Mind your language as Tories relish latest Euromyth

A story that neatly illustrates the working methods of the eurosceptics has been in the headlines of several papers this week, not least the Express. An internal guidance document intended for the translation services of the Parliament, advising staff on how best to render certain terms and expressions in other languages in a gender neutral or simply polite way (and also when not to do so if it would lead to distorted grammar and garbled sentences!), has been seized upon by various Conservative and other MEPs to portray it as "the European Union telling us how to speak our own language".

Although clearly not intended for MEPs or the wider public, Philip Bradbourn, Conservative MEP, said "I will have no part of it. I will continue to use my own language and expressions" - as if anyone had ever implied the contrary.

Struan Stevenson, the pro-European Scottish MEP who frequently masquerades as a Eurosceptic in the press to keep his right-wing party members happy, said "They seem determined to tell us which words we can use in our own language. It's ludicrous. The thought police are on the rampage". This is on a par with Struan's previous claims that the EU wanted to ban bagpipes - no doubt great for getting coverage in the Scottish press but no step forward for the cause of truth and honesty in politics!

Chris-Heaton Harris meanwhile had the cheek to claim "This really is the sort of rubbish that brings ridicule on the European Parliament", which is exactly what inventing Euromyths is designed to do, and something Tory MEPs obviously enjoy indulging in for a bit of easy press.

Those who still think the proposed Reform Treaty is a federalist plot would do well to read what the federalists themselves think about it!

Looking at the latest issue of the “New Federalist” magazine, I see that they say:

“The results of the spring Eurobarometer [opinion poll] indicate that two thirds of Europeans (66%) subscribe to the idea of the European Constitution. However, this didn’t prevent he EU heads of State and Government, at the last European Summit (21-23 June), to drive the EU in a very different direction”.

They go on to ask:

“What is left from the ambition to reform the EU into a more efficient, democratic and legitimate enlarged Union? The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries, is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any federalist awards. Indeed, the result is extremely disappointing for anyone who had been campaigning for a Constitution for Europe and in particular for the Constitutional Treaty. What is left from the improvements achieved by the Convention? Where did the substance of the Constitutional Treaty go?”

In their assessment:

"The constitutional concept, which consisted in replacing all existing Treaties by a single text called ‘Constitutional Treaty’ is abandoned. In fact, this involves much more than just loosing the name “Constitution”, as the new Treaty will lose in fact its constitutional character. It starts with the suppression of the Preamble and the European symbols from the Treaty. Common values and symbols are not indispensable to an institutional settlement, but perhaps desirable to create the premise of a European identity. It continues with the opt-out agreement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights for the UK. Thus the civil and social rights given by the Charter are only applicable for certain citizens but not for all.

"What is perhaps more damageable is the loss of the possibility for the EU to speak with one strong voice in the world. Indeed the compromise reached is a water downed CFSP with the loss of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Now the foreign Minister will be called ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’. What is the use of having a High representative, with very limited powers?

"Furthermore, the lack of a clear terminology and efficiency of EU-Legislation contributes to the substantive change of the Constitutional Treaty. For instance the supremacy of EU law will be deleted and replaced by a declaration on the supremacy of EU law. Then, the denomination of ‘EU framework law’ and ‘EU law’ will be abandoned and instead the existing denomination of ‘regulations’, ‘directives’ and ‘decisions’ will be kept.

"...this summit showed once again that Europe is currently only the sum of nationalist ambitions and Machiavellian intrigues between EU capitals.”

This extremely disappointed reaction of the federalists should make anyone take claims of the Reform Treaty being a federalist conspiracy with a pinch of salt!

The leading anti-European campaigner Dan Hannan MEP, who moonlights as a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph, has attempted to avoid the awkward fact (from his point of view) that the amendments agreed at the European Council to replace the Constitutional Treaty amount to very little indeed in the way of major constitutional change for Britain, by arguing that we should have a referendum instead on the accumulated changes to the EU that have taken place since we first joined.

This is akin to saying that the changes to the composition of the House of Lords should trigger a national referendum on the whole of the British constitution. After all, this too has evolved by incremental changes, none of which have been subject to a referendum.

Such a vote - also mooted by those arguing for the British constitution to be codified in a single document - would have some interesting parallels with the French vote on the now abandoned Constitutional Treaty. A vote on the British constitution as it stands would have no guarantee of it being approved. Some would vote against it because they object to a hereditary monarchy, others because they disagree with the electoral system for the House of Commons, still more because they don't like the House of Lords (as it is or as it is mooted). Some might vote against because they think their part of the UK should leave and become an independent country. And yet others would ignore all these issues and relish the opportunity just to vote against the government or the "establishment".

This coalition of "noes" would not get us anywhere in solving any of the individual issues currently being discussed in terms of reforming the British system. But it does illustrate the inherent dangers of holding single Yes/No referenda on an amalgamation of complex inter-related issues.

So, the deal has been done - in the early hours of this morning. Many of us in the Council building feared that Polish intransigence would last throughout the night and longer, but eventually they too compromised at about three a.m.. I've lost count of the number of interviews I've done for British, French, German, Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg TV and radio throughout the long day and night, but hopefully there will be no need for another summit on these issues for many years to come.

The Constitutional Treaty has been replaced by a practical set of reforms to the current European Union. They will make it work more efficiently and will improve parliamentary scrutiny and democratic accountability. This is a result to be welcomed. Euro-obsessives that want Britain to leave Europe (and, presumably, become part of America) will try to scare people with their ususal froth, but any objective look at the agreement shows that their complaints are fibs or exaggerations. Indeed, UKIP leader Nigel Farage was looking distincly forlorn, not sure what he could complain about, when I debated with him on BBC this morning - he fell back on quoting an article that has been in the treaty since Maastricht, 15 years ago.

Indeed, of the issues that the Eurosceptics focussed on, almost all have disappeared or been neutralized:

* The term "constitution" has been abandoned.

* On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, a new clause says "In particular, for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in title 4 of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to the United Kingdom."

* On the Foreign Minister, the role stays as High Representative, as it is called already now, and EU foreign policy will be decided by "The European Council and the Council acting unanimously", without the European Courts having a say over it. It is specified that none of this will effect the "existing legal basis, responsibilities, and powers of each member state,"

* In the field of justice and home affairs, where there is a switch from unanimity to majority voting, there are opt-outs for Britain.

Curiously, two items which Eurosceptics continue to criticise are things that, if they thought about them for a few seconds, they might appreciate.

* One is the longer-term president of the European Council (30 months instead of six months). This could lead to a strengthening of the intergovernmental European Council presidency at the expense of the Commission presidency. That is certainly why the anti-federalist French support it.

* The other is the "External Action Service". At present, EU external representations across the globe are run by the Commission. This change is designeed to give Council (i.e. national governments) a say in running and staffing them. Another step away from, rather than towards, a federal system.

However, Tory and UKIP critics just don't want to know and are simply focussed on finding fault with any change.

On the other side, federalists will be disappointed. The Italian and Belgian governments are muttering about too much having been sacrificed to placate the Brits, the Dutch, the Poles and the French. The European Parliament will be unhappy, as will the 22 countries who wished to retain the Constitutional Treaty intact.

BBC Europe chief and blogger Mark Mardell's assessment is interesting. Although BBC impartiality means he has to treat the Eurosceptics seriously and give them coverage they don't deserve, he clearly proclaims a victory for the government, saying: "Tony Blair can claim that he has won all his red lines. Of course, many will feel this was utterly predictable and of course Conservatives and other will say that there is plenty here that deserves a referendum. But Mr Blair has made their job that much harder."

Indeed a referendum seems hard to justify. Britain has never had a referendum to ratify an international treaty, and it would be odd to start with a minor one. We similarly have never had a referendum on issues that are far more important and that really interest the public, like the creation of the national health service, compulsory education, university fees, the death penalty, the monarchy. We are a parliamentary democracy - a British tradition we are generally proud of. To argue that a referendum is justified because the president of the European Council will have a 30-month instead of 6-month term of office is ludicrous.

But I predict that it won't stop the Torygraph, the Mail, the Sun, the Express UKIP, the Conservative party and the BNP demanding one!

British Eurosceptics, who let us not forget, are a highly organised and well financed network, are working themselves up into a frenzy over the European Council discussions on replacing the Constitutional Treaty with a pragmatic set of amendments to the current European treaties.

The Eurosceptic press is full of articles and leaders spitting bile about Europe, and claiming that “Blair is just hours from betraying Britain” (Express), “Blair to surrender” (Telegraph), that Blair could “sell us down the river to the faceless EU politicians and bureaucrats who run Europe. There is no middle road at this travelling road show of snake oil salesman and three card tricksters..” (Sun)

Charming!

Tory politicians are equally at it. Hague contributes to the Sun’s diatribe, while Heathcoat Amory tells outright fibs when he says that “80 percent of our laws are imposed by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”. He knows perfectly well that “bureaucrats” don’t make European laws – ministers from national governments and elected MEPs do – and in any case the figure of 80 percent of our laws coming from Europe is contradicted by the House of Commons library estimates of nine percent.

The Telegraph reports “EU reform chaos as Blair and Brown fail to agree” while the Financial Times reports the opposite “Brown and Blair find rare unity on defending 'red lines' “.

Some pro-European voices are allowed a few lines in some papers:

• “Unless Europe gets its act together, the world will continue to ignore it (writes Timothy Garton Ash for the Guardian)

• "Come 2009, when the US gets a new president, the EU must be ready to speak in a voice that will actually be listened to.". "The presidency's reduced package of functionally necessary institutional changes is a pragmatic, not an ideological response to the present impasse. We can see nothing in the German presidency's approach to these issues that conflicts in any way with British national interests." (Letter in the Financial Times from Lords Dykes, Hannay of Chiswick, Kerr of Kinlochard, and Peter Sutherland – none of them Labour, by the way).

• "There is no doubt that some provisions of the old constitutional treaty were misconceived, but there are other measures which should be retained in a new treaty, which are sensible responses to the EU's expansion from 15 to 27 member states in the last three years. The proposals to end the rotating presidency, to merge the two foreign affairs roles, to reform voting weights in the European Council and to give national parliaments a greater role in the decision-making process are among the measures that should attract support from those who genuinely wish to see the EU work better." (Letter from Lord Brittan of Spennithorne QC, Mr Roger Carr, Mr Guy Dawson, Mr Niall FitzGerald, Sir Philip Hampton, Mr Vijay Patel, Sir Mike Rake, Mr Roland Rudd, Mr Bryan Sanderson, Ms Rosemary Thorne, Mr Bill Thomas, Lord Tugendhat).

But the Eurosceptic papers appear not to want to publish dissenting letters or even factual corrections. We are in for a battle between the unelected press barons and the elected government on an issue on which the former have prepared the ground for years with their relentless depiction of the Europe as akin to the bubonic plague.

Reading through the briefing by the Eurosceptic think-tank Open Europe on the proposals for a new treaty, I was struck by several glaring omissions.

It makes predictions on what is likely to be in the treaty, mentioning the replacement of the six month rotating presidency, merging the two EU spokesmen on foreign affairs, voting weights in the Council of Ministers and the proposal to reduce the number of Commissioners.

However, despite seeing fit to claim that a revised treaty will not increase democratic accountability and will give the EU more powers, both of which are palpably incorrect, it fails to mention one of the proposals that will form the core of any revised treaty - namely, making all European legislation subject to the double approval of national governments and the directly elected European Parliament. Indeed, a revised treaty would also give national parliaments far more influence over their ministers and enhance their ability to scrutinise legislative proposals from the Commission. Both of these measures would greatly enhance parliamentary scrutiny of European legislation, something which I am sure even the most rabid Eurosceptic would accept is a good thing, and it is most surprising that a supposedly reputable think-tank would see fit to completely ignore it.

Moreover, Open Europe claims that 54% of UK Chief Executives think that the benefits of the common market are outweighed by the cost of regulation. Yet this apparent dissatisfaction doesn't square with the stance of Business for New Europe, an independent group of business leaders, which cites a poll showing that 52% of business leaders support a new treaty, with just 31% opposed. In the words of Sir Philip Hampton, Chairman of Sainsbury's, "The key aim for business is the development of an effective single market. The main provisions of the amending treaty should help achieve that."

By the way, any sufferes from insomnia who want to see the issue of the new treaty debated by myself, Tory europhobe MEP Dan Hannan, Robert Evans and Telegraph correspondent, Bruno Waterfield should click here http://www.maramoja.tv/index2.html

Over the next seven days the Sun has set itself the task of saving Britain from a “draconian new superstate”.

Thankfully they have kept things in perspective. Their urgent battle to save Britain from “surrender” is deemed less newsworthy than Michael Barrymore, Big Brother and a drunk soldier stripping off. Only then is Britain truly worth saving.

And as predictable as a soused squaddie in their birthday suit, is the Sun’s attempt to hoodwink (as they like to say) its readers into fearing any reform by publishing its own version of the treaty, which bears almost no resemblance to what is actually up for discussion.

