is not merely subliminal. It represents a flagrant, arrogant contempt for the voters, for democracy and public opinion. Several colleagues have criticised the UK's negotiating stance, and I find myself in the unusual position of defending Tony Blair. You complain of the British opt-out on the so-called "Charter of Fundamental Rights", and you worry that European citizens resident in the UK will not have the same protections as those on the Continent. You will just have to get used to the idea that foreign nationals visiting the UK are subject to UK law. Elmar Brok asks why the British government is "scared of its citizens". Let me explain something to you, Elmar. Many of the countries represented in this room have experienced totalitarian régimes during the lifetimes of some of us here today. In Britain, by contrast, we have enjoyed the gradual evolution of democracy under our Common Law over many centuries. We are not about to take lessons from you on freedom and democracy. We are not "scared of the citizens". We are afraid of the European Court of Justice, and with good reason. Frequently in recent years it has handed down perverse judgements, which have had the effect of damaging our economy, our competitiveness and our productivity. More recently it has started interfering with our campaign against terrorism, denying us the right to repatriate foreign terrorist suspects. We in Britain put our faith in democracy and Common Law developed over centuries, rather than in your newly-drafted Charter. And for good measure, many of us believe we should abandon all or part of the European Convention of Human Rights as well. Let me turn to two other features of the Treaty. The innovation of a closed mandate for the IGC negotiations seeks to give the European institutions the right to over-rule sovereign nations in terms of what proposals they may table at the IGC. And in one respect the Treaty is actually worse than the Constitution. At least the Constitution would have required a formal amendment procedure before it could be added to, whereas the Treaty contains an escalator clause which allows new measures of integration without the same scrutiny by national parliaments, let alone by the people. Taken together, these new elements amount to a slow motion coup d'état by the EU institutions against the member states. One last point, Chairman. Our government in the UK proposes to ratify this Treaty without a referendum. But you should recall that they wanted to join the euro without a referendum, but they were forced to concede a referendum by pressure from the public and press. They wanted to ratify the Constitution in parliament, but they were forced by public pressure to concede, and were only let off the hook by the votes in France and Holland. Now having promised a referendum on the Constitution, they seek to deny a referendum on the Treaty which is 99% of the Constitution. They may be forced to concede again. And let me make a prediction. If there is a UK referendum, seventy percent of the people will vote NO.