11 5 the 3.00 european journal€¦ · bill cash, mp, & bill jamieson: the strangulation of...

TheEuropeanJournal

The Journal of the European Foundation

April/May 2004£3.00

&

Bill Cash, mp, & Bill Jamieson

The Strangulation of Britain

Michael McGruddy • Robert Oulds

The European Foundation

www.europeanfoundation.org 62 Brompton Road, London SW3 1BW

Chairman: William Cash, MP

Volume 11 Number 5

April/May 2004 Volume 11 Number 5

THE EUROPEAN JOURNALThe Journal of the European Foundation

The European Journal is published by The European Foundation. Views expressed in this publication are those of the authors themselves, not those of The European Journal

or The European Foundation. Feature articles and reviews should be sent to the Editor at the address above, if possible by e-mail or on 3.5" IBM compatible disc in MS Word.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means or stored in a retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher.

Contents

For reference, numbers on pages are as in the printed copy Original PDFArticles below are hyperlinked – use the hand icon, point and click Page Page

Bill Cash, mp: The Referendum 2 3

In Depth

Bill Cash, mp, & Bill Jamieson: The Strangulation of Britain and British Business 4 5

And Finally…

Michael McGruddy: Facts 20 21

Letters to the Editor 21 22

Michael McGruddy: Helsinki City Guide 22 23

Robert Oulds: Chunnel Vision - Human Rights, Human Wrongs 24 25

Editor: Annunziata Rees-Mogg

For subscription and advertising enquiries, please contact the editorial office.A subscription form is printed on the inside back cover.

Publisher: The European Foundation

5th Floor, Silver City House, 62 Brompton Rd, London SW3 1BWTelephone: 020 7590 9901 Facsimile: 020 7590 9975

E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 1351–6620

2Jump to Contents

With the announcement by Tony Blair of the referendum,and assuming it goes ahead, it is important that the

Conservative Party makes a clear assessment of what its policy willbe depending on whether the vote is a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I say “assuming”because there are those who believe that Blair could override hisreferendum commitment and ditch the Constitutional Treaty onthe grounds that it is more integrationist under the Irish Presidency

abrogation of Treaties and repeal of European legislation would beunlawful so long as we remained within the framework of theEuropean Union. The European Court in Costa v ENEL (case 6/64)and other cases has asserted its jurisdictional superiority overdomestic courts of the member states and also over theirConstitutions. Germany, Italy and Denmark at least have so fardefied the European Court’s assertion over their Constitutions

Hansard, 21 April 2004

Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): Will thePrime Minister accept, in relation to his earlierremarks with regard to the nature of the treatyand constitution, that in fact, under theproposed constitution, all the existing treatieswill be revoked and reapplied with theexisting acquis communautaire under theprimacy of a new constitution? Will he there-fore accept that that, as the House of Lords hasalready said in a report, is a fundamentalchange?

The Prime Minister: It is a constitutionaltreaty, and it is therefore a treaty in the sameway that the other treaties are treaties. Thehon. Gentleman is right, of course, in sayingthat many of the provisions in the earliertreaties are bound into this one. That isabsolutely right – a significant part of itsimply replicates the existing treaty basis. Thatis the position that I was putting to the righthon. and learned Member for Folkestone andHythe (Mr Howard). The hon. Gentleman ofcourse has a very clear position on this – hewants to change fundamentally the existingnature of the relationship between Britain andthe European Union. That is right is it not? Hecertainly does not want any constitutionaltreaty at all.

Mr Cash indicated assent

The Prime Minister: The question is whetherthe right hon. and learned Friend is in thesame position. What is interesting about todayis that now we are actually debating the detail.

The Referendumby Bill Cash, MP

than ever.Michael Howard has now made clear

that if there is a ‘Yes’ vote, the Party willabide by this, although if there was bla-tant misbehaviour by the Governmentover the conduct of the referendum thiswould be a reason for qualifying thiscommitment.

If there is a ‘No’ vote then thefollowing principles should guide thepolicy:

There should be no question of seek-ing to renegotiate the ConstitutionalTreaty itself. Michael Howard has madeit clear that a European Constitutionwould never be acceptable. This wasestablished last year despite KennethClarke and Michael Heseltine’s differ-ence of opinion.

If any one member state votes ‘No’then it is possible that they would have afurther referendum, as was the case inDenmark and Ireland in recent years. Asecond referendum in the UK must beruled out in principle.

However, if any one member statevotes ‘No’ in a referendum then theTreaty fails. The two-year vacuum (asoutlined in Article IV-7 section 4 of thedraft Consitution) is merely a policyaspiration without legal effect.

However, if there is a ‘No’ vote,whether in the UK or otherwise, andgiven the policy so far developed withinthe Conservative Party on renegoti-ation, then the positive opportunity canbe seized of matching Party policy to thewill of the electorate.

This will involve addressing the question of abrogation ofTreaties with repeals of the acquis communautaire back to at leastthe Single European Act – probably requiring a completely newTreaty. Indeed, repealing the legal base for many of the directivesand regulations which are regarded as unacceptable (such as theWorking Time Directive) would be necessary.

According to the jurisprudence of the European Court itself,

although there is not much evidencethat this has surfaced again in thosecourts with regard to the proposedEuropean Constitution. However, withregard to the United Kingdom, theundoubted supremacy of Parliamentstill prevails, as Michael Howard clearlyreaffirmed two weeks ago in the contextof the repatriation of the CommonFisheries Policy. On the other hand thejudges in the United Kingdom followingthe European Communities Act 1972properly give effect to European Treatiesand laws. Where, following a ‘No’ vote,there is a political requirement torenegotiate the existing Treaties (havingdisposed of the Constitutional Treaty)then legislation will be necessary todisapply existing Acts of Parliament andother enactments which flow fromthe legal base of Treaties which arerepudiated and to oblige the UKjudiciary to give effect to the latest post-1972 Act legislation providing it is clearand unambiguous. This would be alongthe lines of my Sovereignty ofParliament Bill. Without this there isthe likelihood that some of the judic-iary would seek to give effect to theassertions of the European Court andmy proposed legislation would requirethem to give judicial recognition byenactment which at the moment restson the cases for example of McArthy’s vSmith and Thoburn v Sunderland CityCouncil (2002) EWHC 195 ADMIN.

It is important that these matters areaddressed now so that a clear analysis is

made of what would happen in practice if there were a ‘No’ vote inthe UK. Failure to do this will play into the hands of UKIP, on theone hand, and, on the other, the charge by the Government and LibDems that we are intending to pull out of the EU altogether if thereis a ‘No’ vote. The proposed legislation which I have put forwarddoes not involve withdrawal nor even the specific amendment ofsections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972. It merely

3

April/May 2004The European Journal

Jump to Contents

provides for statutory confirmation of the obligation upon judgesto uphold the supremacy of Parliament as against the assertions ofthe European Court. The Leader of the Opposition’s commitmentto the repeal of at least a quarter of EU legislation points up the

Answered by the Prime Minister onTuesday 4th MayPQ FOR NAMED DAY WRITTENANSWER ON TUESDAY 4TH MAY2004Unstarred NO 449 N

Mr William Cash: To ask the PrimeMinister, if he will veto the legislativeinstrument proposing the EuropeanEvidence Warrant. (170781)

The Prime Minister: No. We shallseek to negotiate effective arrange-ments in the UK’s interests.

The European Evidence Warrant

Aglaring example of how damagingly the Europeanintegrationist programme is can be seen from the European

necessity of having an enforceable andachievable method of securing such repealif negotiations to renegotiate unacceptablelegislation do not succeed.

A ‘No’ vote will be a watershed. We have tobe prepared for its consequences and notfall between the two stools of beingoutflanked by UKIP (because our policy isnot clear enough against the background ofa ‘No’ vote) and of not being able to rebutthe accusation of seeking withdrawal forlack of a credible alternative.

The EuropeanElections

The campaigns for the Europeanelections, which have just begun, will

inevitably turn on the big question of theEuropean Constitution and also on the pros and cons of the effectof the European Union on the British economy. All of these issuesand problems are detailed in my pamphlet “The Strangulation ofBritain and British Business: Europe in our daily lives” (see page 4).

Evidence Warrant described by the Euro-pean Scrutiny Committee as “intolerable”.Indeed when cross-examining the Minister,Caroline Flint, I called on her to ask thePrime Minister to red-line this warrant andtabled several questions to him to veto theproposals. They would allow a foreigncountry to require the searching of Britishhomes including those of journalists,politicians and others if, for example, theyhad had any relationship with a person inthe foreign country concerned who wasalleged to have committed a list of offenceslonger than that of the European ArrestWarrant and invariably undefined eventhough the alleged act was not criminal inthe United Kingdom. This is Orwell andKafka rolled into one. “Animal Castle is withus now.”

Excerpts from Hansard © Parliamentary Copyright 2004

Bill Cash is Conservative Member of Parliament for Stone andChairman of the European Foundation.

United, we’ll never be defeated

It is thanks to our readers and the force of public opinion that thePrime Minister has granted us a referendum. Together we have brought

him to this point – now we must win. In order to achieve a ‘No’ vote, when,or if, there is a referendum, a great deal of work must be done. Thank youto our readers for their support in reaching this point and helping us toensure that nation states are not swallowed up into the beast of a Europewith this Constitution.

Welcome to all the new European states which joined on 1 May 2004.The European Foundation is supportive of the widening of the Union;however, having accepted the acquis communautaire, we hope that they donot suffer from its restrictions. We would warn these new members againstthe dangers of the European Constitution, which would not only bedetrimental to the British national interest but also to the accession states’interests.

On the following pages the Foundation’s pamphlet, The Strangulation ofBritain and British Business, is reproduced. This scrutinises the impact thatEuropean regulation has on our daily lives. Bill Cash and Bill Jamiesonhave analysed the existing treaties and the proposed Constitution andhow it affects the way in which we live.

4

The European Journal In Depth April/May 2004

Jump to Contents

Arecent poll produced the alarmingresult that only 9 per cent of the British

public think that ‘Europe’ affects their dailylives. The British Chambers of Commercerecently produced another alarmingstatistic: that the costs of extra red tape inthe UK since 1997 had spiralled to £30billion.1 This was accompanied by an articlein the Sunday Times, which broke down thecosts of over-regulation.2 Of the top ten redtape burdens, every one of the top six wasEuropean in origin, with a combined cost of£23 billion – a disproportionately highfigure considering that European regu-lations account for 40 per cent of allregulations affecting British business.3 EUlegislation clearly carries a very high cost tothe UK economy.

It will no doubt be argued thatnegotiators do their best when EU legis-lation is being formulated. The scale of theproblem, however, shows that this is notgood enough. In an article in The Timesin 1986, Bill Cash made the point thatunder the Single European Act, Europeanlegislation would become oppressive unlessmuch more was done to counter it by way ofministerial involvement and extra inform-ation to Parliament from business.4 Theoppression is becoming acute. The questionnow is why there is such a refusal toacknowledge its source. Perhaps it is the fear

of accusations of ‘europhobia’, or a beliefthat the national interest is not worthrocking the boat for. Either way, theconspiracy of silence is itself a significantexample of the effect Europe has on ourdaily lives. Later on, this pamphlet will dealwith how the problems caused by EUlegislation can be precisely identified andtackled.

Negotiations on a Constitution forEurope, which would constitutionalise thewhole EU legislative system, collapsedin December 2003, but the politicalmomentum has been sustained behind thescenes and was recently buoyed by the newSpanish government’s stated determinationto accelerate the process.5 The current, IrishPresidency of the EU is keen to re-start talksas soon as possible on the basis of a back-room deal, which could be reached evenbefore the end of the Presidency in June.Resistance to the Constitution musttherefore be maintained if we are to avoidtaking chances with the most crucialfundamentals of our national democracy.6

Meanwhile, the UK remains committedto the EC/EU Treaties up to Nice. The casefor their reform is overwhelming –fundamental reform that addresses therealities facing the nation-states of Europetoday on a treaty basis; not a new, all-encompassing Constitution that strength-

ens, reinforces and entrenches existingpolicy failures.