The Sun’s version of the treaty includes:

"A PERMANENT EU President with 3,500 staff.
UNELECTED European judges getting unprecedented powers to set UK law.
BRITAIN surrendering its seat on the UN Security Council.
AN EU foreign minister representing the UK on international issues.
SLASHING Britain’s voting powers by a THIRD.
GIVING UP for good Britain’s hard-won veto on EU directives.
BOWING to EU laws on criminal justice and policing.
A RAFT of job-destroying shopfloor laws.
DESTROYING the City’s reputation as the world’s greatest money market.
HANDING the European Commission the power to meddle in any part of British laws it chooses.”

Every one of these 10 items is a tribute to the imagination of Sun journalists.

In fact, the EU will not have a permanent president but one that serves 30 months, instead of the current six, merely chairing summit meetings. The 3,500 staff it mentions is a statistic plucked from thin air.

European judges have never and will never be able to set UK law, they merely adjudicate when there is a dispute over EU laws previously agreed by government ministers and MEPs.

The claim Britain will have to surrender her seat at the UN is bunkum as is the preposterous suggestion that the treaty is out to destroy the City’s reputation or will cost British jobs.

If an EU foreign minister is introduced he or she will only represent Britain’s interests when we agree with the other 26 Member States on an issue. If there is a difference of opinion, like there was on Iraq, then there is no common position to represent. In either case Britain, like every other EU country, will continue to express its own views through its own foreign minister.

The current proposals would actually increase Britain’s voting power quite considerably, which just shows the Sun’s journalist can’t even add up.

The only point with a grain of truth in is the justice and policing veto, which will be discussed. Britain will want to keep this and it seems highly unlikely Blair will leave without some sort of veto or derogation in place.

The Sun is running a poll alongside the story which will inevitably conclude that 90 odd percent of its readers don’t want Blair to sign a new treaty, which they will then proudly proclaim is the voice of the British people. Which of course it isn’t, it is what Sun readers think of the imaginary treaty they have made up themselves, which I wouldn’t want Blair to sign either.

If the Sun gave as much importance to the bare facts as it does to bare bums, it might one day be able to claim it speaks for the British people over Europe. Until then it is helping to form opinions based on outrageous lies.

Today I took part in very constructive discussions with members of the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords EU Committee in the bi-annual meeting they jointly have with British MEPs.

Part of the discussion focussed on what is likely to replace the EU Constitutional Treaty. Although actual negotiations will only begin in a new ICG in the autumn (if one is called by next week's European summit), the outline of the likely scenario is beginning to emerge.

Only one MP present, Heathcote-Amory, took the line of the extreme Europhobes claiming that it is somehow illegitimate to try to bridge the gap between the majority of states who want to retain the bulk of the Constitutional Treaty and the minority who have reservations about it, including the two that rejected it outright. After all, the latter two are now saying they wish to negotiate a new treaty.

The idea of a set of amendments to the current treaties, which would focus on practical improvements to the current EU system, generally found favour - certainly among the Lords, but also MPs present at the meeting.

If the new amending treaty focuses on measures such as changing the term of office of the Council Presidency from six months to 30 months, extending majority voting in areas where this is acceptable to member states, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, merging the positions of the Commissioner for External Relations and the High Representative for External Relations, clarifying that the Charter of Rights has no implications for purely domestic legislation and cutting the size of the Commission and the European Parliament, then it should, in principle, be capable of having wide-spread support in both the Commons and the Lords - not withstanding the temptations of some Eurosceptics to frighten people into thinking that it would mean the end of Britain as a country.

It would also be difficult to justify having a referendum on such changes. Britain has never ever ratified an international treaty by means of a referendum. Indeed, it has never had a nation-wide referendum on any political issue, however important or controversial except for once in 1975. Why on earth we should have one on changing the term of office of the chairmanship of one of the EU institutions from six months to 30 months is beyond me!

Debate over what to do about the Constitutional Treaty has finally reached the mainstream British media.

The usual suspects have embraced hyperbolic nonsense, ignoring the pragmatic and vital reforms the original treaty offered, as I explain in more detail in my article for EU Observer. You can read it by clicking here.

The BBC’s Europe correspondent, Mark Mardell, blogs on the forthcoming summit and rightly points out that it is absurd to suggest Blair is tying Brown’s hands by agreeing a deal (as some papers are suggesting), as Gordon will be responsible for signing any treaty when he becomes Prime Minister in a couple of weeks.

Mardell and the Independent both fear the summit could get bogged down by Poland’s desire to introduce a voting system based on the square root of a country’s population. The reform of the voting system in the Constitutional Treaty intended to re-balance the weight of votes in the Council, which has slid towards smaller countries since the EU’s enlargement. By basing votes on population, bigger countries (like Britain) would be more fairly represented, while ensuring 55% of countries have to approve any directives and regulations would protect smaller member states (like Ireland).

The square root system has no chance of being implemented but the worry is Poland will refuse to budge on the issue, a result which Mardell suggests might be secretly welcomed by Gordon.

He presumably thinks that deadlock caused by another country will save Gordon from a pounding from the Eurosceptic press but a pounding from the Eurosceptic press is as inevitible as the endless coverage the same papers give to Big Brother.

The EU must reform if it is to work. We cannot continue to duck the issue and the sooner member states can reach an agreement acceptable to all the better – something Gordon knows!

I came across this typically restrained piece by Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail (don't worry, I don't make a habit of reading the Mail!). It appears that, aside from the usual diatribe, she has completely misunderstood a number of issues regarding a revised European treaty.

Aside from the usual bunkum about the treaty creating a new EU President (we already have an EU presidency which changes every six months - the treaty simply provides for a two-and-a-half year chair) she claims that merging the two posts of External Relations Commissioner and Council High Representative on Foreign Affairs, would mean the end of an independent British foreign policy! A new EU foreign affairs spokesperson would merely speak for the EU where there was a common position. She asks the question "what would happen if British foreign policy contradicted that of the EU". But, if Britain (or any country) objected, then there could be no common EU policy in the first place.

She recycles the tired Eurosceptic cliché that the EU is "anti-democratic" - conveniently ignoring the fact that the measures contained in a revised treaty would strengthen the role of the directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament (by making all EU legislation subject to approval by it and the Council of Ministers) and increasing the powers of legislative scrutiny by national parliaments. Besides, the EU is already the most democratically accountable of all the supranational organisations the UK is a member of including the WTO, NATO, IMF and World Bank, bodies which never seem to feature in her concerns about democracy.

Moreover, Phillips also reveals her own cynical double standards. She demands a referendum on a revised treaty only because it's the next best thing to a referendum on withdrawal from the EU.

I did chuckle when I read her description of the EU as "a failed, backward-looking project whose days are numbered"! In the words of Nobel peace prize winner John Hume, "the EU is the most successful example of conflict resolution in history", while Paddy Ashdown described it as "a political miracle". The EU is not perfect, but neither is any other political institution, and the reforms expected to be retained in a new treaty would enhance its effectiveness and its democratic accountability and help us to deliver the best policy results for our citizens on those matters when our countries are highly interdependent. If Melanie Phillips wants to see something that genuinely is "a failed and backward looking project", she should try reading her own columns.

Have just seen an utterly ridiculous press release from the Conservative leader Tim Kirkhope MEP, accusing Labour MEPs of being “in chaos” and contradicting the government’s position on the Constitutional Treaty in today’s vote in the European Parliament.

The Tories desperately cobbled together a press release with some outrageously selective editing of the report; once the report is read in full it is quite clear the press release is complete tosh.

The Conservative press release reads: “17 Labour MEPs voted in favour of the Brok report which committed the European Parliament to ‘reaffirm its commitment to achieving a settlement of the ongoing constitutional process of the European Union which is based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation’"

A quick glance at the actual report shows that the paragraph above (paragraph six) is cut off mid-sentence. It actually finishes “but taking account of the difficulties that have arisen in some Member States" – the key point which they deliberately cut out.

The Tories also conveniently ignored any mention of the following paragraph (paragraph seven unsurprisingly), which is also the exact position of the Labour government, namely to have an inter-governmental conference this autumn to negotiate a new treaty.

It will be interesting to see if this weak concoction actually makes the papers. Hopefully not, but if it does it will not have been the first time an absurd Tory press release from Europe has made column inches in some of the right-wing rags.

Am in Berlin to talk to the German government and MPs on the new EU treaty. Can the Germans (whose turn it is to chair) deliver a compromise between the 22 Member States which want to keep the Constitutional Treaty intact (18 of which have already ratified it) and the two that have rejected it, while also satisfying those like Britain which have not yet ratified?

The game plan is clear: make as few changes to the original package as possible, but as many as necessary to secure agreement.

Obviously, I (and a majority in Parliament) would prefer changes of symbol to substance, of wording to content, in order to preserve the main reforms contained in the Constitutional Treaty. So, if the treaty is to be an amendment to the current treaties, rather than a codifying replacement "constitution", so be it. But if some substance does have to be sacrificed, let us at least keep those reforms that make the EU system more efficient, capable of delivering on those policies that we agree should be conducted at European level, and those which enhance its democratic accountability.

This is clearly the approach of Chancellor Merkel and her Foreign Secretary, acting as presidency deal-brokers. Good luck to them! They still have to overcome considerable divergence on the scope of the changes needed, from Poland's demand to revise the voting strengths in the Council of Ministers to the Dutch request to change the nature of the reference to fundamental rights. But the Germans remain optimistic that a deal can be made.

Germany's own position is simpler. The President of the Bundestag told me that they are happy to transfer sovereignty to the European Union on matters where common European policies are beneficial, provided such powers are not given to ministers and commissioners alone, but to the European Parliament. Would that it were so simple!

So, Sarko beat Sego, as widely expected, despite her creditable perfomance in the campaign. Although the knives will now be out for her, her score compares well. Only one socialist candidate - Mitterrand - has ever won the French presidency since it bcame directly elected nearly half a century ago. In two out of the eight elections, (1969 and 2002) the Socialist candidate did not even reach the second round. Often, it has been the factionalism of the French left that has led to their downfall.

One important consequence at European level is on the debate on the Constitutional Treaty. Sarkozy supports a simpler treaty, avoiding the constitutional implications that could require a referendum. This puts him on a similar line to that of the Dutch government, supported recently by Tony Blair, as a way to salvage the key reforms contained in the constitutional treaty without raising the constitutional questions that some feared were raised by the Constitutional Treaty.

Of course, the overwhelming majority of Member States (including the two-thirds who have already ratified it) want to salvage the whole treaty, but the combination of Britain, France, Netherlands, and probably some others supporting a less controversial scaled-down text could prove decisive. Let's hope that it doesn't mean we'll lose the really useful reforms contained in the treaty, that Blair rightly hailed as a positive result for Britain and for the whole of Europe.

As a politician you get used to being misquoted - often deliberately so by your political opponents. However, it was distressing to find out earlier this week that I was completely misquoted by a benevolent source which inadvertently got my views on a couple of key issues completely the wrong way round. For the record, I do not support a Europe-wide referendum (I indeed explained my reason for this in a blog entry, which you can read by click here).

Nor have I said that it would be an outrage to support the deletion of the full text of the Charter of Rights from Part 2 of the Constitutional Treaty and its replacement by a single article containing a cross-reference to it.

Curious to be in a country where public opinion is very pro-Europe, but the government is Eurosceptic. Opinion polls show a solid 80% approval rating for the European Parliament, compared to about 20% for the national parliament. As one MP said, "The people are strongly pro-Europe, but still have to convince the government"

I am in Warsaw at the invitation of the the Polish Senate to speak about the future of the Constitutional Treaty, now that the prospects for negotiating a new version of it

The new right-wing Polish government was one of those who considered the treaty dead following the French referendum two years ago, but is now quite keen to get into new negotiations on it. However, they want to re-open the institutional package, which the French and Dutch leaders say they are happy with. In particular, they want to renegotiate the voting system in the Council of Ministers, to give each state a vote based on the square root of its population!!

No other country has shown the slightest interest in re-opening this particular issue, and they all accept the "double majority" system laid down in the Constitutional Treaty, whereby votes must represent a large majority of the population (66%) and a majority (55%) of states. This is felt to be fair on big and small States alike.

The square root theory does actually have a sound base in academic literature. The idea is that, with block votes, only the big units count, and cutting everyone back to their square root actually equalises the influence of individual citizens, whether they are in a big unit or a small one. It protects the smaller states, as it obviously cuts the larger ones' votes by more than the smaller ones.

However, the double majority system also protects smaller states, though in a different way, by requiring a majority of states as well as of the population and also by requiring a high majority in the population vote (65%) that cannot be attained by the bigger states alone.

Everyone suspects that the Poles really want to keep the old system of the current treaty of Nice, which gives them a disproportionately high number of votes (they have 27, compared to 29 for Germany which has more than double its population). Even Spain, which is of the same size as Poland and similarly over represented in the old system, is not seeking to reopen that issue (or any other aspect of the Constitutional Treaty).

The Polish ministers we met (the parliamentarians hardly mentioned the issue) said that that was not their intention at all, that they just want a better treaty, and that accusations that they are Eurosceptic are misplaced, as they support the principle of a supranational EU and the President has said that he would even like to see a European army.

