Grand Deception over the Aim of the EU Intergovernmental Conference

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Grand Deception over the Aim of the EU Intergovernmental Conference

For Your Information:
IGC - Declaration of Rome
"Road Map" for EU Constitution
IGC: Journey Towards New Constitution Under Way, But Europe Divided

European Ombudsman calls for new Constitution to set up a system of non-judicial remedies

IGC Launch:
European NGOs Publish Concerns Over Justice and Home Affairs and Fundamental Rights Provisions in Draft Constitution

Safeguards needed for EU asylum rules on "safe countries", warns UNHCR

Oppose this totally undemocratic EU Constitution

The member states of the European Union began drawing up a new Constitutional Treaty for the EU at the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on October 4. The starting point of the negotiations was the draft Treaty drawn up by the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The fifteen current member states participated in the IGC as did the ten accession states. The three candidate countries, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey, took part as observers. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister participated from the British government.

In the IGC, member states are taking decisions on the strengthening of the European Union in the interests of the EU monopolies. The British government however describes the agenda as one of making the EU institutions more transparent; more accountable; and more effective, and therefore "better able to meet the challenges of the 21st century".

Workers should not overlook the reactionary essence of the project for a Constitutional Treaty. It is based on the agenda of the EU monopolies to build up the EU as an imperialist bloc, as a single market for the movement of goods and capital to capture the maximum capitalist profit, and to build up the EU economically, politically and militarily in opposition to the strategy of the US imperialism and its monopolies for a hegemonic role in the world.

For the workers to look towards the EU as a model of so-called "employment rights" is fraught with danger and has the effect of disarming them and involving them in the dog-fights caused by the contradictions between the EU states. When TUC general secretary Brendan Barber says that unions are concerned that some European governments seem to be moving away from the ideals of a social Europe towards one more concerned with the interests of big business, he is perpetuating that illusion of a so-called "social Europe" or "people’s Europe" which can exist without social revolution and democratic renewal of the EU states. "Big business" is precisely the force that is strengthening the EU, its laws and its proposed new constitution in its interests.

The US, for its part, is interested in keeping the EU states divided in order to keep Europe in check on the one hand. On the other, it seeks to dominate Europe itself, and Britain is its trusted ally in this project. This has had the aim of making Europe a stable market for US trade and investment, and in pursuit of its global domination following the collapse of the bipolar division of the world. While global hegemony is still the over-riding aim, commentators have pointed out that the Bush administration at present prefers the former course, and that the breakdown of consensus over the war against Iraq is a significant factor in this. Indeed, some commentators have suggested that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has as one of its prime motives the pre-empting of Eurozone domination of the oil reserves of the Middle East.

The methodology of the talks, according to reports, was that European leaders took their turn around a giant oval table, with each president or prime minister given four minutes to offer a position on the draft of Europe's future constitution. This "tour de table" on October 4 was the first time that former Eastern European countries sat alongside Western European members of the Union, with equal voting power. But the meeting exposed the difficulties in enlarging to a union of 25 countries. Officials complained that they had wasted time listening to prepared speeches that stated positions everyone already knew. "There is a problem of methodology," said a foreign minister from a large Western European country. "If everyone takes his turn repeating their positions it can take a very long time." The minister, who asked not to be identified, called it a "heavy" process. This typifies the impatience the big powers have towards the participation of the lesser states. Their aim is not to listen but to manoeuvre to ensure that their interests prevail.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said in a press conference at the IGC, that this was an exercise of the sovereign powers of the independent nation states jointly within the EU. He has also spoken of "pooled sovereignty". Sovereignty means unfettered decision-making power, and in the modern definition implies that the people are those decision-makers. This reveals the deception at the heart of the EU. As the EU strengthens and consolidates itself under the domination of the big powers, it stands increasingly against the sovereignty of nations and peoples. Sovereignty is a quality which either exists or not, it can be exercised or not. "Pooled" sovereignty is sovereignty compromised. The concept of a "super-state" which Jack Straw tries to demolish is not as such the issue. The issue is who makes the decisions and in whose interests.