European politicians regularly pay lip-service to the need to create conditionsfriendly to small and medium-sizedbusinesses as the engine of future growth inEurope, but the European Commission’srecent action plan for enterprise has alreadybeen dismissed as “a damp squib…lackingin focus and actual recommendations”.7

The central problem is the absence ofpolitical will to tackle over-regulation. Athis “Advancing Enterprise” Conference on26th January, Gordon Brown, with thefinance ministers of Ireland, Luxembourgand the Netherlands, announced a plan foreach EU Member State to draw up a list ofEuropean legislation that should be amend-ed or abolished. Like so many previousannouncements on cutting red tape, thissounded bold, but on examination, the JointInitiative for Regulatory Reform is a weakdocument. The measures it proposes con-sist of generating more work for commit-tees, extending review clauses in Europeanregulations, beefing up EU competitionpolicy and speeding up the ‘simplification’of EU regulations through consolidationand codification: processes which entailfurther European integration.

Here is the phrase which covers the ‘red-tape hate list’:

The Strangulation of Britain and British Businessby Bill Cash, MP, and Bill Jamieson

Introduction

Introduction 4

Chapter I – The Unseen Hand 6

Impact on Daily Lives 6

Impact on Business – the Burden of Red Tape 6

Chapter II – Economic Policy Failure 7

Economic and Monetary Union 8

Chapter III – The Constitution for Europe 9

European Economic Governance 9

The Charter of Fundamental Rights 9

The ‘New Labour’ Government and the European Treaties 10

The Future of Europe Debate 11

What we can do 12

References 13

Appendix I – Written Questions and Answers 14

Appendix II – Sovereignty of Parliament Bill 15

Appendix III – Impact on Daily Lives 17

5

April/May 2004The European Journal In Depth

Jump to Contents

“Member states could be asked to provideexamples of legislation that their companiesexperience as particularly burdensome inorder to allow the Commission to considerthese issues in its simplification programme.” 8

In other words, the consultation, whichmay not go ahead at all, will be passedthrough a filter of government spin, thenproceed before the Commission on thebasis of the lowest common denominator,only touching areas where there is politicalagreement, with the focus on specific regu-lations and directives in those areas whichmay then be consolidated and codified, butnot radically reformed. Whatever else thisinitiative may be, it is not a panacea forBritish business.

Nowhere in the joint initiative is theprinciple of amendment9 or repeal of regu-lations suggested. This is because seriousreform of any aspect of the acquis commun-autaire, the body of EU law, is unacceptableto the EU – the ten countries joining theUnion on 1st May have been obliged toimplement the acquis in its entirety, whileValery Giscard d’Estaing’s draft Constitut-ion outlined a clause whereby the entireacquis would be deemed to have beenadopted (retrospectively) under theConstitution.10 Whilst, under currentarrangements, it remains within the powerof the UK to repeal or amend aspects of the

acquis, it is unlikely that this power wouldsurvive the Constitution without a clause inany European Constitutional Bill expresslyreaffirming the sovereignty of Parliament.

For decades, all political parties haveducked this issue, allowing problems toaccumulate. Successive governments haverelied on inadequate negotiations ratherthan admit that the system isn’t working inBritain’s national interest. There has been ahost of de-regulation committees, but nonehas ever worked. There is, however, a simplesolution: to set up an independent De-regulation Commission, with statutorypowers of investigation, that would carryout a legislative audit of the statute book,encompassing both domestic and EU-based legislation in relation to each govern-ment department, and make recommend-ations for simplifying reform based onamendment and repeal. The Commissionwould call on lawyers and senior civil serv-ants in each department to justify existinglegislation, maintain constant liason withbusiness representatives and the Public Ac-counts Committee, and report to ministerson the basis of a statutory timetable.

In the European Commission’s recentreport on implementation of the LisbonAgenda for economic reform, DeliveringLisbon (in which the Commission makesclear that it still expects the Constitution to

have been adopted by the 2005 SpringEuropean Council11), Member States areheavily criticised for failing to implementdomestic reforms, but no suggestion ismade of the need for reform of the acquis.The underlying reason for this is that theacquis locks in deals brokered on the basisof perceived national interests, irrespectiveof how they affect the UK and otherMember States today. This is why the facilityto use Parliament’s sovereign power toamend or repeal EC legislation is essentialto our continuing national interest – as anegotiating tool and, in the last resort, as apractical option. With the progressive lossof the veto in negotiations, it is essential thatwe retain and acknowledge the powers thatwe can still rely on.

This pamphlet addresses the extent of theinfluence of EU legislation, showing how itaffects the daily lives of the British peopleand British business. This analysis is in twoparts: the large but unseen hand of theUnion in the way we are governed and thefailure of its economic policies. The finalchapter deals with the dangers of theproposed Constitution, partly by referenceto the European Foundation pamphlet ofOctober 2003 by Bill Cash,12 with updates,and examines realistic ways in which thecurrent problems could successfully beaddressed.

6


Jump to Contents

CHAPTER I

The Unseen Hand

Polls suggest that only a very small proportion of British people think that Europe has animpact on their daily lives.13 Yet the proportion of UK legislation derived from European

legislation was set to grow from current levels of around 60% to about 80% even before theappearance of the draft European Constitution, which will add fuel to the fire.14 The “exclusivecompetences” proposed for the Union by the draft Constitution are nothing new – there arealready areas of policy in which the UK Parliament and the devolved bodies are forbidden fromlegislating under the Treaties, and many more in which the EU (and in particular the EuropeanCommission, the unelected body that initiates European legislation) has an increasinglypowerful influence. The current, Labour government unnecessarily exacerbated this trend byreversing the previous, Conservative government’s policy of declining to commit the UK to theEU’s Social Chapter.15

The government’s general approach to European legislation has been to embrace rather thanresist it, often dovetailing it with its own ‘social market’ policies. ‘New Labour’ sound-bites suchas “the knowledge economy” and “social inclusion” have been culled from the EU’s social marketlexicon and the EU’s political methods are reflected in New Labour’s power strategy: creating astream of soothing rhetoric about modernisation, enterprise and fairness whilst pursuing anoutdated, unsustainable and (to the UK) fundamentally alien “social market” model of society,and quietly, constantly extending governmental power at citizens’ expense. The pursuit of the“social market economy” is built into the European Treaties and the draft European Constitution– making it a legal requirement for all EU countries to deliver an unworkable economy that willproduce high unemployment and low growth for years to come.

The bullet points below show someareas in which the daily lives of British

people are adversely affected by EU policiesand legislation:

· EU Budget Even with our rebate, UKtaxpayers made a net contribution of 11.5billion euros in 1998-2000 16 – and therebate is now under threat.

· Tax The European Court is increasinglyinterfering with national tax laws – itsrulings on corporate taxation have costthe UK Treasury an estimated £10 billionso far.17

· Monetary Union Interest rates ineurozone states have been taken over bythe European Central Bank – they are nolonger right for individual countries andthe impact has damaged UK exports toour biggest overseas market.

Impact on Daily Lives

· Industrial Subsidies Selective buthuge. The EC authorised over 7.7 billioneuros in state aid to the French andGerman coal industry in 2001-2002,18

hampering the UK coal industry’s abilityto compete.

· Regionalisation Part of the Euro-peanisation of government, this unwant-ed extra tier already costs UK taxpayersthe equivalent of 1p on income tax.19

· Health European Court of Justice rul-ings such as the case of Kohll are movingdecisions about the funding of healthcarefrom national control to the EuropeanCommission.20

· Foreign Policy and Defence

Despite the rhetoric against the USA, EUspending was around just 60% of the US

defence budget 21 – even before the USincreased it following 9/11.

· International Relations The UK’sglobal trade position is negotiated by theEU as a whole.

· International Development EUfunding is misallocated – only 44% wentto poor countries in 2001.22

· Agricultural Policy Benefits onlybig farmers and costs each UK householdan extra £20 per week on average.23

· Fisheries Policy The UK fishing fleetused to land 80% of fish in EEC waterswhen the UK joined - now it has the rightto land only 25%.

· Railways Policy Compelled theseparation of railway infrastructure fromservices during privatisation.

Impact on Business – the Burden of Red Tape

The advance of the acquis commun-autaire is not only stealthy, but opaque

– so it is not generally appreciated that mostlegislation now introduced is European inorigin and that much of it is having adamaging impact on business.

On 7th March 2004, The Sunday Timespublished a report by David Smith on theburden of bureaucracy under Labour.24 Itconcluded that “far from making life easierfor entrepreneurs, [Gordon] Brown has beenstrangling enterprise.” The report set out the

top ten red tape burdens under the presentgovernment, based on figures provided bythe British Chambers of Commerce on theaccumulated cost of those burdens by July2004.25 Although unremarked in the article,the top six all have a European origin:

7


Jump to Contents

The economic governance that wasdesigned to pave the way for full

political union in the EU is failing. Acountry’s being locked into a low growth,high unemployment, supranational systemof economic management is a dangerousstate of affairs that is bound to lead toincreasing social unrest. The Irish EUPresidency’s focus on the Lisbon Agenda,the ambitious aim of which is to make theEU’s economy “the most competitiveknowledge economy in the world by 2010”,will be fruitless as long as the EU remainscommitted to a sclerotic “social marketeconomy” that is systemically incompatiblewith competitiveness in the 21st Century.

The Lisbon Agenda (full title: “The EUSocial Policy Agenda agreed in Lisbon inMarch 2000”) is itself an example of EUsocial policy spun as tough reform to spureconomic growth.35 When it was approvedfor the next five years at the Nice Summit ofDecember 2000, the following priority areashad been identified:

· More and better jobs: including genderequality and a better Work-Life Balance.

· Change, balancing flexibility andsecurity: including worker consultation.

· Combating poverty and socialexclusion.

· Modernising social protection: socialprotection systems “must underpin thetransformation to the knowledgeeconomy”.

· Promoting gender equality.

· Social policy in the international arena.36

The four presidencies’ joint initiativeannounced by Gordon Brown on 26th Jan-uary 37 is just the latest EU intergovern-mental exercise in making empty gesturesto the business community. The EuropeanSmall Business Alliance’s website has this tosay about the EU’s claims to be advancingentrepreneurial society:

“Although SMEs (Small and Medium-Sized Enteprises [sic]) are largely recognisedas the backbone of the European economy,their expectations for less red tape and a fairand incentiving [sic] fiscal treatment haveconsistently being [sic] neglected in Europe.

“Whereas the EU has launched a widedebate on entrepreneurship in Europe thisyear, there is not a single EU decision-makers[sic] who can clearly explain what have beenthe results (10 concrete changes) of the past15 years of SME Policy at EU level …

“The level of regulatory and fiscal burdenscontinues to raise [sic], affectingentrepreneurs and their motivation to domore business. Without any concrete changes,innovative European entrepreneurs willcontinue to start their business outside [the]EU, would-be entrepreneurs will never start,older entrepreneurs will not find anyone totransfer their business [to] and maintain jobsand activities.”38

The EU’s economic policy, like its otherpolicies, such as subsidiarity – which hasnever been implemented, is full of finewords masking the reality of divergingnational interests. At the Franco-German-British summit on 18th February 2004,President Chirac suggested a loosening ofcompetition policy to permit the emergenceof “industrial champions” (a phrase thatdisappeared from UK political discourse in

CHAPTER II

Economic Policy Failure

· Working Time Regulations 1999 Theseregulate working time and create newemployees’ rights. They have been ex-pensive for certain sectors to implement,have closed off the principal means ofboosting the incomes of young peopleand are contrary to the EU’s supposedgoal of flexible labour markets. Theirextension to junior doctors later this yearis expected to trigger a staffing crisis inthe NHS. They are based on the EU’sWorking Time Directive26 and also in-corporate the Young Workers Directive.27

The UK’s voluntary opt-out from themaximum 48-hour working week is dueto be reviewed by the EuropeanCommission in November 2004, and iswidely expected to be declared illegalunder EU law. Cost: £11.1 billion.

· The Data Protection Act 1998 Based onthe Data Protection Directive.28

Businesses and employees are subject tofines for breaching the rules on dataprotection. Teething difficulties wereexacerbated by conflicts between the

draft Data Protection Code, designed toassist businesses in complying with theAct and the DTI’s “surveillance rules”,which came into effect in the samemonth as the draft Code was issued.Cost: £4.6 billion.

· Vehicle Excise Duty (Reduced Pollut-ion) (Amendment) Regulations 2000EU Member States have been subject toa Directive “approximating” their lawsrelating to measures to be taken againstair pollution from vehicle emissions,since 1970.29 This Directive has been“amended” (consolidated) many times:in 1987, 1993, 1994, 1998 and 2002. TheBritish Chambers of Commerce cite EUPollution Directive 98/69/EC as beingresponsible for the 2000 regulations.Cost: £4.3 billion.