Be that as it may, we are in for a difficult negotiation if Poland (and even more if other governments follow their example) want to reopen past agreements they have made that are contested by no-one else, not even the French or the Dutch.

There are signs of movement in the Netherlands - one of the two countries that rejected the Constitutional Treaty on reforming the European Union.

The Dutch government has submitted a paper to its parliament on how it sees the way forward. This document recognises that, far from being
overwhelmingly rejected, "there were 18 Member States that did embrace the treaty" and that "there is a need for a new discussion". It says that "the Netherlands is playing an active and constructive role in this discussion."

What is it that the Dutch government envisages coming out of these discussions? Not the current Constitutional Treaty without any changes, as it states quite clearly that "the previous government withdrew the Bill for ratifying the Constitutional Treaty and this government will not be re-submitting it".

Instead, it considers that a new Treaty should be negotiated, as "the Union manifestly cannot confront its current policy challenges on the basis of the Treaty of Nice". But this new treaty should retain much of the content of the Constitutional Treaty.

The government's paper says that "it is almost self-evident that certain elements of the Constitutional Treaty will be drawn on. One reason for this is that many Member States have already ratified the text. Furthermore, as discussions in the House have revealed many times, parts of the Constitutional Treaty will be useful in fulfilling the Netherlands desire to strengthen democracy and the EU's capacity for decisive action. In fact, even the Treaty's opponents in Parliament and society at large have conceded that certain proposals are clear improvements on the existing treaties."

In particular, according to the Dutch European Affairs Minister who I met yesterday, the institutional package contained in the Constitutional Treaty is worth retaining.

All this suggests that the Dutch problem is more one of presentation that the reality of the Constitutional Treaty. Although the government's coalition agreement states that they want a new Treaty that is "convincingly different from the previously rejected Constitutional Treaty in terms of its content, size and name", the government's paper goes on to list key issues that are, in fact, either cosmetic or already dealt with by the Constitutional Treaty.

The cosmetic changes are:
* to change the name, dropping the word "constitution", which changes nothing in law;
* to have a single article cross-referencing to the Charter of Rights, instead of incorporating it in full as Part II of the treaty;
* to drop the "symbols" of the Union like the flag and anthem, which, of course already exist and don't really need a reference in the treaty;
* to make it a treaty amending the pre-existing treaties, abandoning the codification of all the European treaties into a single text - again
no legal difference other than to make things more complicated (to the benefit of lawyers!);
* for new Treaty provisions to "spell out the rules and criteria for further enlargement" - again, these criteria exist, so spelling them out in the treaty is essentially a matter of increasing their visibility.

The other set of measures advocated is simply to give more emphasis to points that are anyway already in the Constitutional Treaty:
* the principle of subsidiarity, with a strengthening of national parliaments to assess measures for subsidiarity.
* the principle of the conferral of powers ie that the Union will only exercise those powers that the Member States have jointly decided to delegate to it
* an emphasis that some policy areas "are pre-eminently suited to a chiefly national approach including pensions, social security, fiscal matters, culture and health care" - does the Constitutional Treaty in any way suggest otherwise?
* support for new treaty provisions on cross-border environmental problems.

All these points are already in the Constitutional Treaty.

Now, I don't want to underestimate the importance of cosmetic changes (if only to diminish the chances of mis-understandings and the opportunities for wilfull distortions). Nor do I underestimate the need to draw more attention to things that are in the treaty. But I note that the solution the Dutch government wants would leave intact almost all the key reforms contained in the Constitutional Treaty.

EUX.tv has more on the Netherlands and the Constitutional Treaty here

Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, has written a fine article in the Financial Times which you can read by clicking here.

It stresses the importance of Britain playing a constructive role in solving the problems of the Constiutional Treaty rather than sitting out on the sidelines and losing influence in Europe.

One of the ideas floated on the future of the Constitutional Treaty is to hold a Europe-wide referendum across the 27 Member States.

This idea is superficially attractive: a single Europe-wide decision, instead of separate national decisions, on Europe's "rule book", could settle the divergence of views that has emerged.

However, the EU has no right, under the current treaties, to organise a Europe-wide referendum. The treaties would first need to be changed - by unanimous agreement and national ratification - to enable it to do so. Even if agreement were reached, it would take years.

So, the advocates of this idea are now calling instead for simultaneous national referenda - in every member state - and because several countries don't allow for referenda in their national constitutions, they argue that such referenda should only be consultative, not binding.

But holding a new set of national referenda now on the constitutional treaty would probably just confirm what we know already: that there is a divergence of views on it with most countries supporting it and a few against it. It would simply bring us, after a few more months, back to the question that Member States will face in June's European Council: how to overcome that divergence and find a compromise acceptable to all?

As the issue of the the Constitutional Treaty gathers pace it is interesting to see the likes of Lord Kerr, formerly Britain's Ambassador to the EU, assert his support for the redevelopment of the treaty.

You can read his article, Pick the sweetest European Cherries, on the Financial Times' website here


I also have written a briefing for the LME website which discusses Britain and the Constitutional Treaty and considers many of the points Lord Kerr makes. Click here to read it.

Cameron still tries to be all things to all men and women when it comes to Europe - not surprising if you tot up the number of Tory defections on this issue in recent years, Europhobes to UKIP and Europhiles to the Liberal Democrats.

Today, Cameron has launched the "Movement for European Reform" (not to be confused with the existing Centre for European Reform). Its and his statements to mark the occasion are a telling sign of his increasing schizophrenia on Europe.

To please the Europhiles, his MER's "New Agenda" starts off saying : "the EU helped to create prosperity and bring our continent together. More recently, the EU has helped to support and nurture new democracies in Europe. Its membership now stands at 27 nation states – this is a fantastic achievement."

But addressing his more Eurosceptic readers in the Sunday Telegraph, he writes that the MER is in fact intended to "make the EU confront its endemic flaws".

His detailed description of the MER then tries to please both. It is high on clichés and even higher on contradictions. He says that "with the welcome enlargement of the EU to include so many countries previously locked out of freedom – there is a new Europe. But, sadly, there is no new EU". No indeed - he opposed the new, reformed EU that all 27 governments agreed on in the constitutional treaty.

He rails against the cost to business of EU regulations, but says "Europe has to show real global leadership by making its emissions trading scheme more robust" - which would itself raise costs, albeit for a good reason. Perhaps he should look at whether the costs of other regulations are justified or not, rather than sounding off with sweeping generalisations. And perhaps he could at least give a passing acknowledgement that EU regulations can also cut costs by eliminating technical barriers to trade and avoiding duplication in national procedures.

He says that the EU is always "demanding more and more power from member states", yet the constitutional treaty was about improving the EU's use of its existing powers rather than increasing them. New powers can anyway only be conferred on the EU by the Member States themselves, and only if they all agree.

On the constitutional treaty, he claims that "When the French and Dutch people rejected it, the EU responded by calling the voters ‘wrong’, and reviving the idea." I'm afraid "the EU" said no such thing - it was the 18 countries that approved it that are saying that their own voters also deserve to be heard and who are calling for a compromise to be found to save at least some of the reforms it contained.

As he claims to want reform, perhaps Cameron should engage in that debate, and specify exactly what he would keep and what he would change in the current treaties and in the constitutional treaty. Does he want, for instance, the enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of EU decisions provided for by the constitutional treaty? Does he oppose the changed voting system that would make each country's vote reflect its size (strengthening Britain, by the way)? Does he agree that it would be a good idea to scrap the set of existing treaties and have just a single text? Surely he would agree that it's time to settle these issues about the EU's machinery and move on to the real policy debates, yet he persists in his opposition to the reforms. But what, exactly, does he WANT?

Or, rather, what does he feel he can say, other than vague generalisations, without alienating one wing or the other of his party?

I was delighted to be re-elected by my colleagues as Socialist Group Co-ordinator (spokesman) on Constitutional affairs yesterday. My old friend (I have known him since I was 20) Jo Leinen was re-elected as President of Parliament's Committee on Constitutional affairs.

But, the surprise of the day was the EPP Group nominating UK Tory leader Tim Kirkhope for their Vice President slot on the Committee. He has not previously even been a member of the committee and in that capacity replaces Dan Hannan, who rarely appeared.

So, why has Kirkhope, as Conservative leader, chosen to switch to this committee and, even, to be its Vice-President? Not, I assume, simply to counter me, as a fellow Yorkshire MEP. As an opponent (now) of the Constitutional Treaty, he may have decided that a higher profile Tory presence on the committee is necessary, with the issue returning to prominence. But he has not always been the most dogmatic opponent of the treaty and seems to accept the need for some of the reforms that it contains. This has caused unease among the arch-Eurosceptics in the Conservative delegation, who remain suspiscious of Kirkhope and are rumoured to be planning to oust him as leader.

Meanwhile, I had some fun showing Kirkhope the letter from David Cameron published in yesterday's Financial Times. It advocated dropping the Constitutional Treaty, but salvaging most of the institutional changes it contains, including a long-term President of the European Council, a Foreign Minister, a streamlined majority voting system in the Council, and so on. Kirkhope looked surprised and shocked - until he spotted, just before I closed my folder, that the David Cameron in question was a professor at a Yale University and not his party leader. Had I closed the folder a few seconds earlier, Kirkhope would no doubt have been rushing out a press release welcoming the new line from his party leader!

Anyway, well done to the FT for setting a cat among the pigeons!

Good letter in last Saturday's Telegraph from a certain Alan Pavelin on the proposed EU constitution:

"I would point out that the treaty was negotiated by the elected governments of the (then)25 member states; that 18 countries (either through their elected parliaments or by referendum) have accepted it and only two have rejected it; and that, of the countries that held referendums, the total of yes votes exceeded the total of no votes. By all means argue against the treaty because you don't like its provisions (which include, for the first time, a provision allowing any member state to leave the EU)…But please don't argue against the treaty on grounds of democracy, because this flies in the face of the facts."

Today's meeting in Madrid of the 18 EU countries that have ratified the constitutional treaty is a useful reminder that this text has been ratified by a two-thirds majority of the EU's Member States. Far from being overwhelmingly rejected, as some commentators continue to claim, it was actually endorsed, not just by every single one of the national governments of EU Member States, but also by a clear majority of voters if you add together the results in all the countries that held referenda.

When eurosceptics trot out their favorite sound-bite "Which part of the word no do you not understand?", the 18 reply "Which part of the word yes do you not understand?" So far, there are two 'noes' , 18 'yeses' and seven who are waiting to see, though some of them have also made it clear that they still suppport the text.

Of course, the EU works by consensus on its basic rule-book, the treaties, and serious work must be done to overcome the divergence of views that has emerged. The reservations and objections expressed by the French and Dutch 'no' votes must be listened to. So must the views of the majority. It is quite legitimate to explore what compromises might be possible and what could get the necessary support - a subject I have written on elsewhere (and which you can read by clicking here.

Today Finland will become the 18th Member State of the EU to ratify the costitutional treaty.

Of course it is concrete results on economic growth, energy supplies, the environment and so on that matter to people more than institutional tinkering. The problem arises when the machinery blocks or splutters, thereby failing to deliver the desired results.

The EU's machinery has not yet been adapted to having nearly 30 Member States. The constitutional treaty was intended to do that. It has now been ratified by a large majority of the Member States. They remain attached to salvaging as many as possible of the reforms that it contains.

Like it or not, next June's European summit is scheduled to discuss this question and to find a way forward on institutional reform. It is in Britain's interest to support changes such as streamlining the size of the European Commission, re-weighting the votes in the Council of Ministers better to reflect the size of each country, enhancing parliamentary scrutiny, and many other of the useful reforms contained in the constitutional treaty.

How this could be done is still an open question (for an analysis of the options click here) but it is not a debate Britain can avoid and we should therefore approach it, not reluctantly, but as an opprtunity to be seized.

It is fashionable in some pro-European circles in Britain to attribute the recent rise of popularity of the EU in opinion polls in Britain to the fact that two tricky issues seem to have been removed from the agenda: accession to the euro, and the Constitutional Treaty.

It was indeed an uphill struggle, at times, to argue the case on these important but complex matters. But pro-Europeans should not for one moment think that these issues have disappeared forever.

We can certainly stay out of the euro in the short-term but in the long-run staying out means losing out. And now that the euro appears to have overcome some teething problems, the terms of this debate may well alter over the coming years.

Similarly, for the Constitutional Treaty. It may have been kicked into the long grass following the French and Dutch referendums, but the 'period of reflection' comes to an end next June when the European Council summit is due to examine a way forward on this issue. Meanwhile, various countries have continued the ratification process and by next June eighteen are likely to have done so. They will want to keep the constitution intact, or as intact as possible. But even if that is not possible, the issues that the Constitutional Treaty was intended to resolve have not disappeared and Member States will have to return to the questions of how to make the EU function more effectively as it approaches 30 Member States, how to improve its democratic accountability and how to make it easier to understand for citizens.

In theory there remains a wide range of possible options, and it is certainly premature now to decide which one of them might be politically feasible next year or later. But two main variants are emerging in the debate. One is re-negotiating the draft constitutional treaty (simply adding protocols to it seems to be an option that is fading). This would take some time and the negotiations would be protracted and complex.

