An alternative vision for Europe

Michael Howard - Evening Standard - 19/04/2004

Conservatives have always supported a referendum on the proposed new European Constitution. It would mark a profound change in the way Europe works – shifting more power from the individual nation states to Brussels.

Britain’s ability to determine her own policies in such areas as the economy, law and order, and asylum would all be undermined by the EU Constitution. Indeed, the European Union would gain all the trappings of statehood: its own President, its own Foreign Minister and its own legal system. For the first time, the supremacy of EU law would derive not from Acts of national Parliaments but from a supra-national constitution. Countries have constitutions. Nation states make treaties with one another.

(Web Master's Note: So now we know why our Leader, Blair, refers to the EU proposal as a "Constitutional Treaty". Who does he think he is kidding?)

Politicians should never forget that they govern on behalf of the people. Individual parliaments, and the politicians elected to serve in them, do not own Britain’s liberties. They are there to safeguard them. And they should not diminish those liberties without an explicit mandate from the British people. That is why Conservatives have said from day one that Britain must have a referendum on the European Constitution.

So it is great news for Britain that the Prime Minister appears to have come to his senses and decided to give the British people a say on whether we sign up to the Constitution. Last year Tony Blair took the view that “we do not need a referendum ... whatever constitution comes out”. If the Prime Minister changes his mind – as the press has widely reported he will – it will be an enormous victory for everyone who has been urging him to “trust the British people”.

But why couldn’t the Government for once just have been straight forward and made a statement to Parliament? Instead we have been subjected to the spin and counter spin, leak and counter leak, briefing and counter briefing of the last few days.

Crucially, Labour’s reluctant acceptance of the need for a referendum would make clear just how big a change the Constitution really is. The Prime Minister only recently said that “If there was fundamental change here, there would be a case for a referendum. But there is not.” In calling a referendum, he is now admitting that it would indeed mean a “fundamental change” and that it is not just a tidying up exercise.

Once the final text of the Constitution has been agreed by Europe we should move quickly to hold a referendum. There is no case for delaying any further and there is no point MPs wasting months talking about the Constitution if it is going to be completely unacceptable to the British people. An early referendum would end uncertainty and show clear direction.

The Prime Minister thinks that there is no alternative to this Constitution. He thinks that whatever France, Germany, and the EU Commission come up with, Britain just has to accept. I believe that this policy of just accepting what is put to us has been damaging to British interests. The Prime Minister plans to try to scare the British people with the threat that if we don’t accept this constitution, then we have no option but to leave the EU. But this is simply not the case.

In fact by saying ‘no’ to the Constitution, the British people would be doing Britain and Europe a huge favour. Europe would be forced to confront its problems. And Britain would be able to play a key role in developing a coherent plan for modernising the EU.

The European Union has achieved a great deal. Together we have created a single market of 380 million people. But the EU is failing to face up to the realities of the twenty first century. The communications revolution means that individuals now have a global reach and a global outlook. In this world, competition is fiercer than it has ever been before.

In this new environment we need a flexible Europe which puts global competitiveness at its heart. We now have to compete against China, India and the Asian economies. The EU institutions themselves are also outdated. Even the Prime Minister admitted a few years ago that “we can’t go on like this” and the EU needs “radical reform”. What we need to do is move on from talking about reform and start implementing it.

But the Constitution will mean business as usual for Europe - greater centralisation, more regulation and less flexibility. It is the exact opposite of what Europe really needs. Far from solving problems it will create yet more.

Conservatives have an alternative vision for Europe. We want Europe’s member states to have room to breathe. If some countries want to integrate more closely then that is fine – as long as they do not force countries who do not want to, to follow them. Our policy is simple. Live and let live. Flourish and let flourish. That is a modern and mature approach – one which will allow Europe to succeed in the twenty first century. (End of Mr Howard's article)

Read also how the EU Constitution threatens control of asylum policy and fly the flag.

N O N! French give kiss of death to EU Superstate

Do you agree that we should vote to accept the "EU Constitutional Treaty"? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree strongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the above links to cast your vote Current results

"HOORAY! The Prime Minister has called for a 'separation of myth from reality' about our EU membership," writes Andrew Alexander in the Daily Mail, June 25, 2004. "Nothing could be better - unprecedented as it would be for him, the great myth-monger, and for Euro-enthusiasts in general. No issue in British politics has involved more wilful and wicked untruths. You may suggest Iraq, but you would be wrong. That involved only one whopping untruth - about weapons of mass destruction- and it lasted only months.