· Control of Asbestos at Work Regu-lations 2002 New regulations coveringrepair, dismantling and inspection wereintroduced in December 2002. About500,000 business premises in Britaincontain asbestos. The EU regulatory

framework for preventing exposure toasbestos at work had last been tightenedin 1997.30 Cost: £1.4 billion.

· Disability Discrimination (Providersof Services) (Adjustments of Prem-ises) Regulations 2001 Followed aEuropean Council Resolution31 on equalopportunities for people with disabil-ities. Cost: £1 billion.

· The Employment Act 2002 Provides for26 weeks of paid maternity leave,increased maternity payments and twoweeks of paid paternity leave for newfathers. These measures were a directresponse to a European Council Reso-lution on the balanced participation ofwomen and men in family and workinglife.32 The Act also implemented theFixed-Term Work Directive33 in a waywhich the Institute of Directors thinks isliable to cause further discriminationagainst fixed-term contract employees,rather than ensure their equal treatment,as intended.34 Cost: £565 million.

8


Jump to Contents

The euro has not been a success.

From its launch in 1999, its exchangerate fell, only to rise to dangerously highlevels by January 2004 as it see-sawedagainst the falling dollar. What has effect-ively happened is a reversal of the EEC’sdollar-pegging policies of the 1970s: as theonly major rival reserve currency to the USdollar, the euro effectively counter-balancesit on the markets. The response of eurozonepoliticians to the euro’s recent highs hasbeen to try to “talk it down”; some havesuggested new currency controls. TheEuropean Central Bank has refused to actby cutting the eurozone’s interest ratebecause its statutory aim is to try (in vain)to keep eurozone inflation below two percent. There is an overall lack of strategy,foresight and control.

A major aspect of the euro is the “one-size-fits-all” interest rate set by the EuropeanCentral Bank for every country in the euro-zone. This has created dynamics of “asym-metric shock” within the zone, worsening theplight of contracting economies such as thatof Germany, which would benefit from aloosening of monetary policy, whilst stok-ing up inflation in expanding economiessuch as that of Ireland, which would benefitfrom monetary tightening.

Furthermore, the ECB’s monetary policyhas not worked for the eurozone as a whole,having failed to provide effective monetarystimulus during the recent global economicdownturn.

opt-out relates only to joining the finalstage, in which the pound sterling would bereplaced with the euro. The fiscal policies ofNew Labour, whilst more flexible than thoseof many eurozone countries, have beendesigned to keep the UK within thestipulations of EMU, including the Stabilityand Growth Pact and its 3 per cent deficitspending limit. Whilst public spendingmust be subject to fiscal discipline,individual nations should be free to set theirown criteria for achieving this, based on thenational economy and domestic social andpolitical circumstances. (It is worth notingthat, despite the creeping Enronisation ofgovernment, “the outlook for the publicfinances [in the UK, based on official figures]remains bleak”.42)

It is too early to observe the renewedrelative economic decline of Britain that willinevitably result from the squandering ofLabour’s inheritance of a low-tax, low-regulation economy, thriving enterpriseculture and flexible labour market, as theeffects have yet to bite. Several things arecertain, however: the UK is heading forhigher taxes and lower spending, with theChancellor’s “Golden Rule” having to bestatistically re-defined due to the MaastrichtCriteria; UK exports have already been hitby the economic doldrums of the eurozone(our largest export market); and oureconomy would suffer much further fromthe loss of control over monetary and fiscalpolicy entailed by joining the euro.43

the 1970s) whilst the UK governmentstressed the need for market liberalisation.The Independent remarked that the meeting“illustrated the different emphasis in the typeof economic reform pioneered by France andBritain”.39 One measure concerning eco-nomic reform that was agreed on at thesummit, the creation of a Brussels super-commissioner to oversee it, was, The Timesremarked, “barely plausible. The Com-mission cannot even manage its own budgetwith competence, let alone Europe’s economicfuture.”40

In a recent pamphlet,41 Bill Jamiesonsuggested that the poor overall economicperformance of the EU is due in large partto the interplay of two factors: the EU’scommitment to a high level of governmentintegration and regulation, and the

European federal model, with no clearlines of responsibility between tiers ofgovernment, causing constitutional logjam.This process has been classically exposedthrough the German government’sdifficulties in implementing its “Agenda2010” programme for economic reform,and threatens to become writ large in aEuropean Constitution.

The EU’s recent economic record hasbeen disastrous. Growth has beenconsistently poor and unemployment high,reflecting among other things productivityunder-performance, a low rate of businessinvestment and poor rates of businessformation. Meanwhile, the 3 per cent deficitspending limit – an artificial rule made inpursuit of unworkable political and socialobjectives, as Bill Cash pointed out in

Parliament during the Maastricht unem-ployment debate – has acted as a strait-jacket on public spending (and on theamount of public spending that MemberStates can admit to: some has been taken offthe books, in Enron-style accountingploys).

Eurozone figures speak for themselves.The German economy, the EU’s largest, wasin recession in 2003. German unem-ployment on the ILO measure remainsstuck at 9.3 per cent. In France it is runningat 9.5 per cent. (The comparable figure forthe UK is 4.9 per cent.) Without radicaleconomic and fiscal reform, the eurozonewill stagnate further; according to HSBC’sforecasts, annual growth will be 1.6 per centin 2006-09, 1.3 per cent in 2010-19 and just0.8 per cent in 2020-2029.

Economic and Monetary Union

The ECB’s task of keeping eurozoneinflation below two per cent is easier if thebudgetary policies of eurozone countriesare kept tight. This is the purpose of theGrowth and Stability Pact, which stipulatesthat national budget deficits should be keptbelow 3 per cent of gross national product.Yet the European Commission is currentlytaking the Council of EU Finance Ministersto the European Court of Justice fordisapplying this rule when faced with theprospect of fining France and Germany forbeing in breach of it for several consecutiveyears. Other eurozone countries, notablythe Netherlands and Portugal, have enduredconsiderable hardship reigning in theirspending to comply with the rule. Thebreaking of the Pact in the national interestof two big (and closely allied) countriesexposed a dangerous lack of moral unity inthe EU. Whatever the past achievements ofthe European project, it has not endedRealpolitik in Europe.

In addition, the euro has failed to deliveron even its more modest ambitions. Pricetransparency has been only partiallyachieved, with eurozone consumers com-plaining of retail mark-ups at the currencychangeover, and significant price dis-crepancies remaining between eurozonecountries. Also, transaction costs within theeurozone have not disappeared, as theywere expected to.

The UK is signed up to Economic andMonetary Union under Maastricht – our

9


Jump to Contents

The stream of regulations anddirectives from the EU is constant.

Under our present constitutional relation-ship with the EU, however, the UKParliament retains the power to repeal oramend any legislation, including measuresimplementing EU law. This fundamentalpower would be crucially compromised,however, by the enactment of the draftConstitution for Europe.44 As things stand, achange of government could result inlegislative action to stem or modify the tideof EU law. Under the Constitution, thelapdog role that New Labour has adoptedfor the British government in relation to theEU would be impossible to change withoutthe UK leaving the EU altogether. It goeswithout saying that a referendum on theEuropean Constitution is essential; evenafter ratification in the UK, if that happens.

In looking for the likely effect of theEuropean Constitution on the Constitutionof the UK, a natural starting place is writtenConstitutions adopted in other commonlaw jurisdictions. In Gairey v Attorney-General of Grenada,45 the judicial Board ofthe Privy Council decided that the Carib-bean island of Grenada, by its Constitution,

Westminster model”. The European Con-stitution would be a very different animal,drafted by civil lawyers, based on theEuropean Treaties, and to be interpreted inline with European Court of Justice juris-prudence, with its integrationist agenda. Itsimpact on the British Constitution and legalsystem is potentially far greater, therefore,than the (considerable) impact on formercolonies of their Westminster-style Con-stitutions.

Even without the fundamental, con-stitutional power-shift implied by Article I-10 codifying the primacy of European law,which would prevent the repeal oramendment in the UK of European law-based legislation, the draft Constitutionwould be bad news for the British economy.There are two chief reasons for this: theConstitution would bind the UK moretightly to the failing project of Economicand Monetary Union and the obsoleteEuropean social market model; and theConstitution incorporates, as Part II, theCharter of Fundamental Rights, adocument with Constitutional force whichwould be better described as a socialistwish-list.

The draft Constitution contains anumber of measures strengthening the

procedures of Economic and Monetary Un-ion. It proposes easier censure of MemberStates for failing to comply with EUeconomic policy and government deficitguidelines, by making such censure subjectto the new ‘double majority’ system ofqualified majority voting,49 and removes theveto for adopting economic measures toapply to Member States.50 It also confers onthe Council of Ministers a mandate to laydown fresh, detailed rules and definitions

CHAPTER III

The Constitution for Europe: Greater Dangers Aheadhad established a new supreme law.46 Theprovisions of the Constitution therefore hadprimacy over historic common law doc-trines restricting the liability of the Crownand a particular clause in the Constitutioncould therefore be interpreted as giving thecourt a broad power to give effective relieffor any contraventions of protected con-stitutional rights even, where necessary, bycreating a new remedy. Giving judgementfor the Board, Lord Bingham said:

“The Constitution has primacy … over allother laws which, so far as inconsistent withits provisions, must yield to it. To read downits provisions so that they accord with pre-existing rules or principles is to subvert itspurpose. Historic common law doctrinesrestricting the liability of the Crown …cannot stand in the way of effective protectionof fundamental rights guaranteed by theConstitution.” 47

In an earlier case, Hinds v The Queen,48

the Privy Council noted that the writtenConstitutions which it interpreted had allbeen negotiated and drafted by peoplenurtured in English common law andfamiliar with the doctrine of the separationof powers, and that all conformed to “the

European Economic Governance: Tightening the Noose

current, discredited, EMU framework;yet they will not admit that the frame-work is fundamentally flawed. There isgeneral acceptance that the Growth andStability Pact must be reformed,53 but ishard to see how Member States will agreeon how to reform it, since their nationaleconomies have increasingly divergingpriorities due to asymmetric shock.54

The European Court of Justice has nowbeen charged with providing the answerto this deeply political issue – in a trial inwhich there can be no winner.

for the application of the Protocol on theexcessive deficit procedure.51

The British government, which wascomplicit in disapplying the Growth andStability Pact in relation to France andGermany, has (along with Sweden) opposedthe re-draft of Article III-88(1) of the draftEuropean Constitution on the adoption ofmeasures for the eurozone to refer to eco-nomic policy co-ordination and excessivedeficits.52 This is because both governmentsknow that they will not be able to win areferendum on joining the euro under the

The Charter of Fundamental Rights: An ECJ Judge’s Power Fantasy

One of the government’s most glaringcapitulations on Europe is the

incorporation of the Charter of Fun-damental Rights into the draft Constitution.Shortly after the Charter was agreed in2000, Keith Vaz, MP, then Minister forEurope, said that it would have “no more

legal significance than a copy of the Beano orthe Sun.” He was trying to allay concernsthat the Charter’s original status as apolitical declaration would be augmented tothat of a legally binding document,justiciable by the European Court of Justice.Yet, at the Convention on the Future of

Europe, it was incorporated as an integralpart of the Constitution. The CBI has speltout some of the concerns of British businessrelating to the Charter:

“… there is a real risk that incorporationof the Charter would result in the transfer oflegislative competence to the European Court

10


Jump to Contents

of Justice on matters which are, andshould remain, the responsibility of nationalgovernments. For example, Member Statesspecifically excluded issues such as the rightto strike from the European Treaty, becausethe differing systems of industrial relationsthat exist across Europe mean that it is moreappropriate for these issues to be decidedat national level. However, these issuesare included within the Charter andtherefore incorporation could tend towardsresponsibility on these issues developingwithin the EU. The business community isparticularly concerned that this is a radicalchange being introduced through the backdoor – as a side effect of incorporation of theCharter rather than through discussionsbetween democratically elected Govern-ments.

The CBI is also concerned that as theCharter combines inalienable civil rightswith more qualified social rights, incorpor-

Under the ‘reserve’ rule of Parlia-ment, UK government ministers may

not make a decision in the EU Council ofMinisters on a matter on which theEuropean Scrutiny Committee of the Houseof Commons has demanded a debate, untilthe debate has taken place. The presentgovernment has frequently declined to holddebates, and even when a debate is held, thegovernment will reverse any vote rejectingan EU measure. It is an example of thecontempt with which it treats Parliament – abad and dangerous thing in itself, butparticularly so regarding treaties like theEuropean Treaties, which are made underprerogative powers and can be changed orabrogated by Parliament.