The alternative is to adopt quickly a 'mini-treaty' focusing on the less controversial institutional changes that are necessary to pursue the further enlargement of the European Union. These would be modest and would not rise above the threshold that would trigger referenda in certain countries. In other words, they would give no new responsibilities or competencies to the European Union, whose remit would remain unchanged, but would streamline the institutions (notably a smaller Commission), reform voting procedures and the rotating presidency in the Council and improve democratic accountability.

Interestingly, the items contained in this second option are all issues that would, in any case, have to be addressed in the context of the next accession treaty - presumably with Croatia. The current treaties (as last amended by the Treaty of Nice) contain no provisions for new member states beyond Romania and Bulgaria. If the issues haven't been solved before that, the Croatian accession treaty will anyway have to settle how Croatia will be represented in the institutions. This means that the voting system in the Council will have to be reviewed, (with many countries advocating the system all governments agreed to in the constitutional treaty), reviewing the size of the Commission (which has to be reviewed anyway in 2009 under the current treaties) and the rotation system for the Presidency of the Council and the European Council.

Of course, ratifying an accession treaty will be less controversial than a general Constitutional Treaty, even if the later was no more than a collection of about a dozen useful reforms. There is no reason why an accession treaty should not contain 'emergency repairs' to the EU system, while leaving more fundamental reform to a more long-term process.

One European issue currently being considered by the government sounds highly technical, but is none the less causing considerable debate. It is whether the ‘Passarelle’ clause should be used to change EU procedures concerning decisions on law enforcement and criminal matters.

What this means is that the member states can decide (unanimously)to transfer decisions in this field from the specific inter-governmental procedures laid down in the so-called ‘Third Pillar’ of the EU Treaty and switch them to the general decision making procedures of the European Community. If they do so, they have the option of switching to majority voting instead of unanimity, of giving the European Parliament the extra scrutiny powers of the ‘co-decision’ procedure, and enabling judicial review of decisions by the Court of Justice. It could also allow the European Commission to chase up Member States who failed to implement what they have agreed to in the Council of Ministers.

The tabloid headline reaction has been predictable, with screaming headlines alleging that Britain is going to ‘hand-over’ powers in this field to ‘Brussels’, ignoring some basic facts about the matter.

I gave evidence last week on this matter to the House of Commons and the House of Lords scrutiny committees. I drew attention to an excellent report of the House of Lords which is available to read by clicking here. The Lords cite a number of problems with the current procedures, which take up an enormous amount of time, and they conclude ‘that the proposal deserves careful examination’ and ‘caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage’ (paragraph 172). They consider that a gradual transfer from the inter-governmental procedure to the community procedure ‘merits exploration’.

But above all, they put their finger on a crucial point: this is a field in which Britain anyway enjoys the right to opt-into or opt-out of legislation adopted by the European Union. Decisions taken by a qualified majority in which Britain was out voted would not apply to Britain if we didn’t want them to. So, it is other countries’ vetoes (of things that we want) that could be circumvented without Britain needing to accept majority decisions that it would have vetoed.

The Lords report deals with this in its paragraph 178 where it says that ‘as a result, the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the overnment will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer law competence to the European community’.

As to the merits of using Community, rather than ‘third pillar’ procedures, I note that the Law Society considers that ‘the full incorporation of the justice and home affairs pillar into the community structure offers the best guarantee that rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states’ (quoted in Lords report paragraph 119)

Tory MEP Charles Tannock made an astute point in his recent letter to the Telegraph about the problems continued enlargement (to include Croatia and other Balkan states) of the European Union will have.

It is of course to the benefit of the EU that enlargement continues but Tannock points out that the current Treaty of Nice ensures each new Member State is given a Commissioner, a minimum of six MEPs and a certain amount of votes in the Council of Ministers.

Barring detail, he is right. As the EU grows it will become politically weighted to the smaller countries, who will have a disproportionate amount of power in relation to the size of their populations and economies.

Unfortunately Mr Tannock’s solution – a population-based veto – is simply not workable. To bring it in would require each nation’s agreement and it is extremely unlikely the smaller Member States would agree to large ones having a veto but not them.

The “unlamented constitution” Mr Tannock wants abandoned, would attenuate this problem by changing the weighting of votes to make each country’s vote proportional to its population. With this fairer system, it would also increase the use of majority voting in general, limiting the veto to subjects that are really sensitive for Member States.

This is another example of an issue that will not simply disappear with the non-ratification of the constitutional treaty. Good that an opponent of the treaty is beginning to recognise one of the costs of not having it! constitutionwhere the constitution addresses issues

As the PES spokesman on Constitutional Affairs it is heartening to see Irish Premier Bertie Aherne make clear his enthusiasm for the new European Union Constitution.

Speaking in Dublin today, he said: "The Constitution will make it more effective, more democratic, more open and more easily understood.

"There is nothing automatic about the Europe we have built for ourselves over the last generation. There is nothing inevitable about the union's future. It falls to us now to make choices about our future. We should not underestimate the human potential to make the wrong choices."

His determination to fully engage the citizens of Ireland about Europe is something this country could do a lot worse than to follow.

It is also another excellent example of the disporportionate amount of media coverage given to the two countries (France and the Netherlands) who rejected the Constitution compared to those countries that are strongly in favour of it or are likely to be. For instance, I didn't see much coverage of Estonia ratifying it on Tuesday, making a total of fifteen so far.

Time and time again, Eurosceptics claim that the EU is ignoring voters in trying to salvage the constitutional treaty. Tell that to the voters of Spain, who endorsed it by a large majority. In fact, 16 countries have now ratified the treaty. It has the support of a majority of EU Member States.

So, why is it “undemocratic” to take account of the views of the majority and to try to find out what can be done to reconcile the majority and minority viewpoints?

I was amused to see that the "European Reform Forum" set up by arch-Eurosceptic Bill Cash MP has concluded that there is a "need to reform the existing European Treaties". They call for wide ranging debate and agreement on a set of reforms.

Isn't that exactly what the Constitutional Treaty - which they opposed vigorously - sought to do?

What to do about the EU constitutional treaty? That's the question we debated yesterday and voted on today.

There are at least two views. One is that this text of the Constitution is dead following the referenda in France and the Netherlands; that we had better start thinking of something else and preparing a different way forward.

The other view is to say: hang on a minute, this text has actually now been ratified by a majority of Member States. The 25 national governments themselves did not declare it dead. Instead, they extended the period of ratification and opened a 'period of reflection'. In that period of reflection we must listen carefully to those who said ‘no’, but we must also listen to the majority who have said ‘yes’ and find a way forward that can ultimately bring the two together.

Eurosceptics shout loudly about the French and Dutch referenda showing that "Europe" has lost touch with public opinion and that the constitutional treaty (presumably unlike any other treaty) was an elitist project which the public is now revolting against. They never mention the referenda in other countries which endorsed the treaty, nor the fact that, in total, more people voted in favour than against.

What we have is not a mass revolt, but a divergence of views. In the EU, when countries' views diverge, the traditional pratice is to talk things through to try to overcome that divergence and to find a compromise solution. In the past, when new treaties have been rejected by a member country, ways have been found, with the agreement of the country concerned, to reassure public opinion and to allow the treaty to be adopted after a new referendum.

This time, it is far too soon to draw conclusions as to the best way forward. The period of reflection has begun by addressing issues of context rather than the text. It is only now that several governments have begun to float ideas as to what could be done about the text.

Parliament concluded that the period of reflection must be extended at least until 2007 to enable a longer and deeper reflection. Until then, all options should be kept open. Of course – as is to be expected – Parliament would prefer to maintain the text, but it recognised that that would only be possible if measures were taken to reassure and convince public opinion. What those measures might be is left open. Parliament pointed out that there are, in theory, many options: supplementary interpretative declarations, extra protocols, rewriting part of the text, rewriting the whole text, drafting a new text and so on.

Which option is best and feasible will only emerge at the end of the period of reflection. The conclusion cannot be drawn now. But one thing is certain: the status quo – that is, the current Treaties – is not sufficient for this Union in its enlarged form to function effectively or democratically. This issue will not go away.

"He who is limping is still walking."

Does this old Yorkshire (or is it Chinese?) proverb apply to the European Union? There is no doubt that the rejection of the EU reform package by France and the Netherlands last year has injured the EU and left it limping.

But it is still very much walking. Common European-wide laws continue to be agreed in those areas where member states consider that this would be mutually beneficial. A medium term budget has been agreed. Countries still outside the EU continue to join the lengthening queue to become full members. Even with a limp, Europe is still moving ahead.

So Austria wants to review the EU constitution. I wrote in the Guardian on the subject:

"The reasons which led all 25 governments to agree that our enlarged EU needs a new rulebook have not simply disappeared. …

"The French "no" campaigners argued that rejecting the constitutional treaty would lead to a re-negotiation where the text could be "improved" - although they did not all agree on what those improvements might be. Nonetheless, it is clear that their intention was to kill the text but not the process - and possibly not all of the text.

"According to the most recent opinion polls, 64% of Dutch and 65% of French people want the constitution to be re-negotiated rather than killed off.

"In that sense, the ball is in the court of France and of the Netherlands. It is up to those countries to say exactly what it is they consider necessary in order for the process to be revived. If they consider that there is no scope whatsoever for agreeing anything along the lines of the constitutional treaty, they must say so and save the rest of us a lot of time."

I was struck by how the assumptions and myths propounded by the Eurosceptics in Britain have come to dominate even the thinking of many of us pro-Europeans. Sometimes we all-too-readily concede arguments that are based on nothing more than endless repetition.

Take, for instance, the evidence that Lord Wallace of Saltaire gave to the European Reform Forum (page 19 of this PDF document). He played to the gallery in complaining that the European convention (which drafted the constitutional treaty) "did not go far enough into the whole subsidiarity issue and did not open the box that it was supposed to open, which was marked 'returning competences from the Union back to national governments'".

This is simply not true. The first few months of the Convention's work was precisely around the subject of "what do we want to do together?", in order to examine whether the EU's field of responsibilities is too large, too small or about right.

The conclusion was that it was about right: because after all, the EU only ever deals with those matters which the member states have unanimously agreed that it should. Where they have done so, it is not because they are predisposed to handing over their powers to "Brussels", but because there is sufficient reason to convince them all that common action in the matter is beneficial. And even where the EU has been given the authority to act, the degree and intensity of EU action is determined by the member states themselves, as it is the Council of Ministers (and the directly elected European Parliament) which adopt European legislation and policies, not the European Commission.

Lord Wallace bemoaned suggestions that there should be a harmonisation of the maximum level of alcohol allowed in the blood stream before a person's driving licence is withdrawn, stating that "for all I know, South Carolina and North Carolina might have different views on that, so I do not see why Belgium and Luxembourg should not have different views on it either". That is a perfectly valid standpoint - and indeed different EU countries do have different laws on this. But the difference between the US system and the EU one is this: in the EU, those arguing to have a harmonised rule have to persuade the European Parliament and ministers from national governments to support it. So, unlike in America, it cannot happen without the agreement of the member states themselves!

Together with Jo Leinen MEP, the Chair of the Constitutional Committee of the European Parliament, and a few other colleagues, I have been invited to give evidence to the EU Affairs Committee of the Czech Senate and the Czech Chamber of Deputies on what to do about the unratified EU constitution.

Prague is one of Europe's most beautiful cities, and I managed to take a quick stroll around before the meetings begin - and another one late at night. I was last here in 1978 - and how it's changed! Prague is now far more lively and bustling. Buildings have been restored and cleaned up and there is a general air of oozing prosperity, at least downtown.

Still, the most tellingly symbolic change I saw was a 'Museum of Communism' now located above a McDonalds!

As ever, not all the changes are favourable. Glaring neon light advertising was mercifully absent in the communist period. Plus, there is now a proliferation of fast food joints and sleazy bars and a striking number of beggars. Does this explain why the communist party still gets 20% of the vote?

I ask one of the communist MPs how on earth a party such as his still gets such a high vote. His answer was: "Very simple! We've remained in opposition since 1989, whereas every other party has been in government". The striking similarity between the Czech Communist party and the British Liberal Democrats had never struck me before…

Since 1978, the country has changed in other ways too. Since the 'velvet divorce', it's no longer Czechoslovakia, simply the 'Czech Republic'. A Czech journalist explains to me how this has affected the language: previously everybody could understand both Czech and Slovak, not least because TV programmes used both interchangeably. Newsreaders alternated between the two and even children's programmes swapped around. Now that's no longer the case, so the Czechs are totally unused to hearing Slovak and have difficulty understanding it. Meanwhile, the Slovaks still see a lot of Czech films (it's a larger country with a bigger film industry), so the decline is asymmetric.

Anyway. On the EU constitution, there is a wide range of views. The President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus, is an adamant opponent not only of the constitution but of the EU itself. The day that the Czech Republic joined the EU, he made a pilgrimage to the mountain where good King Wenceslas lies, according to legend, buried with his army waiting for the Czech day of need. This over-dramatic visit caused much derision - after all, the good King had not emerged after the 1938 Nazi takeover, the 1948 Communist coup or the 1968 Soviet invasion. If he had not defended the Czechs against these incursions by foreign dictatorships, why on earth should he emerge when the Czechs themselves have decided by referendum to join this voluntary association of neighbouring democratic countries co-operating together?!