The Foreign Secretary’s argument, which at the press conference he commended Italian prime minister Berlusconi for elaborating, is particularly criminal. His argument is that the second world war was the "world’s worst ever civil war within Europe", but because independent nation states have now "been able to come together to exercise their sovereign power jointly" such "internecine struggle and strife" is prevented. The second world war was not morally neutral and neither was it simply mutually destructive. It ended with the defeat of fascism (including Italian fascism) and of Hitler’s project to conquer Europe backed by the industrialists and financiers (including of the US), wipe out the socialist Soviet Union and to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale. It ended with an international rule of law which aimed to put an end to such atrocities and the massacre of millions. This is very different from the picture that Berlusconi distortedly paints and Jack Straw endorses. The question must be asked: is the European Union assisting or facilitating such a project? That Jack Straw without turning a hair can speak of "Soviet tyranny" while praising Berlusconi is at the least suggestive.

The working class must take up the opposition to the strengthening of the agenda of European finance capital, an agenda which is adding to the anti-social offensive nationally and internationally. The right of countries to their sovereignty must be defended, while the working class must intensify its project to constitute itself as the nation in order that the agenda of the monopolies can be defeated.

Together in Rome on the occasion of the opening of the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) to revise the Treaties, the Heads of State and of Government of Member Countries, of acceding countries and candidates to the European Union, the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Commission:

- reaffirm that the process of European integration is our continent's essential calling as the instrument for a more efficacious international role for the Union in supporting peace, democracy, prosperity and solidarity in all member States;

- highlight the fact that the imminent enlargement constitutes a historical moment which renders the Union richer in terms of identity and culture and extends the possibility of promoting shared values and of conferring weight and authority to Europe's role in world;

- confirm the importance of the commitment to endow the European Union with a constitutional text based on the equality of its States, people and citizens that assures the efficacy, consistency and efficiency of Europe's role in the world and take up the Convention's Draft Treaty as a good basis for starting in the Intergovernmental Conference;

- renew the expectation of a conclusion of the constitutional negotiations in advance of the European Parliament elections in June 2004 in order to allow European citizens to cast their vote in full awareness of the future architecture of the Union;

- stress that the adoption of a Constitutional Treaty represents a vital step in the process aimed at making Europe more cohesive, more transparent and democratic, more efficient and closer to its citizens, inspired by the will to promote universal values above all through cooperation with international multilateral organisations and confirming a strong and balanced transatlantic relationship;

- give homage, in the light of this imminent and significant passage, to those who with great foresight, from the end of the Second World War to the present, invested their energy in the process of European integration: from the Founders of the initial Community to the political leaders of the member states who continued and carried forward their work, to the citizens and above all to Europe's youth who are called upon to define the image and identity of tomorrow's Europe.

October 4, 2003

The Italian Presidency has traced a working "road map" for the drafting of the final text of the European Constitution. Acceding Countries will participate fully in the work of the IGC, on an equal footing with current Member States. The three Candidate Countries - Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey - will participate as observers.

The phases of the "road map" are as follows:

- 13 October - Luxembourg - Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs
- 16 October - Brussels - Summit of Heads of State and Government
- 27 October - Brussels - Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs
- 18 November - Brussels - Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs
- 28-29 November - Rome - "Conclave" of Ministers for Foreign Affairs
- 9 December - Brussels - Meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs
- 12-13 December - Brussels - Summit of Heads of State and Governments on the Constitution

The main challenges, according to the Italian Presidency

The principal challenge facing the IGC is that it will have to avoid wasting the patrimony of which the Convention itself consists and reducing the contribution that governments, national parliaments and the European Parliament have made in their definition of the Constitutional Treaty.

The draft Treaty will have to be improved and, in the course of the Intergovernmental Conference, Member States will be able to suggest their particular points of interest, but this will have to take place in a selective manner and in a constructive spirit, avoiding a general reopening of debates that have engaged the Convention for many months now.

It will be necessary to fill in residual gaps in positions on several aspects concerning the institutional reforms, e.g. the rotation of the presidency of the Union Council of ministers. All this will have to take place in the spirit of constructive collaboration that has characterised the work of the Convention with the aim of identifying solutions that address the expectations of Members large and small alike.