In a debate on 16th September last year,the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, suggestedthat treaties have primacy over nationallaws.57 Through a series of writtenquestions, Bill Cash eventually ascertainedthat the government did not consider theUK to be a “monist” state, as Straw hadimplied. The process was somewhattortuous (see Appendix I) and illustrates thegovernment’s ignorance of the British state.As a cure for their constitutional illiteracy,members of the government could do worsethan to read the section of the EuropeanCommission’s ABC of Community Law onlegal primacy, which points out the

the Member States remain masters of theTreaties and the primacy of European lawrests on their political will. Once theTreaties are replaced by a Constitution,however, the supremacy of European lawwill be constitutionally guaranteed. This iswhy a UK government should never agreeto an irrevocable treaty such as a treatyestablishing a European Constitution, towhich the British Constitution would besubordinate. It is inimical in principle toserving the national interest - not just now,but forever.

Rather than a Bill enacting a EuropeanConstitution, that threatens to overturn thesovereignty of Parliament in favour of thesupremacy of European law, a Bill should beintroduced that reaffirms the sovereignty ofParliament by spelling out the current lawon the fundamentals of the British Con-stitution. As Appendix I shows, the govern-ment acknowledges the legal position, butonly reluctantly and after some evasiveness.If it were set out in an Act of Parliamentalong the lines of the Bill set out in Appen-dix II, which Bill Cash has introduced intoParliament, the existing power of the UKParliament to amend or repeal Europeanlegislation would be given statutory forceand the potential of Article I-10 of the draftEuropean Constitution to extinguish thatpower would become clearer.

The ‘New Labour’ Government and the European Treaties

difficulty that arises from the (self-proclaimed) supremacy of European law –and the result it is intended to achieve:

“… a conflict between Community lawand national law can be settled only if onegives way to the other. Community legislationcontains no express provision on the question.None of the Community treaties contains aprovision stating, for example, thatCommunity law overrides, or is subordinateto, national law. Nevertheless, the only way ofsettling conflicts between Community lawand national law is to grant Community lawprimacy and allow it to supersede all nation-al provisions that diverge from a Communityrule [otherwise] the construction of a unitedEurope on which so many hopes rest wouldnever be achieved.

“No such problem exists as regards therelationship between international law andnational law. Given that international lawdoes not become part of a country’s own legalorder until it is absorbed by means of an actof incorporation or transposition, the issue ofprimacy is decided on the basis of nationallaw alone.” 58

The reason why European law claimsprimacy over national law in all MemberStates whereas international law does not isthat European law, unlike international law,is designed to achieve political union. But aslong as the European Union is treaty-based,

ation would undermine many existing direct-ives which have been carefully negotiatedbetween democratically elected governments.For instance, the Charter’s article on non-discrimination prohibits unfair treatmentwithout allowing for the widely recognisedprinciple (an integral part of current EU law)that ‘indirect’ discrimination is sometimesjustifiable on objective grounds. This couldlead to EU and domestic discrimination lawbeing challenged.

More broadly, incorporating the Charterinto the Treaty would also effectively transferjurisdiction over core fundamental rightsfrom the Human Rights Court at Strasbourgand national courts to the ECJ. This raises thepossibility of conflicting judgements, whichwould create legal uncertainty, and alsothreatens the body of experience theEuropean Court of Human Rights has builtup in balancing pan-European rights with theindividual needs of Member States.” 55

The UK government insists that theimpact of the Charter would be minimaldue to the insertion of “horizontal articles”into the text. The Economist thinks thisconfidence is unjustified:

“…the British, Irish and others like tothink they have safeguarded their positionin two ways. First, the charter makes clearthat its provisions apply only to Europeanlaw, not to domestic law. But sinceEuropean law is constantly widening itsscope, and since social laws are made bymajority vote, this still leaves a chink in thearmour. So the British, backed by the Irishand Dutch, have worked in a change to thecharter’s preamble. This says that theEuropean Court must pay ‘due regard’to an interpretive text, underlining thatthe charter creates no new rights. However,many lawyers doubt that a reference asweak as that will have any impact on thecourt.” 56

11


Jump to Contents

Globalisation is the most significanttrend in the 21st Century world

economy, and the aim of regional groupingsshould be to maximise its advantages. TheEEC was formed during an era when theterms of trade increasingly favoured theconcept of a single European market. Itspolitical nature was a response to thedevastation of World War Two, withFranco–German rivalry being blamed, andit was a focus for Western democracy’seffort to demonstrate unity in the face of theSoviet threat. Globalisation and the end ofthe Soviet era should have prompted a re-evaluation of what the ‘European Project’was for; what its aims should be and whatform it should take. ‘The New Europe’ shouldbe more than rhetoric. Unfortunately,however, the ideas and the grand plan of theproject’s founders have been treated as holywrit, while vested interests have becomeheavily intertwined with the development

of the whole artifice. Meanwhile, the EEC’spast successes have emboldened represent-atives of the project to seek geopoliticalpower.

The EU is a dangerously outdated modelin its current form, and would be set instone once the last, great stage of the planfor European integration, a Constitution forEurope, was put in place. As Bill Jamiesonhas said:

“The pressure for European integrationand in particular monetary and politicalunion, flows from a belief in the entity ofEurope as a bloc to challenge and contain thehegemony of the US and to meet thechallenge of Asia. This bloc-ist view is alsoseen as the only means to protect thecentralised and highly politicised dispensaryof state welfare and ‘social solidarity’. This isthe cosmology that has dominated thethinking of the constitution’s leading authorValery Giscard d’Estaing and the officials

and advisors who contributed to thedrafting.” 62

The bloc-ist world view has beenrendered largely redundant by the process ofglobalisation, and the failure of Europe’spolicy-makers to accept this has been theprincipal cause of the continent’s recenteconomic underperformance and relativedecline. Fantasies of geopolitical equalitywith the US are vain in the light ofeconomic, demographic and local, politicalrealities on the ground. Initiatives like theLisbon Agenda are presented in thelanguage of globalisation, but beneath thesurface, they are based on the old, bloc-istthinking. The high-tax, high-regulation,market interventionist system of govern-ance must be radically reformed if Europe isto flourish in the 21st Century. TheEuropean Constitution would enshrine it,with disastrous consequences for Britainand Europe.

The Convention on the Future of

Europe, which produced the draftEuropean Constitution, was an egregiousexercise in political fixing disguised astransparent, democratic decision-making.59

The fixing has been continuing behind thescenes since the collapse of negotiations inDecember, with the focus on striking aback-room deal that will enable theadoption of a Constitution on the basis ofthe Convention draft.60 What is reallyneeded is not some shabby fix, but areevaluation of the European project,drawing on the realities of global trade andon other regional organisations as to how alarge and expanding group of nations canbest co-operate in the era of globalisation.As shown below, there is a fast-developingvariety:

· Arguably the most important tradingagreement is the World Trade Organisation(WTO) Agreement (formerly GATT). Thisglobal body is based on a number of freetrading principles, the most important ofwhich is the relationship between its indus-trialised members of non-discriminationbetween goods produced domestically andgoods produced by other members (knownas “Most Favoured Nation” status, or MFN).As its name suggests, the WTO isprincipally a trade body: its remit does

not extend to politics and every one ofits decisions is ratified by the nationalParliament (or equivalent body) of eachmember.

· The North American Free Trade Agree-ment of 1992 (NAFTA) was designed tocreate a free trade area by 2009, with theelimination of all trade and investmentrestrictions between its members, and aDevelopment Bank to fund projects andsoften the social impact of opening upmarkets. There are also side agreements onlabour and the environment. In a detailedand balanced review of its first ten years,The Economist concluded that NAFTA hadclearly been an economic success, havingstimulated trade and investment for all itsmembers.61

· Mercosur, created by several SouthAmerican countries in 1991, was designedas a customs union with a common externaltariff (CET) as well as a free trade area,involving legislative harmonisation andeconomic co-ordination, like the EU. Thissubstantially political union has beensignificantly less successful than NAFTA.Trade between Mercosur nations decreasedfrom 1998 and in 2001, Argentina sought tosuspend the customs union and CET tocounter its economic depression, leading tosignificant concessions by the other mem-

The Future of Europe Debate

bers. Chile is an associate member, enjoyingfree trade but opting out of membership ofthe customs union, and has also negotiatedindependent free trade agreements withNAFTA members. In an effort to add freshimpetus to Mercosur, in June 2003Argentina and Brazil made a commitmentto create a Mercosur parliament.

· The Association of Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN), begun in 1967, is thelargest agreement in that region. In 1992, itlaunched the ASEAN Free Trade Area(AFTA). AFTA does not include a customsunion, and its members continue to dealindividually at WTO meetings. ASEAN haspolitical as well as economic purposes, butthese are pursued through declarations and(ordinary) treaties rather than supra-national government.

· The European Economic Area (EEA)came into effect in 1994. Its membersinclude all the Member States of the EU.Members that are not also EU members,such as Norway, join the single market butare not obliged to implement the commonexternal tariff. The European Free TradeArea (EFTA) was established in 1960 inresponse to the foundation of the EEC in1957. It is based on free trade, without asingle market or CET. Switzerland is amember of EFTA, but not the EEA or EU.

12


Jump to Contents

If the European Union continues to fail to recognise theneed for its radical reform, but persists in its present course

towards ever greater integration within a failing economicframework, the case for remedial measures at national levelwill become increasingly urgent in the face of dangerouscircumstances. Fortunately, Parliament (in the absence of aEuropean Constitution) remains sovereign, even, ultimately,in respect of European law.

In his article in The Times in 1986,63 Bill Cash said thatmore information needed to be provided to Parliament muchearlier. Trade associations could be more active in reportingtheir concerns regarding draft European legislation to theEuropean Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons,which can demand a debate on the floor of the House underthe ‘reserve’ rule.64 This could supplement existing lobbyingactivities. Many UK trade associations are currently reluctantto point out the damage being caused by existing Europeanlegislation, concerned that criticism will be misinterpreted as‘europhobia’ and thinking that nothing can be done to changethe legislation. Something can, however, and should be done,and they have the potential to assist in the process.

At present, government Regulatory Impact Assessments ofdomestic legislation (RIAs) are conducted, but these do notbreak down in detail the causes of burdens on people’s dailylives and on business. A more active system of legislativeanalysis geared towards reform could be established tomonitor the impact of legislation in detail and recommendchanges on the basis of a legislative audit.65 Such a systemwould create a stream of recommendations to ministers toimprove the laws that bind the British people and raise thecost-effectiveness of the national economy.

Recommendations concerning European law would beformulated into proposals for European Council meetings, orsent to the European Commission for its consideration.Political efforts towards achieving acceptance of therecommendations at EU level should be proportionate to thebenefits that would accrue from their adoption. WhereEuropean law was not involved, a fast-track amendment

procedure could be adopted to implement recommendationswithout clogging up the Parliamentary timetable.

Where efforts at EU level concerning a recommendationon a matter of particular importance failed, the governmentwould need to consider biting the European bullet. Thismeans using the sovereignty of Parliament, where necessary,to enact legislation expressly conflicting with European law.This would be effective if such legislation contained a generalclause enabling European provisions to be amended orrepealed by way of statutory instrument subject to affirm-ative procedure and a clause stating that it was to take effectnotwithstanding the provisions of the European Commun-ities Act 1972.66 In addition, the 1972 Act could itself beamended to facilitate the easier passage of legislation thatconflicted with European law.

As well as the ensuing benefits to the UK, such actionwould bring home to the European Union the limits of itsauthority and act as a spur to reform now long overdue. Itcould not shatter the moral unity of the EU, as that hasalready been exposed as a sham by the suspension of theGrowth and Stability Pact in the case of France and Germany.It would be a more honest way of refusing to accept measuresthan an administrative failure to implement them.Furthermore, the UK would not be expelled from the EU forits actions because there is no mechanism for doing so andeven if there was, our strategic and trading alliance is toovaluable to be sacrificed. In addition, our membership is oftoo much benefit to other EU members through our netbudget contribution and trade deficit with them.

It has been argued for many years that Europe is ‘going inour direction’ but the evidence continues to suggest otherwise.Legislative acts as described above are possible with politicalwill, and would constitute a bold re-assertion of democracyfor Britain and, ultimately, for Europe. If they were to generateunsustainable political tensions within the EU, then theTreaties should be renegotiated. This might be difficult, but inthose circumstances absolutely necessary – what is at stake isour entire social, economic and political life.