But the Presidential position is honorary, and power lies with the Social Democratic Prime Minister and his government who are pro-Europe. At least in the Czech Parliament, a large majority supports EU membership (including most MPs from Václav Klaus's own party).

During our visit, we were treated to an impassioned plea in favour of salvaging the constitution from the President of Parliament, Lubomir Zaoralek. We also had meetings with journalists (interestingly, one is a reader of my blog!) and academics.

One final tale from Prague. We've all heard the stories of mangled English (indeed there are a few on my own website), such as the hotel offering "French widows in every bedroom", but I came across a new one at my hotel in Prague. A noticeboard informing customers of nearby church facilities was headed 'DIVINE SERVICES'...

Regular readers may recall that the European Parliament voted yes (overwhelmingly, I might add) in support of the proposed EU constitution about a year ago. Regular readers may also recall that some Eurosceptic MEPs - mostly UKIP and some Tories, plus their assistants - tried to kick up a bit of a fuss by accusing Parliament staff of "manhandling" them when they tried to wave "Vote No" banners. (The Telegraph also joined the fun with this report.) At the time, the Parliament authorities took it seriously and appointed Jim Nicholson MEP to investigate. Jim is himself a prominent Eurosceptic and member of the right-wing EPP/ED, the same group as the Tories.

Well, I'm pleased to report once and for all that there wasn't a grain of truth in the Eurosceptic stories. I spoke to Jim Nicholson today and he confirmed that, after a thorough investigation, he had been unable to find any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the allegations of mistreatment. Jim's report was made to the President of Parliament, and since it found nothing amiss I suspect nothing more will come of it, so this is just for the record. Oh, and it goes without saying: don't hold your breath for an apology from those indignant eurosceptics who invented the tales in the first place!

Add to this the disproven invention that Parliament threw a big party after the vote - utterly unfounded - and it's a fairly sorry reflection on the tactics chosen by eurosceptics to complain about Parliament's endorsement of the constitution.

In a month when nobody seems willing to further the debate about the future of Europe, it was refreshing to learn of the following resolution passed by the conference of the Co-operative Party (link to Word document):

This Conference supports the proposed new Constitution for the European Union. Conference notes that it has received support from the overwhelming majority of socialist parties across Europe and from the ETUC, and is so strongly opposed by the far right and the UK Conservative Party.…

Conference believes that the new Constitution will respond to many of the criticisms that have previously been levelled at the EU, making it clearer, more efficient and more accountable. It is a progressive step towards a more democratic and social Europe.

A strange non sequitur arises (not for the first time) in a piece by Dirk van Heck, researcher for the European Foundation, an organisation whose innocuous name conceals a heavily Eurosceptic agenda.

Mr van Heck surveys the results of the French and Dutch referenda on the constitution, and attempts an analysis of what went wrong. He makes some valid points:

"The prevailing view in Britain is that France's current malaise owes much to its beiong part of the eurozone and that it has not undergone necessary free market economic reforms in the way that the UK has. In France, however, the prevailing view is that it is the advance of the Anglo-Saxon economic agenda at EU level that is undermining the French economy and ultimately French society."

But here's the non sequitur. Mr van Heck is keen to insist that voters were indeed objecting to the constitution itself, and not to other, more general worries about their governments, their economies, or the EU itself. Yet he then goes on to report:

"Many polls and countless interviews in the course of the campaigns helped to establish what was uppermost in voters' minds. French concerns included: the free market elements of the constitution; the prospect of Turkish entry to the EU; lack of influence in the EU, post-enlargement; and persistent low growth and high unemployment."

The problem is, only one of these four elements is even vaguely related to the constitution, namely its supposed "free market elements" - and, of course, these elements, such as they are, are identical to the existing treaties. So the conclusion demonstrated by Mr van Heck's own research is that the French did not oppose the constitution itself so much as aspects of their own domestic politics and EU policies.

I suppose it’s still the silly season, and even the broadsheets — which seem to shrink by the day, as the Guardian becomes the latest quality daily to announce it’s going tabloid (or 'Berliner', to be precise) — are scrabbling around for stories. An article in the Times today takes a brief remark from President Barroso, the kind of remark that might normally have made a two-line story on page 30, and constructed a vast, hyperbolic exegesis about the death of the constitution from it, complete with tabloid-style interpretations of to “startling admissions” and “genocide stalking the Continent”.

The Guardian also jumped on board:

The last rites were finally delivered to the European Union constitution yesterday when Jose Manuel Barroso, the commission president, declared that there were “no magic formulae” to revive the measure. …This is the first time that a European leader has all but declared the constitution dead. … Arch-federalists… will be disappointed.

Talk about making mountains out of molehills! What Barroso actually said was that he couldn’t see a “magic formula” for reviving the constitution, which is quite different from saying that there’s no possible way ahead; and that there will be no new constitution in the near future, which is quite different from saying that EU reform is now impossible. On top of that, Barroso’s remarks carry no official weight anyway, since the European Commission has no say in what EU countries choose to do regarding the constitution.

In other words, the Guardian and the Times are engaging in some rather irresponsible hype, following the very British trend of ramming nails into coffins before the coroners have even given their verdicts.

The curiously named ‘Nosemonkey’, a pro-EU blogger and freelance journalist who is kind enough to link to me now and then, wrote a while ago on how, in his words, “Europe” (or, specifically, the new constitution) “is not ambitious enough”:

“The Treaty of Rome covered just six nations, yet each required opt-outs for varous clauses. The same has been the case with most subsequent treaties. Now that the Union has expanded to 25 members - including a number which have yet to recover from their decades of poverty and pillage under Soviet rule - how can anyone think that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is the way forwards?

“The coming of the Eurozone is the ultimate proof that the EU can function without everyone participating in exactly the same way. Why did the Convention which drew up this constitution not notice that?

“If some EU states want to push ahead with political integration, and turn into the federal superstate of eurosceptic myth, why shouldn’t they? There’s no real practical reason why they have to take less keen nations along with them. So why can’t there be an ‘A-list’ membership, with various affiliate members at lesser stages of integration scattered around the edges?”

Unusually for this blogger, Nosemonkey appears not to be aware of the significant new chunks of the constitution which provide for exactly that kind of multi-layered integration. How about the improved ‘enhanced co-operation’ provisions, which make it easier for groups of countries voluntarily to integrate more closely without upsetting other countries who would prefer not to do so? How about the new ‘emergency brake’ formula, which in many cases allows a country to opt out entirely of a new measure about which it has serious doubts?

In fact, that’s often how the EU works. There are always minimum standards and basic levels of co-operation which all members agree to adhere to, but beyond that, countries are free to go their own way. Underlying this is the principle of proportionality: action taken at EU level should be no greater than the minimum required to achieve agreed joint objectives.

A common complaint about the new EU constitution is that it's too long.

Admittedly, it could be shorter. Part III of the constitution, which is drawn directly from the current treaties and was never really examined properly by the convention, is most of what makes the constitution both long and (in places) impenetrable.

But some of the sweeping estimates I've seen about the document's length are quite outrageous. Eurosceptic MEP Jens-Peter Bonde thinks that it's 600 pages (warning: very large PDF file). Someone on a Tory party chat forum thinks it's 300 pages, which is closer to the mark. More accurate still is an editorial on the US Financial Sense website, citing 200-300 pages, "depending on the language and printing and the source".

So how long is it really? Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, reports "over 60,000 words in its English version", though that includes the technical declarations and protocols (which are a necessary part of any complex international treaty, and don't form part of the constitution itself). I haven't counted. But as for the page count, I have in front of me a copy of the treaty that was sent to every French household before their referendum. The text isn't small and the language, French, is infamously flowery; yet, including title page, contents page, preamble, main treaty, and every protocol and declaration, it comes to no more than 108 pages. There's even space, in this lightweight paperback brochure, to include a copy of my European Parliamentary report on the constitution, setting the whole thing in context.

By the way, flicking through that Financial Sense editorial, it turns out to contain quite a lot of interesting analysis of the constitution, the euro and the EU in general. It makes the typical American mistake of assuming that, here in Europe, we're trying to build a clone of the US - centralised, federal and powerful - which could not really be further from the truth. But despite this rather basic misunderstanding - which means the whole thing comes with a bit of a health warning - the piece does still make some interesting points. For instance, commenting on the screaming reactions of some tabloid presses to the no votes in France and the Netherlands, the author points out:

"Is the EU destined for collapse? The answer would have to be no.… For a good history lesson, read of the writing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Had one opponent, a true gentleman in all the meanings of the word, not left the room during the vote, it might have not been approved. The Articles of Confederation was a non starter even as the ink dried. Any reading of the local news of that era would have suggested that the U.S. was bound to collapse. Imagine the wisdom and results of shorting the U.S. in 1799.

"The popular press keeps being misled by a few ostriches which teach economics in modern academia. A recent Business Week article "Squeezed by the Euro" is a good example, 2 June issue, One of their delusions is called Optimal Currency Area(OCA) theory. Do not waste any time reading articles on the matter. In short, the theory says that only those people with perfect correlation of their economic activities should have the same currency. Applied strictly to the U.S., the nation would still have a minimum of 13 currencies. Good idea?

"Applied to Europe, the theory says that the Euro should not have been introduced until all and every possible improvements in the laws, regulations, labor relations, and cultural differences in Europe had been achieved. Canada and the U.S., under the application of their thinking, would still be waiting for one common currency for their nations. Good idea?"

Not for the first time in its history, the EU has been plunged into crisis. Or has it?

Here in the UK, it's traditional that the media only takes a serious interest in EU affairs when it can shout about the terrible turmoil engulfing Europe and threatening the very fibre of our collective being. But just how plausible is talk of a crisis?

Perhaps we shouldn't complain too loudly. Perhaps any coverage is better than no coverage - at least it gets people involved in the debate, which we desperately need. And to be fair, there's certainly an unusual atmosphere at the moment. The EU's proposed new rulebook, the constitutional treaty, seems to be stalling after hitting a number of bumps on the road to ratification. This, together with a new, sharper edge to the familiar row about the Union's long term budget, has given new impetus to our discussion about the future of Europe.

The most obvious sticking-point is the constitution. So far, thirteen countries have voted in favour of the new treaty, and a fourteenth yes vote, from Belgium, is imminent. But two countries — France and the Netherlands — have said no.

So, of the countries that have so far expressed an opinion, a clear majority are in favour. Even in those countries where a referendum was held, if you add them together, the total numbers voting in favour outnumbered those voting against. If this trend continues, we will find ourselves in a situation where most, but not all, of the EU has endorsed the treaty.

But we need more than just a majority: we need unanimity. What is to be done?

There are various extreme possibilities. One possibility is that the whole constitutional treaty might be abandoned. But the problem with this option is that the need for reform which the treaty was designed to address hasn't gone away. We can't simply say, "Oh well, it was a nice idea to make Europe more effective and democratic, but never mind". In fact, without the most crucial of the constitution's reforms, the Union risks eventually grinding to a halt.

Another extreme possibility would be to ask those few states that have rejected the constitution simply to vote again, without further ado, in light of its acceptance by the majority. This is also a dubious option. It would give the impression of forcing the constitution through without listening to people's objections. This perception would do nothing to aid the European cause in the long run. The issues, fears, misunderstandings and genuine concerns raised in the referendum debates must be addressed.

When EU leaders met in June's European Council, they rejected these extremes and instead called for a 'period of reflection'. However, nobody has proposed a structure or a timescale for this period, nor a method of reaching conculusions from it. In the meantime, individual countries are free to continue with their ratification procedures on a timescale of their choice.

It's far too early to know whether our reflection will give rise to a revision of the treaty text, and, if so, how fundamental that revision would be. But, as Tony Blair said in his speech to the European Parliament, before we re-examine the text we must address the context.

Several issues have overshadowed the debate on the constitution: the EU budget, enlargement, reform of the CAP, the proposed services directive, and not least, getting the economies of France, Germany and Italy moving again. Many of the discussions in the referendum campaigns, when they were not concerned with domestic politics, were around issues such as these. None of them are easy to solve, but they cannot be left to fester. If they can be addressed to general satisfaction, perhaps it will be easier to see a way on EU reform in general. First the context, then the text.

In the long term, it's conceivable - though optimistic - that the current text could be salvaged, perhaps with protocols appended to address specific concerns. It's more likely that parts of the document itself will be rewritten. Part III, a compilation of articles from earlier treaties, is an obvious candidate for rework since this part was never thoroughly examined by the Convention which drafted the treaty. It was widely perceived as entrenching out-of-date policies, and was also the part that made the constitution excessively long and detailed. Part I, by contrast, might need little or no adjustment - or perhaps just clarification where its terms gave rise to serious misunderstandings.

Alternatively, it has been suggested that the best way forward might be to enact a number of smaller treaties to implement separate aspects of the constitution's planned reforms, starting with the less controversial ones. This might, of course, be possible—but it would unravel the package. And, of course, these will still need to be ratified by every country, yet what is controversial in one country is not the same as what is controversial in another.