The second challenge regards the need to complete the work of the IGC before the elections for the European Parliament planned for June of 2004, so that citizens will be able to go to the polls fully aware of the Union's new architecture.

from the newsletter distributed by the Italian Presidency of the EU Council - 6 October:

The long journey towards the enlarged European Union's new constitution has set sail at the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), tasked with finalizing the document. The IGC, which got under way in the Rome district of EUR on Saturday, is chaired by Italy which holds the rotating EU presidency. It is being attended by delegates from the 25 EU states (the 15 current members plus the 10 countries joining in 2004) as well as the three candidate nations (Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey), all of whom have arrived at the talks with their own agenda. Discussion will continue until a conclave of foreign ministers in Rome, followed by the summit marking the end of Italy's presidency in Brussels in mid-December. A group of states, France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Spain, Poland and the Benelux countries are largely opposed to reopening discussion on the draft treaty, drawn up by the Convention on the Future of Europe which was chaired by former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing. They are aiming to conclude the IGC between December and January, in order to ensure the new constitution is ratified before the European elections of June 2004. Nevertheless, Spain and Poland are opposed to the system of "double majority" voting suggested in the draft document, preferring the weighted vote system established under the Treaty of Nice in 2000. Britain wants to keep vetoing rights on questions relating to defence, foreign affairs and tax. France continues to fight a four-nation group led by Italy that wants the constitution to include a reference to Europe's "common Jewish-Christian roots". A bloc of other states, led by Austria, Finland and Hungary is opposed to the current form of the draft. They say each nation should be represented on the European Commission by its own commissioner with equal voting rights. They are also determined to protect the current presidency system, which is rotated between members on a six-month basis. The Convention's document envisions a fixed president holding office for two-and-a-half years. These demands are supported by the European Commission. EC Chief Romano Prodi has asked for more flexibility to change the future constitution and an extension of the policy areas which can be decided by majority voting. (Ansa)

The European Ombudsman, P Nikiforos Demanders, told the European Parliament that the new Constitution for Europe should include a clear system of non-judicial remedies for citizens. He said: "The draft Constitution for Europe tells citizens what judicial remedies they can use to defend their rights under European Union law but does not mention the range of non-judicial remedies they have. Non-judicial remedies have the advantage of being free, flexible and fast when compared with going to court"

Tony Bunyan, editor of Statewatch, commented: "The European Ombudsman highlights a glaring gap in peoples' rights in the EU. A host of new powers have been given to police, customs and immigration officials, a whole series of EU databases holding personal information on individuals are in place or are will be in the near future. Short of going to court, which few people can afford, there are no constitutional mechanisms for making complaints about the abuse of power or to question the data held.

"The creation of a system of non-judicial remedies would not just be an avenue for complaint but would also begin to place restraints on the practices of officials and agencies acting under growing EU-wide operational procedures"

The full text of Ombudsman press release is available in pdf format at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/sep/ombconstit.pdf

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles)
CIMADE (Service oecumenique d'entraide)
FINNISH JURISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
ILPA (Immigration Law Practitioners' Association)
JURA HOMINIS (Italian section of International Commission of Jurists)
JUSTICE
NJCM (Dutch section of International Commission of Jurists)
STATEWATCH
OMCT Europe (World Organisation Against Torture)
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE

In the lead up to the October 4 launch of the Intergovernmental Conference, and on the eve of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Council, 11 non-governmental organisations working in the fields of asylum, immigration, criminal law and human rights today released a joint submission to the IGC detailing their concerns about the draft European Constitution.

In their paper, the NGOs are calling for the IGC to press for full observance of fundamental rights and to give substantive consideration to shortcomings in Part III of the draft Constitution, relating to policies on immigration, asylum, judicial cooperation in criminal matters and policing.

They say that without detailed clarification, some provisions in the new Constitution may be open to misuse and risk lowering existing human rights standards.

"As the Convention was given limited time and competence to consider these policy areas we press the IGC to revisit specific areas of concern in Part III (Chapter IV) on an area of freedom, security and justice," the joint submission states.

Among the issues raised in the joint paper:

Managing asylum flows

The draft Constitution contains a provision for "partnership and cooperation with third countries for the purpose of managing inflows of people applying for asylum or subsidiary or temporary protection."

Without clarification, this provision "is open to misuse if Member States seek to ‘sub-contract’ their protection duties to third countries," the joint NGO submission states. The article "contains the possibility that the EU could seek to coerce third countries into admitting those seeking protection in the EU."

Immigration

In the move towards a common immigration policy, the reference to fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally in Member States needs to be clarified and amplified. The standards must be equal to the treatment of Member State nationals.