What we can do

13


Jump to Contents

REFERENCES1 Chamber online, Red Tape Costs Spiral to

£30bn, press release of 8th March 2004

2 Business Focus: Strangled, by DavidSmith, Business section, 7th March 2004

3 Red Tape Costs Spiral to £30bn

4 Warding off the EEC Steamroller, TheTimes, 16th June 1986

5 See Chirac and Schroeder call to speed upEU deal, FT.com, 16th March 2004

6 See The European Constitution – APolitical Time-Bomb, by Bill Cash, 8thOctober 2003

7 Ben Butters, of Small Business Europe;see The Daily Telegraph, 8th March 2004

8 Joint Initiative on Regulatory Reform: AnInitiative of the Irish, Dutch, Luxembourgand UK Presidencies of the EuropeanUnion, 26th January 2004

9 In the English legal sense, as opposed toEC “consolidation”, sometimes referredto as “amendment”.

10 Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitutionfor Europe, Article IV-3. The Protocolsetting out conditions for legalcontinuity under the proposed newUnion has never been published.

11 Delivering Lisbon: Reforms for theEnlarged Union, EC Commission ReportCOM(2004) 29, p26

12 The European Constitution – A PoliticalTime-Bomb

13 See Introduction above, first paragraph

14 See Contract Journal, 18th November1998

15 As David Smith’s article in The Timessays; “The growing burden reflects bothmeasures deliberately enacted by thisgovernment and a wave of new rules –including those blocked by the previousTory government – emanating fromBrussels.”

16 Europa website (the EU online)

17 EU Law and British Tax: Which ComesFirst? Centre for Policy Studies pamphletby Alistair Craig, 2003

18 See Coaltrans, September/October 2002

19 Regional government petition online atwww.torymeps.com

20 British Medical Journal, Editorial, vol.325, 10th August 2002

21 According to the Centre for EuropeanReform

22 House of Commons InternationalDevelopment Committee, 8th report,October 2003

23 According to The Trade JusticeMovement, supported by CAFOD andOxfam

24 See Introduction above

25 Chambers online press release; seeIntroduction above

26 93/104/EC

27 94/33/EC

28 95/46/EC

29 70/220/EEC

30 See Directive 97/42/EC

31 1999/C 186/02

32 2000/C 218/02

33 1999/70/EC

34 Red Tape in the Workplace: Re-Regulationof the Labour Market II, IoD Policy Paperby Ruth Lea, May 2003

35 Although it is nevertheless too tough forthe new Spanish government, which hasannounced its opposition to LisbonAgenda reforms (continuing the SocialistParty’s policy in opposition)

36 Communication from the Commissionto the Council, the European Parliament,the Economic and Social Committeeand the Committee of the Regions(Social Policy Agenda, COM (2000)379).

37 See Introduction above

38 h t t p : / / w w w. e s b a - e u r o p e . o r g /default.aspx?goto=ESBA-Policy

39 18th February 2004

40 Leader, “The three junketeers”, 23rdFebruary 2004

41 A Constitution to Destroy Europe by BillJamieson, September 2003

42 National Institute Economic Review No.187, January 2004, Executive Summary,p. 5

43 See Bill Cash’s contribution to the eco-nomics debate on the Queen’s Speech,Hansard, 4th December 2004

44 Article I-10 of the draft codifies theprinciple of the primacy of Europeanlaw, thus effectively extinguishing thepower of Parliament to legislate contraryto EU law, unless the principle ofParliamentary sovereignty and the UKcourts’ recognition of it is reaffirmed inany European Constitution Act whichmay be passed.

45 [2001] UKPC 30

46 Cf. Article I-10 of the draft Constitutionfor Europe

47 Paragraph 19(2)

48 [1977] AC 195

49 Arts III-71, currently EC Art 99; and III-76, currently EC Art 104

50 Art III-72, currently EC Art 100

51 Art III-76(13)

52 Under Arts III-71, currently EC Art 99;and III-76, currently EC Art 104

53 According to the CBI; “This is critical ifthe architecture of Europe’s economicgovernance is not to become a barrier to,rather than a supporter of, growth andprosperity” - Delivering a moreCompetitive Europe: The CBI’s View of theConvention on the Future of Europe

54 EU finance ministers have said that theydo not want even to discuss reformingthe Pact during 2004, FT.com, 1stFebruary 2004

55 Delivering a more Competitive Europe:The CBI’s View of the Convention on theFuture of Europe

56 The Economist, 19th June 2003. Beforethe introduction of the “horizontal art-icles” Richard Plender, QC, had madeclear to the European Scrutiny Com-mittee that the ECJ would give full effectto the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

57 See Hansard and The European Con-stitution – A Political Time-Bomb by BillCash

58 The ABC of Community Law by DrKlaus-Dieter Borchardt, pp 100-101

59 See The Making of Europe’s Constitutionby Gisela Stuart MP

60 The European Parliament has adopted aresolution calling for the Intergovern-mental Conference of EU Member Statesto conclude its work on the Constitutionby the accession date of 1st May 2004

61 Ten Years of NAFTA: Free Trade on Trial,30th December 2003

62 A Constitution to Destroy Europe by BillJamieson

63 Warding off the EEC Steamroller, seeIntroduction above

64 See The ‘New Labour’ Government andthe European Treaties, above

65 See the De-regulation Commission inthe Introduction above

66 See Appendix II

14


Jump to Contents

APPENDIX IWritten Questions

and AnswersMr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs pursu-ant to his statement of 16 September, OfficialReport, column 794, when it became Govern-ment policy that all international treatiestake primacy over national law; and on whatevidence he bases the statement that underthe draft constitutional treaty for the firsttime provision is made whereby Parliamentcan legislate to repudiate a treaty. [131821]Mr. MacShane: It is an established principleof international law that a state may notplead its national law to escape its inter-national law obligations, including its treatyobligations. As a matter of UK constitutionallaw, international treaties have effect in UKnational law to the extent that they have beenimplemented in national law.

Article I-59 of the draft EU ConstitutionalTreaty states that any member state maydecide to withdraw from the Union inaccordance with its own constitutionalrequirements. The Government believe it ishighly unlikely that any member state wouldwish to withdraw, but sees a case for statingthe political and legal reality of what wouldhappen in such exceptional circumstances.

16th October 2003

Mr. Cash: To ask the Prime Ministerpursuant to his Answer of 14 October 2003to the honourable Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), Official Report,column 60W, on international treaties, onwhat evidential basis he relied in hisstatement that a State may not plead itsnational law to escape its international lawobligations, including its treaty obligations.[132934]The Prime Minister: The principle referredto in the answer of 14 October 2003, OfficialReport, column 60W, is well established. ThePermanent Court of Arbitration, the Perm-anent Court of International Justice and theInternational Court of Justice have produceda consistent jurisprudence upholding thisprinciple.

20th October 2003

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs on whatoccasions since 1973 the UK has asserted itsnational law as against its obligations underthe European treaties. [132935]Mr. MacShane: The jurisprudence of theEuropean Court of Justice since the case ofCosta v. ENEL (case 6/64) has clearlyestablished the principle that no provision of

national law may be invoked to overrideCommunity law. In Costa v. ENEL the Courtruled that: “the law stemming from theTreaty … [cannot] be overridden by dom-estic legal provisions… The transfer by thestates from their domestic legal systems tothe Community legal system of the rightsand obligations arising under the Treatycarries with it a permanent limitation oftheir sovereign rights against which a sub-sequent unilateral act incompatible with theconcept of the Community cannot prevail.”

21st October 2003

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairspursuant to his answer of 20 October 2003,reference 132935, what discussions he hashad with EU institutions in the relationshipof sections 2 and 3 of the European Com-munities Act 1972 and the jurisprudence towhich he refers of the European Court ofJustice since the case of Costa v. ENEL; andwhat assessment he has made of thejudgements of the United Kingdom courts in(a) Macartheys Ltd. v. Smith and (b)Thorburn [sic] v. Sunderland City Council inrelation to the principle that no provision ofnational law may be invoked to overrideCommunity law. [135482]Mr. MacShane [holding answer 3 November2003]: The UK has given effect to itsobligations under the EU treaties throughthe European Communities Act 1972. Costav ENEL set out the clear principle that itsobligations under the treaties cannot beoverridden by domestic legal provisions.

In Thorburn v. Sunderland City Council[sic], Lord Justice Laws said as part of hisjudgement:

“All the specific rights and obligationswhich EU law creates are by the 1972 Actincorporated into our domestic law and ranksupreme…”

The ultimate guarantee of parliamentarysovereignty lies in the power of Parliament torepeal all or any of the Acts which give effectto the EU treaties in this country. As LordDenning made clear in the case ofMacartheys Ltd. v. Smith, it is withinParliament’s power to legislate contrary tothe UK’s treaty obligations. The result of sodoing, however, would be to put the UK inbreach of its treaty obligations.

5th November 2003

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs, if hewill make a statement on the implications forthe United Kingdom (a) Parliament and (b)Courts of the Declaration at Annex 2 of theproposals agreed in Naples on the primacyof European Union law as set out in Article I-

10(1) of the draft European Constitution.[142612]Mr. MacShane: The proposed Declarationprovides confirmation that the provisions ofArticle I-10(1) reflect existing EuropeanCourt of Justice case law. If agreed it wouldstate the common intention and under-standing of all the participating States thatArticle I-10(1) has this meaning and shouldbe interpreted accordingly.

8th December 2003

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs, whatdiscussions he plans to have with the foreignministers of (a) Denmark, (b) Germany and(c) Italy regarding the declaration in the draftproposals agreed in Naples, relating to theprimacy, under Article 110 [sic] of the draftEuropean Constitution, of the Constitutionover their respective constitutions. [142429]Mr. MacShane: The Presidency has pro-posed a ‘Declaration for incorporation in thefinal Act with regard to article I-10(1)’. Itstates that, ‘The Conference notes that theprovisions of Article I-10(1) reflect existingCourt of Justice case law.’ The proposal hasnot been agreed, but will be discussed at theEuropean Council on 12-13 December, inwhich the Foreign Minister of all the Statesmentioned will participate.

8th December 2003

Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State forForeign and Commonwealth Affairs, if hewill place in the Library a copy of the textreferred to in the Declaration of thePresident of the EU as a negotiating acquis;and whether it is regarded by the Govern-ment as a negotiating acquis not open tofurther discussion. [145498]Mr. MacShane: We have placed copies of allthe documents produced by the Presidencyduring the IGC in the Library of the Houses.These include a compromise text tabled forthe Naples Conclave on 28/29 November2003 and a further text tabled in the weekpreceding the European Council. Yet anothercompromise text, promised for the secondday of the European Council, was not in theevent tabled, though the President of theEuropean Council, Mr. Berlusconi, drew on itwhen summing up at the end of the meeting.

Until the negotiations are completed, allaspects are potentially open to furtherdiscussion. But the Italian Presidency wentthrough the normal negotiating process ofsuccessive refinements and approximationsof a text, in the search for consensus, and wewould expect the next Presidency to want todraw upon this work.

5th January 2000

Extracts from Hansard © Parliamentary Copyright

15


Jump to Contents

��

��

��

�� !"#$��%� ��%&'�#()

�� !"�#$��%�&�'�()!'%�(*�'�#��(�"#�(*��(++(," (,$(,-�'�#�"'&'!(,#)%�(**!�#

��.��.�/��.� �0�'��"��(�� .

12322��

��

&

� � � �'�� 4�.�� 5� �� .�� 0�� 0�� 0��.�� .�� .�/��.� ��.��6��0��7��5��2�� .�/��.� 3

* �� +��

� �� '�� 5��* ��5�� 3

16


Jump to Contents

��

��,� ��*� ��-.� ��/�(�� 8

&

� � � �'(

��4�.�� 5�� .�� 0��0��0��.��.��.�/��.� �� .�� 6�� 0��7��5� �2�� .�/��.� 3

��0��9��:�� #2��+�;��5�0��.�6��.4��.�� .�� "�� .� '� ��5� ��.� �� 5� ��

�� 0��.5��.�0�� 5��6�-<�

� ��

=8> �� 5� �� .� �� 0��0��0��.��.��.�/��.� ��.��6�� 6��0��=�>��3

=�> '�� 0�� 6�� .�� 6��.�-� ?'��4�� @��6��.��4��#�� &��8AB�3C3

=�> !��<?�� C�� "��.��8��#�� &��8AB�D

?�� 0��C�� "��.��8��#�� &��8AB�D

?�� C� �� 8=�>� �� #�� &��8AB�D

?�� C� �� &�� .� 0�� ./��.� �� .��.��&��3

! ��

'�� &�� 0�� .� �� "�4�� =#�� >�&��3

�

0

#1

#0

17


Jump to Contents

APPENDIX III

Impact on Daily LivesHow the draft European Constitution would affect you

Article 1(1) “Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of Europeto build a common future, this Constitution establishes theEuropean Union…”

Article 2 “The Union is founded on … respect for …democracy…”

Article 3(1) “The Union’s aim is to promote peace, its values andthe well-being of its peoples.”