Also, some aspects of the constitution, such as the requirement for the Council of Ministers to debate new laws in public, could be put in place without treaty changes—though, relatively speaking, these provisions are not the most crucial ones and not very numerous.

In all this, there is a danger that piecemeal tweaks could lead to ineffective reforms while failing to address central issues. That would please no-one. Wherever we go from here, it must be in a direction that maintains the EU as a democratic, responsive and efficient way of addressing the common challenges of our continent. Only then can the Union can continue to earn the majority support from citizens across Europe which it has enjoyed for most of the time since its inception.

In The Times letters page on 17 June (no longer online), George Guise is one of many who are now moaning that, without the new EU Constitution, we remain lumbered with the currently unreformed treaties.

Isn't this something they might have thought about before they opposed this useful package of reforms?

Anyway, the four “immediate objectives” he seeks are based on four incorrect premises. First, despite what he thinks, there is no rule preventing the repeal of existing directives. Second, both the European Parliament and ministers in the Council have the right to request the Commission to bring forward proposals. Third, social policy is already a matter for the governments of member states, except on those few subjects where they agree to make decisions jointly at European level. Fourthly, EU law already has primacy over national law – and rightly so, since there would be no point agreeing common rules with our neighbours if each country could then ignore those agreements back home.

Rather than inventing non-existent problems which are untouched by the constitution anyway, europhobes could better focus their energies on how to make our enlarged Union work more effectively, but with greater democratic accountability. After all, that was the intention behind the constitutional treaty they were so quick to rubbish.

Bit of a shocker in the Times a couple of days ago, which refers to:

"a constitution that would have institutionalised the poverty of the vulnerable and provided bragging rights for a sanctimonious élite."

That's it. No attempt at argument, no analysis or discussion, just that. Trashing the EU constitution with a few empty soundbites is something I've come to expect from Eurosceptic campaigners, but it has no place in a Times leader.

The dust is settling on last week's referendum results and we're in a position to take stock.

Ten countries have voted in favour (52% of the EU population), and many others have indicated their intention to continue their ratification procedures. France and the Netherlands have said no.

So we're likely to be in a situation where the constitutional treaty has the support of a majority of member states, but not the necessary unanimity. What is to be done in this situation?

Well, it's essential that the European Council meeting next week agrees collectively on a way forward acceptable to all member states. Unless they do, controversy, division and gradual dissipation of the whole process will cause massive damage to the European Union.

When considering the options, there are two implausible extremes:

• The whole constitutional treaty is definitively abandoned as a ‘nice idea’ that unfortunately didn’t get sufficient support and should now be forgotten. This is implausible because the reasons which gave rise to the drafting of the Constitution remain on the table: the need for an effective EU post-enlargement, for a better functioning institutional system, for a greater capacity to deliver policies, and for greater democratic accountability and transparency. Most member states wish to continue the reform process.
• All countries continue to ratify, and that the two (or, by then, perhaps more) that have rejected the constitution be asked to vote again in light of its acceptance by the majority. This strategy has three problems:
  1. it runs the risk of further “no”s additional to the French and Dutch results;
  2. it is politically very difficult to ask countries who have rejected to vote again on exactly the same text without further ado;
  3. it gives the impression of forcing the Constitution through without listening to people’s objections and forcing countries to keep on voting until they give the ‘right’ result.

Between these two extremes, we can imagine a number of more sensible intermediate scenarios. None are without difficulty.

Firstly, the European Council could call for a pause for reflection in the ratification process. Member states due to ratify in the next few months could continue to do so if they wish.

Secondly, member states with reservations – namely, the two who have rejected and any other member state that considers it may have difficulties in securing ratification – could be given time to evaluate their position and make proposals on how they see the way forward.

A new Convention could then be convened for a serious and wide-ranging debate. Its role would be to re-examine the text of the constitutional treaty and submit a new proposal – either a new draft, or the same draft with interpretations, clarifications or additions. It could be that the Convention wishes to give particular consideration to part III, which was never discussed properly in the previous Convention.

The advantage of re-convening a Convention is that this gives time and space (and a place!) for further reflection. It means that the “pause for reflection” will not be an indefinite postponement but will actually generate reflection and have a focal point for it to reach conclusions.

An IGC alone would not be good enough: it would give the impression of returning to the old ways of secretive, diplomatic negotiations. A public and pluralist Convention, with greater input from civil society, would be much more helpful in this respect, and it would certainly generate far more interest than did the previous Convention.

No one should be under any illusions that this will not take time. But a solution acceptable to all member states, that takes account of the concerns of those who voted no as well as those who support the constitutional treaty as it stands, must be found.

Within the same week, France and the Netherlands, two founding Member States, rejected the European Constitution with 54.87% and 63% against respectively. These results are seen by some as the death of the constitution. But are they?

So far, 10 member states have ratified the Constitution, nine via their national parliaments (including Latvia just today) and one by referendum. Those states represent about half of the EU population. Twelve other countries have indicated that they will continue with their ratification procedures despite the French and Dutch results.

We are therefore likely to arrive at a situation where the constitution is approved by a large majority of states and people - but not the grand slam of 25 victories formally required for ratification.

What to do in such circumstances? The views of the majority surely deserve at least as much consideration as those of the minority. Above all, the reasons that led all 25 EU governments and the elected Parliament to conclude that the EU needs reform remain on the table. We cannot simply say “too bad: it was a nice idea to make the EU more effective and democratically accountable, but now we can forget it”. Even a large number of no-voters in France said they want to go further with European integration.

There will obviously need to be some accommodation negotiated with the countries which said 'No'. Interpretations of the treaty, footnotes, opt-outs or even a re-negotiation of parts of the text will, no doubt, all be contemplated. But the momentum towards the reforms encompassed in the constitutional treaty must not be allowed to fizzle out.

Common wisdom has it that France has always been the motor of European integration. If this is the case, then it has always been a rather stuttering and unreliable engine – and rarely able to rise above first gear.

We wrongly have the image in Britain of France as an enthusiastic leader in the vanguard of the European project. Granted, some major European initiatives, not least the original Coal and Steel Community, were initiated by French statesmen such as Schuman. But this has never been a matter of all-party consensus in France: rather each step in the history of the European Union has been a matter of profound national controversy.

In other words, we should not be surprised by the result of France’s referendum on the new European Constitution. It is in line with a long history of deep-rooted euroscepticism in France.

This history of Euroscepticism goes back as far as the original treaties. These which were ratified by the French Parliament, but by rather small majorities. Then France rejected the European Defence Community Treaty in 1954, plunging the still nascent European Community into its first major crisis. Later, it ratified the Maastricht treaty only by the narrowest of margins.

For ten years, France held up the first enlargement of the original EC to include Britain, Ireland and Denmark. It also blocked direct elections to the European Parliament for almost twenty years.

For six months, Charles De Gaulle boycotted all ministerial meetings in the European Union, trying to bully the other member states into concessions to France on the CAP and on allowing it to exercise a veto even where the treaty provided for majority voting. This led to the notorious ‘Luxembourg compromise’, whereby member states, at France’s insistence, should not vote whenever a matter was defined as an important national interest – and France defined virtually everything to be an important matter for its own national interest!

It is at France’s behest that the European Parliament is legally obliged to move its entire operation from Brussels to Strasbourg for four days a month, at considerable expense to Europe’s taxpayers. Not even Parliament itself supports this ridiculous arrangement – though it usually takes the rap.

France has one of the worst records in doing what it agrees to do at European level. It has been taken to the European Court more times than most other countries for failing to transpose EU agreements into national law.

Looking deeper into France’s internal politics, it is striking that every European Treaty until the 1980s has been opposed by both the far right and the far left, both of which are larger in France than in any other major European country, and by the centre-right Gaullist party. Together, these elements have always constituted over 40% of the French electorate. Every European treaty has therefore required rock-solid support from the remaining centrist parties and the Socialists in order to be adopted. In the early 1990s, the Maastricht treaty was only ratified when Chirac – who then had some wider credibility than he has now – switched to a pro-European position bringing most (but not all) of the Gaullists behind him.

This is not to say that France is universally awkward when it comes to Europe. The country has strongly supported those aspects of the European project from which it benefits – from Parliamentary sessions in Strasbourg to the high level of funding under the Common Agricultural Policy. All that seems to be missing in France’s European outlook is a sense of solidarity with other countries on matters which are not of direct interest to the French!

If the supposed motor of Europe is stuttering, perhaps now is the time for Britain to take the driving seat?

So the French have voted no:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4594693.stm

Where now? Well, we must respect the decision of the French people not to support the constitution at this time and we must find a solution that respects this.

But we must also bear in mind some other important factors. So far, ten countries have said yes and one has said no. We must take account of the democratic will of the majority of EU nations as well as the minority in finding a solution.

Every EU country has the right to have a say. France cannot alone decide for the whole of Europe.

A Eurosceptic, writing last week in the Scarborough Evening News, makes some rather unnerving claims. (The letter was published on 13 May under the headline NEED FOR KNOWLEDGE ON EU VOTE, but it's not available online as the Scarborough Evening News appears hardly ever to update its website.)

First, a sensible point:

"If… we have to vote, the British must be informed about [the constitution]'s content. From my enquiries I believe that hardly any of my countrymen and women have any idea of this."

But then it starts to get worrying:

"Even those who, like myself, have obtained a copy (it is in the library) and studied it may be fooled. This is because it has been drafted, redrafted and polished by lawyers and the whole thing reads as being quite innocuous."

Think about this for a minute. The writer isn't saying that the constitution is dangerous but for some reason those evil politicians are trying to convince us it's not - I'm used to that kind of claim. Instead, the writer is saying that he's actually sat down and read the constitution and seen it to be harmless, and yet he still believes that the wool is somehow being pulled over his eyes. Now that's the ultimate paranoid conspiracy theory. I wonder what evidence it would take to make him realise there is no conspiracy?

I recently debated the new EU constitution with Marc Glendening, a prominent anti-EU campaigner, in the pages of The Ecologist magazine. Marc argued that decisions are best taken locally and that this is a reason to abandon the EU. In reply, I point out that decisions should indeed be taken locally wherever possible, but there are some issues that cut across national borders - including many environmental issues. Pollution, for instance, does not respect national boundaries. In these areas, acting in isolation is simply ineffective, and the new constitution therefore provides a democratic and efficient way of acting together with our neighbours.

A full transcript of our debate is available here on my website.

Apparently, seven out of ten people believe that the pound will be axed if Britain ratifies the new EU constitution - according to The Sun yesterday.

Yet there’s absolutely nothing in the treaty that says this. In fact, it says exactly the opposite – the UK will never have to join the euro unless it wants to.

So what does this so-called ‘news story’ tell us? Simply that people are confused about what’s in the treaty. Wouldn’t it be more useful for The Sun to cut through the confusion and report the facts – rather than muddying the waters further?

Another nail in the coffin for the argument that the constitution is 'pro-federal'. The Union of European Federalists passed a resolution in its Brussels committee that

"criticises that the constitution falls short of what is needed in many respects, mainly:

• "by not abolishing the unanimity rule in many important fields...; in particular in foreign, security and defence policy and for the multi-annual financial framework;
• "by not introducing a procedure that makes the entering into force of the constitution possible when all but one or two member states have ratified the text;
• "by foreseeing a revision procedure which does not allow the constitution to evolve in a flexible and efficient way."

The UEF is just one of several pro-federal European organisations which have complained that the constitution does the opposite of what they want: it cements a firmly nation-state, firmly British view of the EU for the future.

Conservative Lord David Howell wrote to the Financial Times yesterday to say that, although he likes the EU in its current incarnation - he describes it as "a subtle balance between the obvious efficiencies of collective action and the equally obvious imperatives of national identity and belonging", and amen to that - he has serious problems with the new constitution, which he thinks inflicts all kinds of damage on our sovereignty, independence, budget, democracy and so on.

This is a rather fine line to try to tread - especially when you consider the very straightforward fact, highlighted by the BBC just the other day, that vast amounts of the new treaty are simply lifted from the current treaties. "If you complain about the constitution, as you are entitled to, you also have to complain about the Treaty of Rome".

But anyway, Lord Howell makes a much more fundamental mistake. Underpinning virtually every aspect of his lengthy tirade against the new constitution is one all-pervading misconstruction.

He sets out to describe a sinister creature which he calls “the Union”. In his mind, this monster can “assume whatever powers it likes”, has “the final word” on our laws, and will “impose a new and higher legal order” on our country. He conjures up the vivid image of twenty-five valiant but helpless nation states, each struggling to maintain independence against the menacing domination of a sinister alien will.

This is, of course, utter hogwash. “The Union” is nothing more than the co-operative framework that we ourselves have agreed with our European neighbours. Its decisions are taken by member governments, double-checked by the directly-elected European Parliament. They are not foist upon us by some higher authority, least of all the European Commission, which has the power only to make proposals.

And the scope of the Union’s competence is determined entirely by member governments themselves. The new constitution enshrines the ‘principle of conferral’ as a fundamental tenet, meaning the EU has no powers at all except those conferred on it by its member states. This point is made extraordinarily clearly at the very
beginning of the constitution (Article I-11). But Lord Howell has “studied every draft” – so he must know all this. Whence the confusion?