European public prosecutor

Clarification is needed that the creation of a European Public Prosecutor within Eurojust necessarily implies the establishment of a coherent set of European criminal procedural rules with adequate safeguards for the rights of the defence, including, in particular, adequate legal representation.

Judicial cooperation in criminal matters

A legal base is established to set minimum rules concerning the rights of individuals in criminal procedure and the rights of victims of crime. However, the NGO submission expresses concern at the absence of an independent monitoring mechanism. Such an evaluation of compliance in law enforcement is an essential element of the mutual trust and recognition that are to be the basis of
judicial cooperation in the EU.

Fundamental rights

Full implementation of the principles contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and their justiciability, should form a positive obligation for Member States instead of being left to their discretion.

1. See: "Towards a Constitution for Europe: Justice and Home Affairs. Comments from Non-Governmental Organisations for the IGC" (document available at): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/oct/Towards_a_Constitution_for_Europe.pdf (pdf file)
2. For the documentation, annotated texts and critiques on the Constitution see Statewatch's: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/aug/constitution.htm

3. For further comment/background and interviews:

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL EU Office (Brussels) Tel: 32-2-5021499
ECRE (European Council on Refugees and Exiles) (Brussels) Tel: 32-2-5145939
CIMADE (Service Oecumenique d'entraide) (Paris) Tel: 33-1- 44186050
FINNISH JURISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (Helsinki) Tel: 35-8-9440522
ILPA (Immigration Law Practitioners' Association) (London): Tel: 44-20-72518383
JURA HOMINIS (Italian section of International Commission of Jurists) Tel: 39-3493628484
JUSTICE (London) 44-20-73295100
NJCM (Dutch section of the International Commission of Jurists) (Leiden) Tel: 31-71-5277748
STATEWATCH (London) Tel: 44-20-88021882
OMCT Europe (World Organisation Against Torture) (Brussels) Tel: 32-2-218 3719
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE Brussels Office Tel: 32-2-505 46 44

On the eve of the European Union meeting to discuss EU asylum legislation on "safe countries", the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) expressed concerns that if these concepts were introduced without proper safeguards, they could seriously compromise the protection of refugees.

The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council met on October 2 and 3 in Brussels to discuss a crucial piece of EU asylum legislation to permit the establishment of lists of countries that are considered "safe".

According to UNHCR, the asylum procedures directive – one of two remaining pieces of legislation to be decided during the first phase of EU harmonisation of asylum law and practices – is of fundamental importance to the whole future of the asylum system in Europe.

On the agenda of last week’s meeting were two separate notions concerning "safe countries". Firstly, the idea that an asylum seeker can be returned to another country where he or she could have claimed asylum – the so-called "safe third country" concept. Secondly, the idea that some asylum seekers’ countries of origin are safe, and they can therefore be presumed not to be refugees.

Among a number of problems it has with the current draft directive, UNHCR said it was concerned that if "safe country" concepts were introduced without sufficient safeguards, they could seriously compromise the protection of refugees and deviate from international standards.

The refugee agency is particularly worried that the asylum procedures directive may allow lists of "safe third countries" to be established and that, due to insufficient safeguards or vague terminology, these could lead to asylum seekers being summarily sent back to non-EU countries without any guarantee that their asylum claim will be properly dealt with there. Such countries might be transit countries, with which the asylum seeker has no firm connection whatsoever, or even a country where the asylum seeker has never set foot.

"If this were to happen, it would be a clear case of avoiding responsibilities," said Raymond Hall, Director of UNHCR’s Europe Bureau. "Even worse, if it is done without the express agreement of the third country, it could lead to people being stuck in airports, unable to access any asylum system anywhere, or even to people being returned to a dangerous situation in their home country – which is, of course, against international law."

UNHCR has released a series of comments on the draft legal texts currently under negotiation, telling the EU member states that a number of conditions need to be met before responsibility for an asylum seeker can be transferred from one country to another.

Firstly, the decision should not be unilateral. The so-called safe third country should be notified that the asylum seeker is being transferred and give "its express consent to accept responsibility for examining the application".

The country itself should be safe not only in theory, i.e. because it has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and has a national asylum system. The asylum system should be fully functioning in practice, which is often not the case. For example, access to an asylum procedure can often be a major problem. UNHCR has told EU states that, in the absence of a common set of legally binding standards such as those contained in the EU’s own Dublin Regulation, the judgement on whether a third country is safe can only be reached through an individual analysis of each case and not on the basis of lists.