Article 3(3) “The Union shall work for the sustainabledevelopment of Europe based on balanced growth, a social marketeconomy … and with a high level of protection and improvementof the quality of the environment.”

Article 9(3) “Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which donot fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only ifand insofar as the objectives of the intended action cannot beachieved by Member States … but can rather … be better achievedat Union level.

Article 10 “1. The Constitution, and law adopted by the Union’sInstitutions… shall have primacy over the law of the MemberStates. 2. Member States shall take all appropriate measures … toensure fulfilment of the obligations flowing from the Constitutionor resulting from the Union Institutions’ acts.”

Article 11(3) “The Union shall have competence to … coordinatethe economic and employment policies of the Member States.”

Article 11(4) “The Union shall have competence to define andimplement a common foreign and security policy, including theprogressive framing of a common defence policy.”

Article 12(1) “The Union shall have exclusive competence … inthe following areas: … common commercial policy, customsunion, the conservation of marine biological resources under thecommon fisheries policy.”

Article 12(2) “The Union shall have exclusive competence for theconclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion isprovided for in a legislative act of the Union, is necessary to enableit to exercise its internal competence, or affects an internal Unionact.”

Article 13(2) “Shared competence applies in the followingprincipal areas: internal market, area of freedom, security andjustice, agriculture … transport … energy, social policy …economic, social and territorial cohesion, environment, consumerprotection, common safety concerns in public health…”

No referendum equals no will of citizens – you are ignored.

Undemocratic – EU more remote.

Consider Iraq. Member States have different values. Since 1945,peace has come from NATO, not the EU.

A “social market economy” equals low growth and highunemployment.

The EU calls the tune and subsidiarity has never worked.

The Union will be Master. General election manifestos andfreedom and choice of voters will be overridden.

French and German unemployment and low growth come fromeconomic and employment coordination. Blair cannot meetchallenges on health, education, pensions, transport and publicservices – stability and growth pact a dead letter.

Foreign policy and defence govern our relations with the worldand NATO – all undermined. NATO guarantees our independence– the European Constitution would end it.

Control over commercial policy, customs union and fisheriespolicy will be locked into the Union.

Together with legal personality, the Union would take away mosttreaty making powers, and foreign policy undermined.

In the internal market, justice and home affairs, agriculture,transport, energy, social policy, environment policy and consumerprotection etc. etc., national governments would only be able to dowhat the EU decided not to. Energy policy, including guaranteeing“security of energy supplies” to the EU would be a new power. Vastrange of activity handed over.

The Constitution says … Its direct impact on you

18


Jump to Contents

Article 16(2) “The areas for supporting, coordinating orcomplimentary action shall be, at European level:industry…health, education, vocational training, youth and sport,culture, civil protection.”

Article 17(1) “If action by the Union should prove necessary … toattain one of the objectives set by the Constitution, and theConstitution has not provided the necessary powers, the Councilof Ministers … shall take the appropriate measures.”

Article 31(1) “The European Parliament, the Council of Ministersand the Commission shall be assisted by a Committee of theRegions and an Economic and Social Committee, exercisingadvisory functions.”

Article 43(1) “… Enhanced cooperation shall aim to further theobjectives of the Union…and reinforce its integration process.Such cooperation shall be open to all Member States … at anytime”

Article 46(2) “The Union Institutions shall maintain an open,transparent and regular dialogue with representative associationsand civil society.”

Article 52 “1. All items of Union revenue and expenditure shall beincluded in estimates drawn up for each financial year and shall beshown in the budget… 2. The revenue and expenditure shown inthe budget shall be in balance.”

Article 53(1) “The Union shall provide itself with the meansnecessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.”

Article II-11(1) “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receiveand impart information and ideas without interference by publicauthority and regardless of frontiers.”

Article II-12(2) “Political parties at Union level contribute toexpressing the political will of the citizens of the Union.”

Article II-18 “The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with duerespect for the rules of the Geneva Convention…”

Article II-23 “… The principle of equality shall not prevent themaintenance or adoption of measures providing for specificadvantages in favour of the under-represented sex.”

Article II-28 “Workers and employers, or their respectiveorganisations … have the right to negotiate and concludecollective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases ofconflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend theirinterests, including strike action.”

Article III-171(1) “… European laws … shall establish measuresto: (a) establish rules and procedures to ensure the recognitionthroughout the Union of all forms of judgements…”

The EU would interfere by directing policy over British industry,health, education, sport and culture and civil protection (terroristmeasures).

EU will do whatever it wants to achieve its aims, with commonaction.

The Committee of the Regions, with regional assemblies, willundermine your local government in counties, towns and parishes.The Economic and Social Committee will undermine nationaltrade unions.

Inner core will drive other Member States to deeper integration inred line areas including defence, tax etc..

The Union will primarily listen to multinational trade associations,at the expense of small business.

The EU budget has not been signed off for many years. “A massiveenterprise of looting” from it. Much spending is not on the balancesheet.

This will lead to European tax by the back door.

The right is not absolute – must be balanced by duties andresponsibilities.

European political parties moving to state funding – marginalisingnational political parties.

Common asylum policy goes beyond Geneva Convention, leadingto a huge increase in asylum applications - the British governmentwould be powerless.

This underwrites political correctness in employment.

The right to strike would reverse British labour reforms that havemade us competitive. This right never accepted before by anyLabour government. The Charter of Fundamental Rights wouldalso forcibly restrict working hours.

This would prevent any judgement from the courts or authoritiesof another EU Member State from being challenged in the UKcourts – with grave consequences for individuals, business and ourlegal system.


19


Jump to Contents

Article III-172(1) “European framework laws may establishminimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences andsanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with cross-border dimensions…”

Article III-175(1) “In order to combat serious crime having across-border dimension, as well as crimes affecting the interests ofthe Union, a European Law … may establish a European PublicProsecutor’s Office.”

Article III-194(1) “… the European Council shall identify thestrategic interests and objectives of the Union.”

Article III-195 “1. … the Union shall define and implement acommon foreign and security policy… 2. The Member States shallsupport the common foreign and security policy actively andunreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity… Theyshall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests ofthe Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force ininternational relations. The Council of Ministers and the UnionMinister for Foreign Affairs shall ensure that these principles arecomplied with.”

Article III-206(2) “… Member States which are also members ofthe United Nations Security Council will … defend the positionsand the interests of the Union… When the Union has defined aposition on a subject which is on the United Nations SecurityCouncil agenda, those Member States which sit on the SecurityCouncil shall request that the Union Minister for Foreign Affairsbe asked to present the Union’s position.”

Article III-212(1) “The European Armaments, Research andMilitary Capabilities Agency … shall have as its task to: (a)contribute to identifying the Member States’ military capabilityobjectives and evaluating observance of the capabilitycommitments given by the Member States; (b) promoteharmonisation of operational needs and adoption of effective,compatible procurement methods;”

The Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the EuropeanUnion states that it aims to “encourage greater involvement ofnational Parliaments in the activities of the European Union andto enhance their ability to express their views on legislativeproposals…”

The Constitution will make Qualified Majority Voting the generalrule in EU legislation.

All agreements between EU Member States that are not in theConstitution will have to be renegotiated.

Repeal of existing treaties and re-application of laws.

The EU will define certain criminal offences – and set minimumsentences for those found guilty of them, overriding our criminallaws and sentencing policies.

Proposals for a European Public Prosecutor have been condemnedby the House of Commons Scrutiny Committee as threatening an“engine of oppression”.

This puts the national interest at risk where we disagree with EU.

This obligation of loyalty as defined and implemented wouldsubordinate our national interest in matters of foreign policy anddefence.

Despite denials by the government, Britain would be on the UNSecurity Council primarily to represent the EU.

This bureaucratic gobbledegook means that an EU weaponsinstitute would decide the shape of our armed forces and tailorthem to a European army.

In practice, the national Parliaments, including Westminster, willbe made second-class. Nothing will enable them to veto proposalswhere there is Qualified Majority Voting.

Over 60% of new legislation in Britain comes from the EU. Theveto has been largely abolished, which is very damaging to ourinfluence and to business.

The British rebate, negotiated by Margaret Thatcher so that the UKdidn’t pay so much into the EU, will be lost. The British taxpayerwill be paying more and getting less.

New constitutional wording will create confusion. Unless we assertour Parliamentary supremacy and negotiate accordingly, we wouldnot change laws such as the European Arrest Warrant, the WorkingTime Directive and a host of other laws which are harmful andrestrictive to individuals and businesses.


20

The European Journal And Finally…

Jump to Contents

April/May 2004

1 London’s New Party Planner?On Saturday 24 April the Foreign Office decided to throw a

‘New Europe Festival’ that included free drinks, food, live jazz,pop music, and even sword dancing to celebrate the cultures ofthe incoming EU members. Apparently the staffers’ decided theyneeded to stage a party using taxpayer money after weeks ofdealing with government headaches and changes in foreignpolicies.

The Metro 22 April 2004

2 French Voters send a message to ChiracAfter trouncing the Socialist party in parliamentary and

presidential elections two years ago, Jacques Chirac’s party wasdealt a major blow on 28 March. Voters have, without a doubt, letthe President know they are not happy with the progression ofhis plan to reform the public sector. About half the French voterscast a ballot for the coalition of the left, led by the Socialists, thuscausing the UMP to loose 20 of the 21 mainland regions (and allfour distant overseas territories) during the second round ofelections to the country’s regional councils. If left unanswered,this could be the start of a major problem for both Chirac andthe national government.

Economist.com 30 March 2004

3 Cyprus: Thirty-years divided and counting…To the disappointment of many Turkish Cypriots, only

southern Cyprus entered the EU on 1 May. The island willremain divided as the Greek Cypriots rejected the UN plan forreunification. 75.83% of the Greek Cypriots rejected the planwhile 64.91% of the Turkish Cypriots accepted it. Futurenegations, however, are expected to continue.

EUobserver 29 April 2004

4 Howard launches Tory ManifestoMichael Howard has unveiled the Conservative Party’s

stance for the June European elections. In line with Blair’s U-turn decision regarding a referendum on the EU Constitution, akey Tory demand, Mr Howard said he would like to turn backthe tide of regulations. “Unnecessary, disproportionate andoutdated regulations really must be scrapped,” said Howard. Hewent on to say that Conservatives did not want to see a Europethat demanded “the sacrifice of independence as the price ofindependence” and that “We will promote flexibility for business toflourish. We want to get rid of at least 25% of all existing EUregulations…”

BBC News 29 April 2004

5 Lost in Translation.On 1 May the European Union added nine new official

languages to the existing set of eleven. The twenty languages cangenerate 190 possible combinations. Finding a staff member thatcan speak both fluent Greek and Estonian is nearly impossible.To make matters worse, the translation bill for the EU will risefrom roughly €550 million to about €800 million after theenlargement. A simple solution already gaining ground is tosupplement a widely spoken language (most logically English)

as the EU’s official working language. But of course the Frenchwould have to swallow their pride and go with the tide.

BBC News 8 April 2004

6 British Executives against the EU?An ICM survey of 1,000 business executives found that 73

percent of business leaders “believed the EU was ‘failing’ and thatBritain would be more successful if it retained the pound andreclaimed powers from Brussels”. Even the core EU policies, tradeand a single market, had strong disapproval ratings: 82 per centsaid, “the Government should handle trade negations” while only14 per cent said they should be left to the EU. When asked if theConstitution would be good for their businesses, 59 per cent said‘No’ and 23 per cent said they did not know.

The Daily Telegraph 28 April 2004

7 Poland: A Burden to Society?The Chief Economist at the European Bank for Recon-

struction and Development, Willem Buiten, has said that“Poland will need 40 years to catch up with the EU average.”Another representative, Vice-President Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz, “expressed concern that the new member states mightbecome too dependent on EU handouts rather than implementingthe necessary economic reforms – as was similarly seen after theentry of Spain, Greece, and Portugal.” However, Poland recentlyreleased new economic data that seemed to disagree with theBank’s opinion; Poland’s economy grew 6% – beating expect-ations and the country seems to be curtailing unemployment,which had shrunk slightly to 0.5% (Still the highest rate in thenewly enlarged EU).