"With the EU, the lies stretch back over 30 years. I confess to finding, as yet, no explanation for the sheer mendacity which the EU project inspires to its enthusiasts.There is nothing dishonourable in wanting a federal Europe. so why do they keep lying abut it, now as in the past? The lies, Blair might consider, are one reason why everything to do with the EU arouses such public suspicion.

"We face a new round of lying in the selling of the EU Constitution. Mr Valiant For Truth got his team off to a flying start with his claim on TV that 'we have won every single thing we wanted to secure'. The most enthusiastic deceiver would be hard put to beat this, since only 27 of the 275 proposed British amendments to the constitution were accepted.

"In trade terms, the EU needs us more than we need the EU. Even if there was o free trade agreement the external tariff is now only 1.5%." Read Andrew Alexander's article - then the CIVITAS Think-Tank report, before answering this question:

Do you agree to the UK leaving the EU altogether if it becomes necessary? Agree strongly Agree Disagree Disagree sstrongly Don't know Don't care Please click one of the above links to cast your vote Current results

Current and prospective Parliamentary candidates of all Parties running for election could share a platform at public forums in every constituency. They would be presented with  the results of polls on this issue expressed by voters in their constituency.

The candidates could be asked if their own views and that of their Party manifesto corresponded with the polls, and if not, how they intended to represent the will of the majority of local voters.  Local and National Press, Radio and TV coverage would be arranged and the results published on this web site.

Here is another powerful strategy for using your vote effectively in the forth-coming General Election. Send your sitting and prospective MPs a letter defining your requirements if they want your vote. This example deals with the proposed EU Constitutional Treaty.

Your letters would end: "If you do not answer this letter, I shall take it that you intend to follow the Government line. I shall act accordingly in the forthcoming General Election."

Here's one which should force Tony Blair to resign:

Dear Despite his absolute and unequivocal assurances over the past year of the serious risk to our security of Saddam Hussein's 'weapons of mass destruction', Prime Minister Blair has admitted, that the threat was non-existent. For that critical error of judgement and for his gross incompetence in handling this very important issue, I ask you to take immediate steps to ensure that Tony Blair does the honourable thing and resign without delay.. I would therefore be much obliged if you would propose and help mobilise a Parliamentary vote of 'No Confidence' in Mr Blair which, despite Labour's huge majority, would leave the PM with no option but to resign. If I get no reply to this letter, I shall assume you will continue to support Mr Blair as our Prime Minister. In such circumstances I shall not vote for you in the forthcoming General Election. Signed:

Or why not create a questionnaire that you send to all the candidates in your constituency, getting them to give yes/no answers to questions of your choice, and ending it with the same paragraph(above).

Download a printable example of the questionnaire.

It is high time for the people of this United Kingdom to stop allowing themselves to be manipulated by politicians. We need our representatives in Parliament to genuinely reflect the view of the majority in their own constituency, even if this means going against their personal and/or their party's policy. While they may argue their case, hoping to change the minds of the majority in their constituency, they should ultimately be obliged to reflect the majority view of those who elect them. 

It will be argued by politicians of all parties that most voters don't have the knowledge necessary to express an opinion on important subjects at issue, and that our vote is a form of delegated democracy. We should argue that it is their duty to ensure that we voters do have ready access to such information as is necessary to form an intelligent opinion. That, after all, is one main purpose of Opposition Parties in our Parliamentary Democracy.

Most important of all, such proceedings would rekindle in voters their latent interest and obligation to cast their vote,, knowing that the candidate of their choice would be more likely to act in accordance with their wishes. A much higher turnout in elections would be the result.

Contact your local Party Chairman. Gain his support for setting up public forums in your constituency on these, as well as any other relevant topics, well before the next General Election expected in 2005. You should then, depending on the integrity of the candidate of your choice, feel fairly certain that your view on any subject being debated in Parliament will more accurately be reflected by your representative in that assembly.

If you have suggestions for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked to the subjects listed, please contact the webmaster.