Historically, the "safe third country" notion has been mostly used by EU countries as a tool for dealing with applicants coming via Central European countries such as the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, which share a border with the EU. UNHCR said it believes this concept will largely lose its relevance when these states themselves join the EU next year.

With regard to the return of people to transit countries, UNHCR suggested there should be "a meaningful link or connection that would make it reasonable for an applicant to seek asylum in that State.... Mere transit through a third country does generally not constitute such a meaningful link." The agency also expressed concern at proposals to expand the application of the "safe third country" concept to include countries with which the applicant does not necessarily have any links at all, and has not even travelled through.

On the issue of "safe countries of origin", UNHCR said it does not oppose the concept if it is used as a tool to decide which asylum seekers are subjected to accelerated procedures, particularly at the appeal stage. However, the procedures themselves should have sufficient safeguards, including some form of review. An asylum seeker must be given an opportunity to explain why he or she might be at risk in a country that is generally considered to be safe.

In addition, the procedure to determine which countries of origin are "safe" should be sufficiently flexible to take account of both sudden and gradual changes in a given country of origin.

"If a country experiences a coup d’état or some other form of social or political upheaval," said Hall, "it is obviously important that immigration officials do not continue automatically to treat it as a 'safe' country, because it still appears on their safe country list. The system will need to take account of increased risks of persecution without delay, otherwise terrible mistakes could be made."

Democrat Broadsheet number 15 *

The Convention drafting an EU constitution is fundamentally undemocratic and a facade of democratic legitimacy. The Convention's 105 members consists of two representatives from each national parliament of EU members and the applicant countries plus MEPs and Commissioners.

1. Making an undemocratic Constitution in an undemocratic way
Their project is to foist a Constitution on the EU to enable major new initiatives for closer integration to be taken without consideration of the peoples within the EU or the parliaments they elect.

The peoples of the EU have not sought a Union State Constitution, that decision has come from the top down not from the bottom up. Four-fifths of the 105 member Convention are federalists. They want a more centralised supranational EU as a world power which necessitates a further demise of national democracy, independence and elected parliaments.

Governments have nominated senior politicians to the Convention, including the German and French foreign ministers. This indicates the document will be close to the "Constitutional Treaty" eventually signed at an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). It is the governments who will take the final decision on this Treaty for signing and ratification in 2004.

There is no provision for consultation with citizens or national parliaments by Convention members. There will be no opportunity for the peoples of Member State or their national parliaments to give their point of view or vote either beforehand on the Convention or incorporation into the next EU Treaty. There will be few subsequent referendums during the ratification process.

The basis of democratic state and liberty of citizens rests on the separation of powers between the legislature, executive and judiciary. The EU violates this separation and the outline EU Constitution retains the status quo.

The term "Constitutional Treaty" is a contradiction. A treaty is an agreement between two or more international legal persons, which continues in being after its conclusion. A constitution is a domestic legal document that constitutes or sets up a new political entity. In Britain there is no written constitution and government ministers can sign treaties using the royal prerogative.

The Convention consists of nominees with no popular mandate from either their fellow national citizens or EU citizens generally. The EU Constitution will override the sovereignty of Member States and shift those powers to the EU level. To disguise this audacity and assault on democracy the Convention document will be called a treaty. This implies Member State will remain juridically unchanged after ratification. In reality it will be a Constitution without democratic legitimacy and will give the coup de grace to national Constitutions that do have such legitimacy such as Ireland.

The house of Europe is being built on the ruins of national democracy and independence of the EU's member States.

2. EU State Constitution
To establish "a Union of European States which, while retaining their national identities, closely co-ordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competences on a federal basis." (Article 1 of outline Constitutional Treaty)

Although the word may be dropped because of political sensitivity, "federal" - a form of State, is used for the first time in an EU Treaty and recognises the EU has many features of a Federation. This is where a State divides governmental powers between the Federal, national, provincial or regional levels where federal law takes precedence over local state law.

In some respects, the EU is more centralised than existing Federations - the US Federation maintains equality between its states by ensuring each has two Senators. No such equality exists between EU member states, either through the Council of Ministers with unequal voting weights or so called European Parliament. The EU behaves ever more like a State or Superstate under the hegemony of the Major Members.