EUobserver 23 April 2004

8 No New Flag Despite EnlargementThe famous blue flag with 12 gold stars will remain the same

despite the introduction of 10 new members to the EuropeanUnion on 1 May. By coincidence, many thought that the 12 starsrepresented the 12 member states during a 7-year period. TheEU’s website states that: “The number 12 represents perfection andunity” and the five-pointed stars, also known as mullets,“represent the union of the people of Europe. The circle, too, hasmystic power and stands for unity in many traditions.” The flag hasbeen in use since 1955, but was officially adopted as the symbolof the EU on 26 May 1986.

eubusiness.com 29 April 2004

9 Expense Exposé Raises EyebrowsAustrian MEP Hans-Peter Martin infuriated his fellow

MEPs recently when he disclosed that a ‘certain few’ were takingadvantage of the expense system. Martin disclosed that MEPs,including Glenys Kinnock, were regularly turning up to the EUParliament and signing an attendance sheet, only to leaveminutes later – all just to claim their £175-a-day expenseallowance. Upon looking into it further, one will be surprisedhow generous Brussels can be in giving away taxpayer money forsuch things as ‘Housekeeping’ and ‘Entertainment Budgets’.

Evening Standard 26April 2004

FACTS

21

April/May 2004

Jump to Contents


From Mr Martin HelmeDear Editor

I wish to draw your attention to the factthat in first topic of Iraq you missed Est-onia’s military involvement in Iraq (Euro-pean Intelligence Digest No. 190). Estoniahas about the same size of contingent inIraq as Latvia that is one platoon (32 men).We have also lost one man in casualties bygrenade fire a few months ago.

Just to point out. Just this week ourparliament, Riigikogu, passed a resolutionthat allows government to keep the troopsthere until the end of this year. Latest pollsshow that 62% of people would wish thetroops to be withdrawn from Iraq. Abouthalf a year ago about 60% supported themission.

Best wishesMartin HelmeDirector, UKVE

From Mr Steve DooleyDear Sir,

The letter from Frederick Forsyth in theMarch issue surely represents a triumph ofhope over experience. On the assumptionthat Blair will sign up to the EUConstitution without a referendum MrHoward’s policy seems to be to attempt torenegotiate. That is, Mr Howard willmanage to reopen negotiations on acontentious treaty just ratified by all of theMember States, and confirmed by at leastsix of them in referenda, and will achieveunanimous agreement to changes whichbenefit Britain significantly, and achievesubstantial repatriation of powers. Simplyto state the proposition is to demonstrate itsabsurdity.

It is better to observe what governmentsdo in office than to listen to what they saywhen seeking our vote. Heath – Treaty ofRome; Thatcher – Single European Act;Major – Maastricht Treaty. Mr Howard isnot going to get the benefit of the doubt.When Mr Howard makes a manifestocommitment to a referendum on the EUConstitution (post-signature by Blair), andto do whatever is necessary to put theresulting decision of the electorate intoeffect, then my vote, and all of my availabletime, money, and whatever talents I have tooffer, will be pledged to support theConservative Party. Until then, they remainfirmly with UKIP.

Yours sincerely,Steve Dooley

From Professor Antony FlewDear Sir,

Your correspondent Frederick Forsythinsists that Michael Howard has solemnlypledged that, if elected, he will renegotiatethe relationship between the UK and theEU. But renegotiation, like negotiation,requires at least two parties. But, sinceMichael Howard has also categorically dis-missed the idea of the UK ever leaving theEU, how does he persuade himself that theEU will, without a threat of withdrawal, beprepared to renegotiate the terms of treatiesfreely negotiated and signed by mainly, ifnot entirely, Conservative administrations?

Yours,Professor Antony Flew

From Mr Norman SandersDear Sir,

When I wrote my article ‘The Numbers:the Sands in the Foundations of the EU’ Idid not expect the European Constitutionto arise from what I had supposed was itsgrave. But if it does get ratified it will becounter-productive. Firstly, creating aformal framework in an attempt to corralthe twenty-five can have little practicaleffect because the numerical energy that theessay describes is entirely informal.Secondly, the very existence and wording ofa constitution would itself be an additionalsideshow; formal energy would be con-sumed in repeatedly debating the meaningof the act, to the detriment of the primaryissues such as the CAP and the corruptionwithin the Commission. Even the clearlyworded American Constitution is a con-stant subject of debate and interpretation.And thirdly, a constitution would spreadcluster bombs throughout the memberstates as it clashed with the individualdomestic constitutions. The irony is thatnothing could be better envisaged to dividethe disparate members than this attempt tounite them. The informal numbers willensure that.

Yours faithfully,Norman SandersIpswich

From Mr Henry ShawDear Madam,

As an avid reader of the European JournalI am in full agreement with the gist of mostof the excellent articles and reviews itregularly contains. They are informativeand conclusively argued. The majority arecritical or downright dismissive of the manyaspects of the European Union federal‘project’. However I have yet to read thelogical conclusion to this torrent ofcriticism, which must be to withdraw fromthe EU monster before it swallows uscompletely. There cannot be any effectivehalf measures available to us despite theConservative Party’s declared objections tothe nascent Constitution and desire to re-negotiate the Treaties.

Such a policy is untenable. Furthermore,it will discourage most Conservative andfloating voters – or am I missing some-thing?

Straightforward repentance for pasterrors plus a convincing statement ofwithdrawal from an organisation whichcontinues remorselessly to damage ourcountry for no significant benefits wouldguarantee a flood of return voters, probablyto win the general election with honestleadership, and give a boost to theprosperity of our country. Also somethingreally worth conserving.

Yours faithfully,Henry Shaw,Democracy Movement, Cornwall

From Mr Edmund HallDear Sir,

The proposed European Con-stitution

Bravo! Congratulations, Foundationand Journal – and all who sail in them –on your splendid contribution tocausing Anthony Blair’s volte face on areferendum. Much to be done betweennow and then.

Best Wishes,Edmund Hall (a subscriber)Devon

Thank you - Ed

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

22


Jump to Contents

April/May 2004

HELSINKIA Brief History

by Michael McGruddyOn 12 June 1550 King Gustavus Vasa ofSweden ordered all merchants in the townsof Porvoo, Tammisaari, Rauma and Ulvilato relocate to the parish of Helsinge(Swedish Helsingfors) on the mouth of theriver Vantaa. The move was designed tocreate competition and steal trade from theneighbouring town of Tallinn – the Hanse-atic city on the opposite shore of the Gulf ofFinland (present day Estonia). By 1561,Sweden had effectively conquered the cityof Tallinn and Estonia.

In 1640, Queen Christina of Swedendecided that the location of their new portin the rapids at the mouth of the riverVantaa was unfavourable. The decision wasmade to move the city further south to theouter islands where deeper waters allowedthe town to become more competitive fortrade in the Baltic Sea. The new location wasknown as the Vironniemi headland, presentday Kruununhaka, near the city centre.

As time went on, Helsinki proved to bemoderately successful as a trading port.However, in 1703 Russia established its newcapital, St Petersburg, not far from theFinnish border. The 18th century saw therise in Russian power, which greatly affectedthe growth and future of Helsinki. In thecoming years Helsinki witnessed war, theplague, and widespread hunger. TheRussians eventually occupied (and razed)Helsinki during what was known as theGreat Hate (Great Northern War) of 1713-21 and yet again in 1742. After the firstinvasion, Helsinki began to rebuild for thethird time.

In 1748, after losing the war, Swedenrealised the essential need to fortify Hel-sinki. The fortress marked the beginning ofa turning point in the history of the city andit saw the dawn of prosperity and ever-growing sea trade.

In 1808, Sweden was forced to declare wardue to the power politics of both Napoleonand Tsar Alexander I. However, despitebeing called ‘The Gibraltar of the North’by a historian at the time, in May 1808 thefortress and its military surrendered toRussian forces without a fight. This markedthe beginning of 110 years of Russian rule.

The Russians had an effect on Helsinkithat can still be seen today. Finland wasannexed to Russia as an AutonomousGrand Duchy in 1809. After taking the

country from the decaying Swedish empire,Alexander I decided that the capital neededto be closer to St Petersburg in order to keepclose tabs on Finland’s domestic policies. In1812, Helsinki was declared the capital ofFinland.

To reflect the power of Russia and theTsar, a dramatic new plan was created torebuild the city after it was virtuallydestroyed by a fire in 1808. Two men werechosen to spearhead the project: German-born architect Carl Ludwig Engel and localarchitect Johan Albrecht Ehrenström. Itcould be said that they, along with theRussians, set in motion the beginning ofwhat would eventually become Helsinki’s“Renaissance”. The mid-19th century sawHelsinki grow from a small trading town ofaround 4,000 in 1810 to a populous admin-istrative and university town of 50,000 in1850.

At the turn of the 20th century, Helsinkiwas developing into the industrial power-house that King Gustavus Vasa had alwayswanted. It was during this time that thatsome of Finland’s greatest achievementswere made, including the building ofrailways.

The arts were also a major focal point atthis period in Helsinki’s history. Forexample Jean Sibelius, who’s music was fig-ured prominently, took a place in the heartsof many Finns due to the growing sense ofnational pride and Finland’s drive forautonomy against Russian encroachment.

The First World War caused a con-siderable amount of unrest in Russia andultimately led to the CommunistRevolution. Seizing on opportunity, Finlanddeclared independence on 6 December1917. However, the country quickly plungedinto a civil war as various parties tried to

gain control of the new Republic. As thefighting continued, the Government wasforced to leave Helsinki only to return inMay of 1918 under the leadership ofGeneral C.G.E. Mannerheim. After theGeneral’s success, the Government quicklydrew up the present-day Constitution andeffectively established Finland as anindependent republic in 1919.

As the 20th century progressed, Helsinkiquickly grew into a world-class capital. Noteven the Second World War was enough tostop the fast pace of development. When theWar was over, Helsinki experienced aninflux in the migration of rural landowners,who moved to the capital. Culturally andsocially, Helsinki progressed very much likethat of the rest of the world during this time.Another architectural renaissance tookplace in which Finland’s best-knownmodern architect, Alvar Alto, constructedsome of his most famous works, includingFinlandia Hall.

Most recently, 1995 saw Finland’s entryinto the European Union. Today Helsinki isa cultural focal point of the Baltic region. Ithas won much international praise for itsapparent lack of corruption and high levelof economic competitiveness. In 2000Helsinki was chosen as one of the nineEuropean Cities of Culture. It is quicklybecoming a major technology centre and iscurrently the second-fastest growing city inall of Europe. Helsinki can surely expect toenjoy the comforts of its ultramodern infra-structure whilst still moving progressivelyforward into the 21st century.

Michael McGruddy is currently studyingfinance at Drexel University in Philadelphia,PA. He works as a research assistant at theEuropean Foundation.

Phot

o c/

o Su

omen

linna

23

April/May 2004

Jump to Contents


GETTING THERE

By Air: FinnairPhone +44 (0)870 241 4411Flights from Heathrow from €110.*Approx 3 hrs 10 min from London; allow20-25 min for cab to the city centre.