We have nothing to fear from the new constitution, in whose drafting Britain did, after all, play a decisive role. Nor have our European neighbours. What Lord Howell calls the “subtle balance” of Europe’s evolution so far need never be upset – because we remain firmly at the tiller.

The BBC website has an incisive new article on the constitution debate in France:

"A charge often made against the proposed EU constitution by its opponents in France is that it is an "Anglo-Saxon" document - a plot to enshrine Thatcherite policies which will devastate the social balance of European economies. As an example, they point to the phrase used in Article I-3 (2) which states that there shall be 'an internal market where competition is free and undistorted'. …

"The problem with such an approach is that in many key areas the constitutional treaty essentially repeats existing policy.

"The original Treaty of Rome from 1957, which established the then European Economic Community, also said, in Part One, Article 3 (c) that there should be 'an internal market characterised by the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital'. And further, it said there should be 'a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted'.

"The principles of the 'free and undistorted' internal market were established from the start. So if you complain about the constitution, as you are entitled to, you also have to complain about the Treaty of Rome."

I'm in France to join in the referendum debate on the constitution.

First I visit a group of 30 journalists, then an association of mayors, and finally I go to the picturesque half-timbered village of Scheibenhardt (link in German) on the Franco-German frontier at the northern end of Alsace.

Few villages could better illustrate the benefits of the EU. The village was split into two in 1815 when the Congress of Vienna drew the frontier straight through the middle of it. Suddenly, neighbours, siblings, cousins and friends found themselves belonging to different states - and, when war came, fighting each other in different armies.

Not surprisingly, the mayor described the development of the European Union as a liberation - in fact, a series of liberations. First, it eliminated the threat of war and made it easier to develop commerce accross the whole village. Then the Schengen agreement (which abolished frontier controls between EU countries) made it possible for the inhabitants to walk through their village without having to show their passports. Indeed, our event was held at the spot where the customs post used to be, now an attractive little park (and the customs house has now been sold and is now a private house). Finally, the euro has meant that they can now go to both cafés in the village and use the same currency instead of having to walk around with two wallets!

Not surprisingly, the locals are enthusiastic supporters of the European Union!

When Radio 5’s Simon Mayo asked Ken Clarke yesterday what slogan he would put on a pro-constitution billboard, Mr Clarke’s suggestion was:

“The constitution makes the decision-making clearer and easier inside a Union of twenty-five, when the old rules that applied to six won’t apply, and it makes no significant extension of powers to the EU – what it does do is make it clearer than ever before that this is to be a union of nation states and not a federal superstate and it, I think, will enable us to take clearer decisions, it will stop the competence of the Union being extended surreptitiously as some people fear it might, and it will, I hope, enable us to get more workmanlike in this giant organisation we have now created on the key things like striking up some common foreign security policy attitudes, making sure democracy, liberal values, free market economies are truly entrenched in the ex-Communist states in the East, making sure Europe’s voice in the world continues to be heard against the Americans, the Chinese, the Indians, our friends and our enemies, and making sure that we get the best advantage out of what is in terms of population the biggest free market in today’s globalised economy.”

It had better be a big billboard.

Interesting report in the Sunday Times: France's no campaign thinks that Britain gains too much influence in the new constitution!

"As debate intensified in France's referendum campaign on the European Union constitution last week, the voters were invited to consider an unusual question: should they try to be more like the British?

"Strange as it may seem, the complex exercise of trying to imagine Europe's future has led to Britain becoming the focus of the May 29 referendum....

"The change is rooted in French perceptions that they have lost influence to the British in an enlarged EU, and the belief, encouraged by the French left, that the proposed EU constitution will result in France being swamped by what one commentator described as the 'free-market mania of the Anglo-Saxon world'."

There was a letter in the Yorkshire Post yesterday from a regular Eurosceptic correspondent, Keith Johnston. His latest theme is that the constitution is an anti-Christian document and the EU is a humanist conspiracy:

In our ever-closer union in Europe, this is a fundamental point to be considered when we vote on the Constitution. Is God to be relegated and humanism to take over?…

One can see it at work in the European Union, with its Charter of Fundamental Rights, and its unending stream of laws, regulations and decisions of the courts affecting all aspects of our lives.

There is no such conspiracy, of course. In fact, the constitution recognises our rich “religious and humanist” heritage, which seems to cover all the bases. Nowhere does it state that “humanism [is] the ethical basis of the European Union”. In fact, it explicitly commits us to respecting Europe’s cultural and religious diversity when we take decisions at European level (Article 82).

Mr Johnston also brings up the old myth about rejecting a Catholic Commissioner:

It was there, too, in the rejection of an Italian commissioner who was a devout Catholic.

Now, we certainly did not vote against Rocco Buttiglione because he was a Catholic! Religion didn’t come into it. After all, several other Commissioners are also devout Catholics – this really isn’t a problem.

But Mr Buttiglione expressed views about homosexuality, women and the family which ran directly counter to the fundamental principles of equality already agreed by all EU countries. Incidentally, many Christians also found his views unacceptable. He was, of course, entitled to express them, but he was not entitled to let them affect his decisions as a Commissioner – and he was unable to guarantee that he would not.

MEPs from several parties therefore felt unable to give him a vote of confidence, and the President of the Commission responded by withdrawing his nomination. Quite how this could be seen as a victory for humanism over Christianity is a mystery to me!

Anyway, Mr Johnston's assertions about Christianity have been undermined somewhat by this breaking news: the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), representing Catholic bishops from across the EU, has given its backing to the constitution and commended it to Catholic congregations:

While regretting that the Union had not heeded calls by John Paul II to include a reference to Christianity in the text of the Constitution, the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE) has commended it to their congregation. The Constitution is a "breakthrough for Church and society" which "reflects core principles of Christian anthropology", the Bishops said in a statement.

In a meeting with President Barroso on 11 March, COMECE affirmed the backing of the Church for the goals and values of the Union. The Bishops approved the Lisbon aims of economic progress, the rule of law and a strong civil society and pledged support in particular for the creation of an EU fundamental rights agency.

That last point is particularly interesting because, elsewhere in his letter, Mr Johnston claims that the concept of fundamental rights is a humanist concept that runs counter to Christian thinking. The bishops disagree!

Edit: I wrote a few days ago about the fact that Muslims support the constitution "unequivocally" and, in particular, that European Muslims are also committed to the principle of human rights. Some humanist conspiracy…

It is interesting to see how some people claim the new constitution is a great victory for federalists. That is certainly not the view of many federalists whom I know.

From a federalist perspective, the draft constitutional treaty can be strongly criticised. It fails to set up a European Federation and, indeed, it contains a number of steps away from the federal dream and in the direction of a Union of nation states. Under its terms, the Union remains based on a treaty which can only be amended with the agreement of each and every member state. Several key areas of decision taking remain subject to unanimity. The Commission is potentially weakened, both in terms of its composition (one per country until 2014, equal rotation thereafter) and in terms of the creation of a separate President of the European Council. The latter will be appointed by national governments with no input from the European Parliament and will strengthen the inter-governmental features of the Union at the expense of the supra-national dimension.

Even the creation of a European Minister for Foreign Affairs is not the step forward that many federalists might have hoped for. On the contrary, the structure envisaged could mean that the external relations powers of the Commission are captured by the Council. In effect, the current "High Representative for Foreign Affairs", appointed by the national governments in the Council, takes over the position of External
Relations Commissioner as well and the relevant Commission departments could be removed from the Commission to come under his/her authority.

The Common Foreign and Security Policy amounts largely to a co-ordination of national positions and is only "common" if all member states agree on the same position. There is no scope for harmonising taxation, as this still requires unanimity.

The Grand Mufti of Bosnia, Dr Mustafa Ceric, who I gather is Europe's most senior Muslim cleric, has told a gathering of Muslim leaders in London that a declaration from them should:

contain a clear message that European Muslims are fully and unequivocally committed to the European Constitution, the rule of law, the principles of tolerance and the values of democracy and human rights.

The Law Society of England and Wales has examined the new constitution and published a guide for legal practitioners. It is excellent.

It begins by summarising the main aims and characteristics of the new treaty:

The Constitutional Treaty brings the above existing treaties together. The main watchwords of this new Treaty are transparency and flexibility. On the one hand, the new Treaty is seeking to improve the functioning of the EU by making it work more flexibly, even with an increased membership; on the other hand, it should also increase the transparency of the workings of the EU by consolidating, simplifying and explaining how it works.

It then continues by examining in detail the changes brought about by the treaty, and in particular how they affect solicitors and their clients in the UK. The whole thing is well worth a read, but here are some choice quotes.

The simplification of different procedures for making legislation and the presumption that the ordinary procedure will be used unless otherwise specified, makes it a lot easier for non-experts to understand how any particular piece of legislation will be passed.

The greater involvement of the European Parliament in most EU legislative decisions is welcome as this will contribute to greater transparency in the legislative process.

The method of incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights should not lead to fears of a mass of new rights-based litigation being realised as it will not create new fundamental rights of general application in national law. It will however ensure that a number of new rights (e.g. data protection) are protected in European law.

Although the Constitutional Treaty could have gone further in granting direct access to the European courts for individuals and organisations other than the EU institutions or national governments, it represents an improvement on the current situation.

The greater involvement of the European Parliament in the negotiating of trade agreements could make the ratification process of international trade agreements harder. On the other hand, it creates greater transparency in the debate leading to the adoption of such agreements.

It is often said that EU sourced laws are ‘superior’ to domestic laws. This means that once an EU sourced law is applicable in the UK, it would be contrary to the EU treaties for the UK to keep or pass any laws that contradicted the EU sourced law. This principle has applied in the EU since the Court of Justice developed it in the Sixties, before the UK joined the EU. The Constitutional Treaty would therefore not change the current position.

With all the current hyperbole surrounding the new EU constitutional treaty and how terrible it's going to be for Britain, I thought it would be instructive to revisit the calm, measured report produced by the House of Lords when its EU scrutiny committee examined the draft back in July 2003. Although there were some changes made to the final version of the treaty in 2004, these minor alterations don't affect any of the conclusions drawn by their Lordships in their report - which eurosceptics would do well to note. Here are some choice quotes from the abstract of the report - the full text is available here:

The draft Constitutional Treaty for the European Union is a significant document, meriting serious scrutiny and wide public debate. With ten new countries set to join the EU next year, it is necessary to agree a new Treaty now, as it is generally agreed that the present institutional structure would not function satisfactorily in a Union of 25.

Whether or not the draft Treaty is a "constitution" is of less importance than what it says and how it will affect all our lives.

The draft Treaty reforms the institutions of the EU.

The draft Treaty enhances the role of national parliaments.

…much of what [the Treaty] provides for is not new.

Does it confirm the EU as a union of Member States, rather than a state in its own right? The report concludes that the answer to [this] first question is yes.

…it is precisely because the EU is not a state that the Treaty does not provide some of the direct mechanisms (such as the power to remove a government) that would exist in a state.

Compare these last points to the following claim at eurosceptic.com:

The superstate is here!

The Treaty Establishing A Constitution for Europe, a draft of which has just emerged from the constitutional convention in Brussels, would, if adopted by the Council of Ministers, be the coup de grace for the European nation states. If the Government were to submit to such a constitution, it would be acquiescing in the abolition of our parliamentary democracy and the creation of a European superstate.

How can anyone justify such outrageous hyperbole - flying in the face not only of the content of the treaty itself, but also contrasting so sharply with the measured tones of our own House of Lords?

The result of the EU constitutional treaty referendum is far from a foregone conclusion - according to Will Hutton in the Observer earlier this month, who suggests nine reasons why we might get a positive result:

The pros start today only two per cent behind. This referendum can be won. If so, it will be one of the sweetest moments in British politics for years, cementing a progressive consensus and Britain's membership of the European Union alike. Tony Blair, famously a lucky politician, may be about to get lucky again.

I found the following in the excellent Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia:

Some opponents [of the constitution] argue that certain important rights, such as that of habeas corpus, are not provided for or recognised by the Constitution. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union forms Part II of the Constitution, and habeas corpus is not explicity mentioned among its provisions. However, Article I-9(2) of the Constitution says: "The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms", Article 5 of which includes the following:

Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

Consequently, while the Constitution makes no explicit mention of habeas corpus, the Union must still uphold it because it is constitutionally bound to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights. Advocates of the Constitution often allege that in cases like this, eurosceptics seek to mislead the public by encouraging them to think that if the Constitution is adopted, habeas corpus will be abolished or might not be guaranteed in the future.

I had a look today at the website of Dan Hannan MEP. Dan is a leading Conservative euro-sceptic and ardent campaigner against its new constitution in particular. He is also a leader writer for the Daily Telegraph.

So, I thought that what he wrote on the European constitution would be full of incisive arguments and devastating insights into the constitution as he sees it – or, at least, a reasonably coherent exposition of the eurosceptic standpoint.

But I was wrong. Instead, I was disappointed to find only a set of 10 bullet points, every single one of which is either wrong, misleading, or portraying as negative something which should be celebrated as a significant advance.