The Executive of the EU is the Commission which proposes all EU laws as though the legislature. It has judicial powers and imposes fines. Even though an appeal can be made to the Court of Justice, the Commission acts as a lower court. It also draws up and administers its own budget, with minimal democratic control.

The Council of Ministers makes laws as if it was a parliament and takes some executive decisions. The European Parliament cannot legislate any law and acts more like a Council or Assembly. The Court of Justice is not just a court but occasionally acts like a parliament - in the way the judgements have hugely extended the legal competence of the EU.

The EU has its own citizenship, and one can only be a citizen of one state. The EU has clearly defined borders and free movement of persons within them. The EU has its own currency, economic policy, common foreign and security policy - Rapid Reaction Force, and social policy. There is an embryonic police force in Europol, an embryonic judiciary in Eurojust, and a common European Arrest Warrant in preparation. There are common policies on various justice, home affairs, immigration, visa and asylum matters.

The American, German and Austrian peoples are members of national communities and in their own right give these federal states their legitimacy. There is no such European "demos" to give legitimacy to a "democratic" EU. Therefore the EU Constitution project is fundamentally flawed and misguided from the democratic point of view.

2.1 The Union name
Various proposals have been put forward such as Union State: European Community, European Union, United States of Europe or United Europe. This is of minor importance but will generate irrelevant posturing to hide what the beast is about rather than its real nature. The Article states the "Union is open to all European States..." This implies that Russia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and neighbouring states should be able to join the EU. But is Turkey with most of its peoples in Asia a European State?

Article 1 also states: "While retaining their national identities." This can be consistent with abolishing national independence. Many national identities around the world do not have political independence, a State and Government of their own.

2.2 New Constitutional basis for the EU
Article 4 of the outline Constitution gives the Union legal personality. The EU is an international organization established by treaties between member states, with some supranational elements. A Union Constitution is different and aims to give the EU a new constitutional basis establishing it as an international federal actor in its own right with a legal personality different from and superior to the legal personality of member states.

The Constitution breaks down the division between the three "Pillars" of the treaties. These are the supranational pillar where EU law applies, and the intergovernmental pillars of foreign policy, and justice and home affairs policy. That is according to Article 14, one unified constitutional political system, with a single institutional structure. This gives the Commission an initiating role in the intergovernmental pillars where to date it has had none. With its own legal personality, international treaties could be signed by the EU, which would not require ratification by member states.

3. A new citizenship
Article 5 states that every citizen of a Member State is a citizen of the Union and enjoys dual citizenship and established the "principle that there shall be no discrimination between cities of the Union on grounds of nationality."

This means any "EU citizen" could become President, Prime Minister, member of parliament or a Judge in any Member State. Non-nationals would acquire the right to vote in national general elections and all civic and national rights of citizens in every EU country would be acquirable automatically by the nationals of other EU States. The EU could confer citizenship on any person from outside the EU.

Even though the federalists might well create an EU State with citizens endowed with civic nationality, those citizens can never look on the EU as they do their own national states. They will regard EU citizenship as nothing more than an artificial construct. Only within the national community does there exist sufficient solidarity, mutual identification and mutuality of interest amongst people as to induce minorities to consent to majority rule, and obey a government based on that.

Such solidarity normally requires a common language and is the basis of a shared citizenship which people feel is real and is the basis of real political democracy. This underpins a people's allegiance to a government as "their" government and willingness to finance tax and an income transfer system which ties the richer and poorer regions and social classes of a Nation State together.

People will not look on the EU in the same way, whatever ambitious imaginings the Euro-federalists have - the EU is doomed, regardless of the Constitutional Treaty. EU citizens will never be willing to die for the EU, and will only notionally live for it. There is no European people or "demos", except in Eurobarometer statistics. There is no "we" comparable to a national "we". An EU State or Constitution can never obtain the legitimacy, authority and citizens' respect that national states and Constitutions are freely accorded and are entitled to demand. A democratic EU, like meaningful EU citizenship, must remain an impossible dream.

4. Making the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding
Article 6 aims to make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights binding in EU law as part of the Constitution. This was politically endorsed in the Treaty of Nice, which has now been ratified. These rights are a core element of national Constitutions and go to the heart of each State's juridical sys tem and sovereignty. The EU should abide by human rights, but it is a different matter to say the 15 judges or the Court of Justice should be given the final power to decide our rights. The objective is to give the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) a final competence in human rights matters, as against national Constitutions and Supreme Courts, and Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This is to be the keystone of an EU Federal Union.