ACCOMMODATION

Hotel KampPohjoisesplanadi 29, 00100 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 576 111 / Fax +358 (0)9576 1122www.hotelkamp.fiHotel Kamp is the first luxury hotel toappear amongst the Nordic countries.Established in 1887, the hotel sets thestandards for luxury and prestige. Itboasts 179 rooms including deluxe andexecutive rooms, speciality suites, and theinfamous Mannerheim Suite. Prices rangefrom €365 – €1185 for deluxe andexecutive suites and €2750 for theMannerheim. This is the place to see andbe seen when visiting Helsinki.Lord HotelLönnrotinkatu 29, 00180 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 615 815 / Fax +358 (0)9680 1315www.lordhotel.fiThe Lord Hotel offers the best of bothworlds – old world charm and modernefficiency. After passing through thecastle’s massive, romantic doors, guestsare welcomed by a spacious, well-litreception area and world-class restaurant.The hotel currently has 24 single and 22double rooms along with 2 suites and 2saunas. Prices range from €90 for asingle/double to around €230 for thesuites.Hotel AuroraHelsinginkatu 50, 00530 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 770 100 / Fax +358 (0)97701 0200www.hotelaurorahelsinki.comA peaceful, quiet hotel that is relativelyclose to the city centre. It has undergonerenovations in the past few years to ach-ieve the present sophisticated, attractive,and modern look. The hotel consists of 70rooms with prices starting around €100.

would be complete without experiencinga truly traditional Finnish sauna. Forgetthe hotel saunas and head to thiscompletely wood-heated public sauna,which is amongst the most famous inHelsinki. Prices are about €6.50 perperson and an additional massage can bereserved in advance.Suomenlinna Maritime FortressSuomenlinna, 00190 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 684 1850, (0)9 684 1880www.suomenlinna.fiBuilt by Augustin Ehrensvärd in 1748,Suomenlinna is considered one of theworld’s largest sea fortresses. It waserected by Sweden (Finland was part oftheir empire at the time) to protect theeastern frontier from invasion. To get tothe fortress, take a ferry from MarketSquare to the Suomenlinna islands.Temppeliaukio ChurchLutherinkatu 3, 00100 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 494 698Quarried directly out of the surroundingnatural bedrock, Temppeliaukio Churchlooks like anything but a church. It’s sleekmodern design and amazing acoustics(concerts are actually staged here) make itone of Finland’s most popular touristattractions. Admission is free.

GOING OUT

Artic Ice BarYliopistonkatu 5, 00100 HelsinkiPhone: +358 (0)9 278 1855www.uniq.fiFor a completely unique experience, tryUNIQ’s Artic Ice Bar. The temperature is aconstant –5 °C to prevent the 20 cm thickwalls of ice from melting. In the event thatyou get too cold, the bar lends warmingcapes and gloves. So bundle up and ordera Finland-based vodka drink (The bar’sspeciality).Sauna BarEerikinkatu 27, 00180 HelsinkiPhone: +358 (0)9 586 5550www.saunabar.netThe Sauna Bar takes the traditionalFinnish sauna to a whole new level. MostFinns frequent the bar after work to play afew games a pool. From there they relax inone of the two saunas – only to later cooldown in the bar/club with a few drinkswhilst listening to the DJ spin.StoryvilleMuseokatu 8, 00100 HelsinkiPhone +358 9 408 007 / Fax: +358 9 447950Storyville is the best-known jazz club inHelsinki. The place is frequently hosting

EATING

KappeliEteläesplanadi 1, 00130 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 681 2440www.kappeli.fiKappeli consists of four restaurant milieusthat are intimate, relaxed, and delicious.The venue is ideal for both those with afull meal in mind and those just wishingto take a quick coffee break after shop-ping. The menu changes according toseasons and there is a strong emphasis on‘fresh domestic seasonal products’.Reservations for the dining hall arerecommended.Restaurant LasipalatsiMannerheimintie 22-24, 00100 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 612 6700 / Fax +358(0)9 6126 7070www.ravintola.lasipalatsi.fiBuilt in the 1930’s, Lasipalatsi recentlyunderwent a complete renovation andreopened last autumn. The restaurant hasstayed true to its original functionaliststyle. It seats 250 and includes twocabinets and a winter garden that can berented out privately. It should be notedthat Lasipalatsi was voted bestHelsinkiMenu restaurant in 2001.

SHOPPING

The most popular shopping streets in thecity centre are Mannerheimintie andAleksanterinkatu. The Nordic region’slargest department store, Stockmann, islocated on the corner of these two streets.Another popular department store,Sokos, is located a few hundred metersaway. Both of these shops are ideal for acomprehensive selection of high-qualitybrands and one-stop shopping.

Aleksanterinkatu is the street connectingMannerheimintie with Senate Square.Along this stretch, one can find the topFinnish designers as well as smallspeciality shops and boutiques. One lastplace of interest is the Kiseleff Bazaar.Popular among visitors and the localsalike, handicrafts and souvenirs can bepurchased for friends and family beforeheading home.

guest musicians from abroad, whichmakes it a popular nightspot among thelocals. There is a less crowded pubupstairs for sitting down and enjoyingyour drinks while listening to some light,easy jazz.

SIGHTS

Kotiharju SaunaHarjutorinkatu 1, 00500 HelsinkiPhone +358 (0)9 753 1535First and foremost – No trip to Finland

24


Jump to Contents

April/May 2004

C H U N N E L V I S I O N

TobyMorison

Human Rights,Human Wrongs

by Robert Oulds

The police in Britain have beenhamstrung and now it is the turn of our

armed forces. Britain’s armed forces face anunseen danger. A danger that threatenslives; a danger that threatens the UK’smilitary effectiveness. This danger is theculture of overbearing health and safetyrulings and a fear of breaching human‘rights’ and facing litigious lawyers.

This has already helped claim onecasualty. The fêted then reviled and nowrenowned again Col. Tim Collins, OBE, isleaving the army partly because politicalcorrectness and petty bureaucracy arecrippling it.

Partly such an attitude comes from thebelief that tough training will not bepopular when it comes to recruitingBritain’s Generation X-Box. Yet the mainmenace comes from the European Court ofJustice and the Health and Safety Executive.Now before exercises officers must fill outrisk assessment forms just as teachers inschools must. This has lead to some aspectsof important training being abandoned.Our gallant British soldiers deserve bettertraining and support. We need militaryeffectiveness, not political correctness.

On the one hand the litigation nation isuniting Britain. Doctors. Teachers. Coaches.Ministers. They all share a common fear:being sued on the job. On the other handthe new ‘Rights’ culture may also open aseries of avenues for costly litigation andambulance chasing lawyers. Bizarrely, Euro-pean integration is in danger of turning theUK, at least in one way, into the UnitedStates of America where Tort laws cost theequivalent of 5% on income tax.

What is more, Charles Clarke, MP, theEducation Secretary, has called on a school’sunion to end its ban on school trips. TimCollins, MP, the Shadow Education Secre-tary, has said that money should go intoschools not legal bills and criticised skyhigh insurance costs. Stephen Byers in his‘blame, claim and gain’ speech at The Guar-dian New Realities Conference also criti-cised the compensation culture. He said,“Compensation payments in schools havereached £200 million a year – the equivalentof the salaries of 8,000 teachers. In the healthservice payments for medical negligence haverisen from £1 million in 1974 to £477 million– enough to pay for 27,000 extra nurses.Potential claims over the next five years willamount to an estimated £4.5 billion.”

Yet none have spoken of the Europeanangle. It is the interfering European Courtof Justice, excessive EU inspired health andsafety legislation and the Human Rights Act1998, now elevated to constitutional status,that makes so much of this possible.

Furthermore, the NHS is set to suffer as aresult of the EU’s extension of the WorkingTime Directive inspired by its belief thatpeople have the right not to work hard.Have you ever wondered why the symbol ofBritain the RouteMaster bus must go and bereplaced by the German built fire-hazardthe bendy bus? Why is your local library, oryour parents or grandparents care homeunder threat from closure? Why? Becausethey do not fit in with the EU directive thatforced upon the UK the Disability Dis-crimination Act. EU inspired amendmentsto the Race Relations Act and the SexualDiscrimination Act will add burdens ontoBritain and will allow for a form of positivediscrimination in recruitment advertising.

But the main threat is still to come, thisemanates from the Charter of FundamentalRights.

On one hand the Charter only (perhapspointlessly) enshrines in law rights that havelong existed in Britain. On the other it willadd new burdens onto small businesses,businesses that may not be able to absorbthe costs.

Perhaps many may agree with the prin-ciples set out in the Charter of FundamentalRights. The point is, however, that theguarantor of our rights will be theinterventionist and left-leaning EuropeanCourt of Justice (the ECJ), an organisationthat has a track record of interpreting EUlaws in a way that leads to the most damage.The ECJ is an organisation that has scantregard for free-market economic principles

and is certainly not as pro-business as theBritish authorities - even Whitehall.

The provisions in the Charter that couldcause the most damage to businesses,charities and state services alike are:

Article 23: Equality between men andwomen: This is interfering, but honorable,however it includes Euro-speak for the ECJto push for positive discrimination.

Article 27: Workers’ rights to informationand consultation within the undertaking:This will lead to time consuming negotiat-ions and undermine the ability of managersto run their organisations as they knowbest.

Article 28: Right of collective bargainingand action: This enshrines the right to strikeand will reverse our industrial relationslegislation to mid-1980s levels.

Article 30: Protection in the event ofunjustified dismissal: This may allow theECJ to project the European concept of the‘job for life’ into Britain. Sounds good, butundermining an organisation’s ability tohigher and fire will in the long term restrictgrowth and push up unemployment tocontinental levels.

Articles 31 & 34: Fair and just workingconditions and social security and assistance:This will allow the EU to further limitworking hours, extend holidays and providemore maternity and illness leave. Soundsgood, if you do not work for one of thosesmall businesses or charities that goesunder.

It also forces governments, at the expenseof the taxpayer, to continue to provide awelfare state. So no hope of reform, then, forthat 1940’s monster that has grown out ofcontrol.

What is there that can be done to stop thisalien culture emanating from the ChannelTunnel, which is sweeping over this land, aculture which damages every aspect of lifeand risks the lives of soldiers that haveenough to contend with from Geoff Hoon?In the first instance we must not sign up tothe EU Constitution, but that will not allowus to resolve the other problems that face us.All that is needed is a small amount ofpolitical will. Parliament can repeal oramend the European Community Act 1972so as to make the decisions of the EuropeanCourt of Justice not binding unlessapproved by our own House of Lords andmake the directives not binding unlessapproved by our Secretary of State.

Cllr Robert Oulds is the Director of theBruges Group

Please enclose your cheque made out to “The European Journal” and return this form to:Subscriptions, The European Foundation, 5th Floor, Silver City House, 62 Brompton Rd, London SW3 1BW

Telephone: +44 (0) 20 7590 9901 Facsimile: +44 (0) 20 7590 9975 E-mail: [email protected]

I enclose my annual subscription of £ (minimum £30, Senior Citizens & Students £15.00)

plus postage: UK nil, Europe £4, Outside Europe £8 made payable to The European Journal.

Name (in capitals): Title:

Address (in capitals):

Postcode:

Tel: Fax: e-mail:

✂

UK: Minimum £30; UK Senior Citizens & Students: £20.00; Europe excl. UK: £34; Rest of World: £38

Subscription Rates & Donations

Donations should be made payable to “The European Foundation”; subscriptions to “The European Journal”.

The European Foundation

Activities

The Foundation pursues its objectivesby:

• organising meetings and conferencesin the UK and in mainland Europe;

• publishing newsletters, periodicalsand other material and participatingin radio and television broadcasts;

• producing policy papers and briefs;

• monitoring EC developments and theevolution of public opinion and itsimpact on the political process in themain EC countries;

• liaison with like-minded organ-isations in other EC and EC applicantcountries and elsewhere;

• liaison with trade associations andother professional bodies .affected byEC action and policy.

Objectives

The objectives of the Foundation, set outin its constitution, are as follows:

• to provide a forum for the develop-ment of ideas and policies forthe furtherance of commerce anddemocracy in Europe;

• to increase co-operation betweenindependent sovereign states in theEuropean Community and thepromotion of the widening andenlargement of that Community toinclude all applicant European nations;

• to resist by all lawful democratic meansall and any moves tending towards thecoming into being of a Europeanfederal or unitary state and for thefurtherance and/or maintenance ofsuch end;

The Foundation

The Foundation addresses itself to thegeneral public and to politicians,journalists, academics, students,economists, lawyers, businessmen,trade associations and the City.

It concerns itself with the followingmain topics:

• industrial and commercial policy;

• economic and monetary matters;

• foreign policy;

• security and defence;

• environmental issues;

• the Common Agricultural Policy;

• the reform of Communityinstitutions;

• the developing world.

The Great College Street Group was formed inOctober 1992 in order to oppose the MaastrichtTreaty. The group, consisting of academics,businessmen, lawyers and economists, providedcomprehensive briefs in the campaign to win thearguments in Parliament and in the country.The European Foundation was created after the

Maastricht debates. Its task has been to mount avigorous and constructive campaign in theUnited Kingdom and throughout Europe forthe reform of the EC as a community ofindependent sovereign states. The Foundationcontinues to establish links with other like-minded institutes across Europe.

Rates shown wshould be correct at least until Summer 2004, but please check by ‘phone/fax/e-mail before subscribing.

11 5 the 3.00 european journal€¦ · bill cash, mp, & bill jamieson: the strangulation of...

Documents