You are in:
- Contents » Liberty
Contrasting Constitutions
A thought from the Economist as Europe's governments prepare to sell the constitution to their people:
"LATE last year European Union ministers sat down in Brussels to draft a common declaration about the new European constitution. Since all 25 EU countries are meant to ratify this document over the next two years—and as many as ten will hold a referendum on it—it seemed a useful idea to set out succinctly what the constitution does and doesn't do. Useful: but, sadly, also impossible. The British suggested that it should be made clear that the constitution's Charter of Fundamental Rights would not limit the rights of managers to sack workers. But the Belgians and the French objected; as far as they are concerned the charter will do exactly that. All right, said the British and others: how about making clear that the constitution puts paid to the idea of a common EU tax? Not at all, said the Belgians and other federalists, for whom the creation of such a tax remains a cherished ideal. Eventually, the ministers abandoned the whole idea of a common declaration. Each country will be left to explain the constitution to its own citizens as it sees fit."
Amusing, of course, but what does this conflict of interpretations say about the constitution - and how far it will lead along the path to a federal Europe?
Britain's government can't even make up its mind. Foreign secretary Jack Straw told the BBC that the constitution handed power back to the EU's nations, while drawing a line in the sand for Eurofanatic federalists. According to Straw, the constitution declared that Europe's political integration would go "this far and no further."
Straw's colleague, Minister for Europe Denis MacShane, was obviously off-message. A few weeks before Straw declared EU integration to be over, MacShame was telling a student group that "Europe is very young - this (the constitution) won't be the last word."
In all fairness, MacShame's take on the constitution is closer to that of leaders on continental Europe - and, indeed, the ministers' boss Tony Blair. For, as the Sun recalls, the PM himself told an audience in Cardiff back in 2002 that Britons must get over the idea that Europe can go "this far and no further."
Mixed messages from the government on the European constitution appear to be part of the package. It certainly fits in with the British establishment's traditional strategy on European integration, which is to deny everything until new legislation is in place and then to claim that to reject it would be to cave in to the worst instincts of Eurosceptics.
Rod Liddle, writing in yesterday's Sunday Times, looks back on five years of Labour's declarations on the treaty. Here's Peter Hain, leader of the House of Commons, in 2003:
“This is not a major change . . . there is no need for a referendum.” (On PM, the BBC Radio 4 programme.) “I am not saying it has got no substantial constitutional significance, of course it will have.” (In the House of Commons.) “Our task is nothing less than the creation of a new constitutional order for a new, united Europe.” (In the Financial Times.) There, I hope that’s cleared things up. On other occasions, Mr Hain has described the constitution as nothing more than a “tidying-up exercise."
Liddle - who used to produce the BBC's Today programme, remembers how he and an up-and-coming journalist faced the wrath of the government when they drew attention to a document planning an EU constitution back in 2000. Ministers and press secretaries poured denials and abuse on the reporters and the BBC, claiming that they had been "duped" by Eurosceptics and declaring that Britain would never sign up for any constitution.
Five years on, they still can't get their story - or stories - straight.
And that journalist, whose investigations drew such venom from the government and its media attack dogs? A certain Andrew Gilligan.