Let's examine them in more detail.

This constitution shall have primacy over the laws of the member states (Article 5a)

Well, yes. The primacy of European law over national law was established well before we joined the EU - it's not something new created by the constitution.

But it also makes absolute sense. What on earth would be the point of agreeing common laws with our neighbouring countries if any one of us was then free to ignore them? This clause isn't saying that new laws can be handed down from "Brussels" and imposed on us; it's just saying that, when we make an agreement, we're expected to stick to it.

And it's as well to remember that European law can only be adopted

1. on those subjects where we have all agreed that the EU should have competence, and
2. with the agreement of the EU Council of Ministers, i.e. elected national governments.

The European Commission will be given power over Britain's economic and employment policies, making the question of whether we keep the pound largely redundant

This is mischief making at its worst. I can't see anything in the new constitution - or in the current treaties, which are virtually the same regarding this policy area - which gives the European Commission any such powers.

The treaties do already provide for member states to co-ordinate their economic policies when their finance ministers meet in the Council. But this is something that's up to the member states themselves to agree. It gives absolutely no policy-making powers to the European Commission.

The constitution creates a European foreign policy, complete with an EU Foreign Minister and diplomatic corps

No. It was the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, not the new constitution, that created a "Common Foreign and Security Policy" for the European Union - but only in those policy areas where every single member state agrees a common position. Where we don't agree, there is no common policy. Where we do agree, Europe's voice in the world is amplified. How can this be a problem?

As to the so-called "Foreign Minister", this new post is simply a merger between the existing High Representative for foreign policy (Javier Solana) and the existing Commissioner for External Relations (until recently Chris Patten). The new "minister" has no new powers. He or she can speak for the Union only where member states have already agreed a common policy.

So the only really significant change here is that the field of external representations, currently carried out by the Commission, will instead be given to the new "foreign minister" who is accountable directly to national governments.

Member states shall support the EU's common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity (Article 15)

Yes, absolutely. If member states jointly agree on a common foreign and security position then of course they should support it. Not to do so would be double standards - agreeing one thing with our neighbouring countries and then doing the opposite. But let me emphasise again that the common policy will only exist when member states agree that it should. When they don't agree, we can each go our own way.

The clause quoted, by the way, has been in the treaties since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty. It's not new in the constitution.

The constitution creates a European criminal justice system, with a European Public Prosecutor and an EU legal code; this runs directly counter to our own common law tradition

No, the constitution does not create a European criminal justice "system". All it does is enable member states to cooperate in this field - as they should when facing a growing number of transnational problems, including transnational criminal gangs, traffickers and terrorists.

But, as ever, it is member states themselves who remain in control of what common rules we agree at EU level. Where there is majority voting, there is also an "emergency brake" allowing any country to block a decision and refer it to the European Council which acts by unanimity.

As to the European Public Prosecutor, this is not "created" by the Constitution. The Constitution merely enables the Council to set one up in the future - but only if every single member state agrees!

43 national vetoes will be abolished, and the powers of MEPs extended to 36 new areas

Well, there are two points here.

First, on the veto: yes, there will be an extension of QMV - but it is in those areas where Britain wanted it to be extended. After all, the veto is a double-edged sword. If we have one, then so does every other of the 24 member states, allowing them to block things that we want. This is something that has consistenly worked against Britain in the past.

On the other hand, we retain unanimity (i.e. the veto) in every single one of the 'red line' areas specified by the British government: including over tax, social security, foreign policy, defence and changes to the treaty itself. (Martin Stabe has posted a revealing analysis on just how powerful Britain's position is in this respect.)

As to the extension of the powers of the European Parliament, this is something that even eurosceptics should welcome - because it represents an additional safeguard. New EU legislation needs to be vetted and approved not only by elected governments but also by directly elected MEPs in the European Parliament. Two checks, two balances, two quality controls. And rightly so: we should be extra-careful before adopting legislation which applies to a whole continent. That's why the safeguards - high majorities in Council, and approved by Parliament - are built in.

Brussels jurisdiction is specified in virtually every area of government policy: transport, energy, public health, trade, employment, social policy, competition, agriculture, fisheries, defence, foreign affairs, asylum and immigration, space exploration, criminal justice

Ah, "Brussels jurisdiction" - a favourite term of the eurosceptics! But who is "Brussels"? Is it an alien external body imposing its will on member states?

No. It's simply the place where the member states themselves meet to agree (or not) on areas of cooperation.

So of course the list of subjects where we may wish to co-operate is a long one. In today's world, there are very few areas of policy where we are entirely unaffected by what our neighbours do. But it is up to the member states to determine the degree and intensity of EU action in each area. In many of these areas, EU action is simply co-ordinating or supporting what individual member states choose to do. In others, we co-operate more closely to ensure that our joint actions are effective. This is entirely as it should be.

But it is not the Commission that adopts legislation. The Commission merely proposes: it's the Council of Ministers, members of national governments accountable to national parliaments, that decides - and this must also be double-checked by the European Parliament.

Member states shall exercise their competence to the extent that the EU ceases to exercise, or chooses no longer to exercise, its competence (Article 11)

This reflects exactly the same principle. If member states do not chose to exercise competencies jointly at EU level, or if they cease to wish to do so, then of course it should be up to each country individually to exercise these competencies.

The day that the constitution enters into force, all previous EU treaties will be dissolved; the Union will cease to be an association of states bound by international treaties, and become a state in its own right

Now this comment really is mischievous.

The constitutional treaty will indeed replace all previous EU treaties, which are to a large extent codified within it. But quite how this is supposed to change the nature of the Union into "a state in its own right" is anyone's guess.

After all, the new constitution is itself an international treaty, signed and ratified by sovereign states, just like all the other treaties have been. If Dan objects to the word "constitutional" in its title, and thinks that means that it is a state, then how does he account for the fact that the World Health Organisation and the Universal Postal Union both have "constitutions", without anyone thinking that they might be a state?

States have a standing army, powers to tax, a serious central budget and administration. The EU has, and will have, none of these things:

• There is no EU army. There are joint EU forces which member states may, if they so wish, contribute to, just like UN forces. We already have EU peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and Macedonia.
• There is no central power of taxation.
• The EU budget is a mere 1% of public expenditure (compare that to any centralised or even federal state!).
• The central administration has fewer employees than Leeds City Council. So much for the mythical centralised superstate!

The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to carry through its policies and pursue its objectives (Article 52)

Of course, when our countries establish common policies at EU level they must at the same time provide the means to carry them through. There would, for example, have been no point in agreeing to send a joint peacekeeping force to Bosnia if no member state wished to supply any troops.

All Dan's objections are based on a single flawed premise: that "the Union" (or "Brussels") is some sinister external entity, imposing its will on member states. But this is entirely backward. The Union is created by the member states, has only the responsibilities and powers that member states agree to give it, and can act only under the control of the member states themselves through the Council.

The EU is nothing more than an extensive co-operative system that we have built up in our continent over the last half century. To turn our back on it now would be madness. Not only has the EU helped create an area of peace and stability in Europe, in contrast to so much of our history, but it is also a sensible, pragmatic mechanism for coping with - and taking advantage of - our inevitable interdependence. It is the forum where we agree common policies, and sometimes common rules, with our neighbouring countries, in areas where this is of mutual benefit: common rules for the common market, environmental legislation and so on. It is the generator of much of our economic prosperity - and vital for Britain with nearly 60% of our trade being with the rest of the EU.

To tear up this co-operative system and to walk away would seriously undermine Britain's national interest. To turn our back on a new treaty which most of Europe considers to have been a triumph for British negotiators would confirm to the rest of Europe that our country has fallen into the hands of swivel-eyed, nationalistic europhobes who are totally divorced from reality.

Sadly, Dan Hannan's website is an example of those views.

So the Spanish people voted yes to the constitution, overwhelmingly. While this might not be a surprise – Spain has always been staunchly pro-European – it is still good news. Four down, twenty-one to go.

Predictably, the UK media has tried to find a way to interpret the result negatively. They must have struggled, because they’ve eventually settled on complaining about the turnout. 42% is admittedly pretty low, but we always knew it would be low – with both main parties in favour, opinion polls predicting a large victory, and everyone recognising the result as completely uncontroversial. If it had been a more close-fought contest, I suspect voters would have turned out in their droves.

Besides, there is a whiff of hypocrisy here. The turnout in the first Irish referendum on the Nice treaty, which narrowly rejected the treaty, was down in the thirties – yet Eurosceptics hailed that as a triumph for democracy!

Other myths about the constitution are surfacing – or re-surfacing – this week.

The Times intimates that Britain and France might lose their seats on the UN security council in favour of a European foreign minister if the constitution is adopted.

But this is false. In fact, the text reads as follows:

“When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs be asked to present the Union's position.”

So Britain and France will therefore keep their seats and their votes. The only difference is that, when the rest of the EU agrees with our position, we’ll benefit from the extra weight of the entire EU behind us too! Surely this is an unambiguously good thing?

The Telegraph resurrects the hoary old myth that the primacy of EU law is (a) new and (b) bad. But this was a well established principle of the EU long before the UK joined. It is also true of other international treaties - there would be little point in making international agreements in the first place if the signatories were not agreeing to be bound by their provisions!

In any case, EU law only operates where we have already agreed that it should. The constitution makes clear that the Union may only act "within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States" (Article I-11.2). Moreover, "the Union shall act only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member State, either at central level or at regional or local level" (Article I-11.3).

The constitution commits Member States to supporting a common EU foreign and security policy, just as the present treaties do. But this policy only exists when every single country agrees on a common line – so we can never be forced to do anything against our will. When there are disagreements, each country simply goes its own way.

I visited Spain this week to take part in debates before their referendum on the new EU constitution. As in Ireland, I'm impressed with the quality of their debate when compared with the UK’s. Spain has its eurosceptics and its No campaigners, but they tend to be much more moderate (and honest!) than our own myth-makers.

It’s also interesting to notice that the debate in Spain goes in the opposite direction to the UK debate. There, the No campaign’s main objection to the constitution is that it is too cautious, too nation-statist, too British. This is actually the case in much of the EU – the British conspiracy theorists who pretend that the constitution is a great leap forward in federalism are definitely in the minority.

That’s another reason why a no vote would be a rather dangerous leap in the dark, by the way. If we reject the constitution, it would not be a simple matter of amending the draft and trying again. After all, what would a No vote mean? That it’s too integrationist, as our eurosceptics think, or not integrationist enough, as the Spanish No campaigners think? That it’s too British, as much of the continent thinks - or that it's not British enough, as the British think?

Good news: the Greens have added their name to the list of political parties from across Europe which endorse the new constitutional treaty. The Green group in the European Parliament had already decided to support the constitution, and now this position has been confirmed by an overwhelming majority by the Council of the European Green Party.

This article (posted by the Maltese Greens) explains the reasons behind their support:

"The Council of the European Green Party:

"1. Taking the text of the draft treaty that was decided upon unanimously by the heads of government and state of the 25 Member States;

"2. Supports the Green Group's resolution and accordingly considers that this TCE makes significant improvements in relation to the existing Treaties which it would replace, in particular regarding the extension of supranational parliamentary democracy and the consolidation of the aims of sustainable development, social solidarity and full employment."

So the constitution now has the wholehearted support of all mainstream parties across the EU: the conservatives and Christian Democrats, socialists and social democrats, liberals and Greens.

This expression of support from all across Europe contrasts sharply with the negative position adopted by the UK Green party. In the light of their colleagues' ringing endorsement, our own Greens look curiously isolated.

In the past, they tried to suggest that the new constitution is somehow unacceptable to Green politicians. This claim has now been blown out of the water completely as their sister parties from across the EU have rallied around it.

I can’t imagine why the UK contingent should insist on taking such a negative line – unless they are trying to score quick political points at home from the UK’s Eurosceptic tabloids. I wonder how they explain this to their colleagues from other countries?

I must admit, it’s not helpful that fellow Socialist and Spanish PM José Zapatero has remarked that he would like to see the future replacement of Spanish national embassies with EU ones. I predict that this remark will be picked up by the UK Eurosceptics, who will pretend that Zapatero thinks the constitution will do this. It does nothing of the sort, whatever Zapatero might like to see in the future.

Some interesting pieces in the press this week!

The FT thinks that the new EU constitution would be “a damning indictment” of how far apart politicians and people have grown, if it fails to be ratified because one or two countries vote against. (The article is no longer available on the web.)

But there is overwhelming support for the European project across the EU. It's highly likely that the treaty will be endorsed by an overwhelming majority of member countries, whether by parliamentary scrutiny or by national referendum.

The catch is that an overwhelming majority is not good enough. We need the grand slam of 25 yes votes from 25 countries. But if nearly every country votes yes, and just one or two reject it, that would hardly be a sign of widespread hostility!

Elsewhere, I’m somewhat amused to read Nigel Farage, a UKIP MEP, complaining in the Telegraph: “The bias towards big money in politics is getting considerably worse. This is building up to being a big money election”. Now, who was it that spent more money than all three mainstream parties put together in the 2004 European elections? Wasn’t it UKIP?!