Elements of the Charter are matters for Member States. If the Charter becomes justiciable before the EU Court of Justice through the Constitution, such a development would be a further instrument for subordinating the Member States to the EU centre. Some rights listed refer to areas of shared competence between the EU and Member States and others are largely nationally based like health care and education. If the Charter becomes justiciable in EU law and a citizen sues for breach of rights, the ECJ will have major scope for deciding the boundaries between the EU at national levels. This will be used to extend the scope of the EU as widely as possible, which has always been the thrust since its establishment.

Human rights standards in the Member State are not so defective that they require improvement by giving final control over them to the EU Court in Luxembourg. If the EU wishes to be bound by a code of rights, why does it not accede to the European Convention of Human Rights, as all 15 Member States have already done? This would put the ECJ under Jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which adjudicates on the Convention. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe unanimously warned against the creation of the two different categories of rights - the long established Convention on Human Rights and the fledgling Charter of Fundamental Rights.

If the Charter is made binding in EU law, all EU legislation and all judgements of the Court of Justice will acquire a new legal dimension, that of human rights as defined in the Charter. This would open vast scope for new EU and ECJ legislative and judicial intervention in people's lives. This would be portrayed as being ostensibly out of concern for peoples' rights, but in practice removing final jurisdiction over these from national Constitutions and the Court in Strasbourg by transferring it to the Brussels and the ECJ in Luxembourg.

4.1 EU Charter has more to do with power than rights
The Euro-centralisers who drafted the Charter envisaged that once it is supreme in EU law through incorporation in and EU Treaty, there will gradually be established a system of binding convergence indicators for cross national "harmonisation" of rights, a multi-annual implementation programme and a system of monitoring of national human rights standards by the EU. This would open up the scope for Brussels Interference in people's daily lives and for social policy-making by non-elected Euro-judges rather than by national parliaments and government, boggles the mind.

The Charter has more to do with power than rights. Most of the rights in the Charter sound splendid - except we already have them under national laws and the European Convention on Human Rights. The real reason for seeking to give the EU a human rights competence is the desire to turn the EU into a State where its Supreme Court, the ECJ is given the final say on what our rights are.

Human rights cover virtually every field of human life. While there is widespread consensus on what constitutes peoples' core human rights, there is no agreement on some highly sensitive areas - due legal process for example. Britain and Ireland have habeas corpus and trial by jury, whereas some EU states permit preventative detention, without the right to go before a court - corpus juris. Some countries legalise drugs and license prostitution and others forbid these.

Property rights, family law, rights appertaining to children, marriage, treatment of refugees, environmental controls all differ significantly between Member States. Everyone agrees people have a right to life but when does that begin and end? States differ in their laws on abortion and euthanasia. Should such matters be decided by a common standard laid down in the case-law of the ECJ applicable across the EU? All genuine democrats will resist such a development whatever their particular views.

4.2 Undermining fundamental rights
A "fundamental" right is valid in all circumstances and is why many State Constitutions logically regard such rights as superior and prior to al positive law. This is not based on man-made law but on the law of nature or natural law. This basic principle is not accepted in EU Treaties or the EU Charter which begs the question of what constitutes a greater or lesser protection of a right?

Any uniform system of rights would give the ECJ ultimate decision on such matters. This Charter adds nothing new to the rights of citizens of the EU Member States and may in fact weaken certain rights when these come to be interpreted in this EU Court.

In one respect the fundamental rights set out in the EU Charter do not appear to be so fundamental after all. Article 52 of the Charter permits limitations on these personal rights in pursuit of the objectives of the Union. How can a court, even an EU Court, override a fundamental right, or permit it to be limited in the interests of the Union, even without the express consent of its Member States?

The objectives of the Union, set out in Article 3, are broad in scope and many-sided. Transferring the ultimate protection of these rights to the EU away from Supreme national courts and Strasbourg Court, would involve further procedural delays and expenses for individuals - all to enhance the status of the EU and ECJ. At the same time no benefits would be conferred on individuals and real rights of Member State citizens would not be strengthened.

4.3 Economic effects of enforcing common social rights
As with all EU social policy-making, the EU Charter, if made binding in EU law, will have economic effects. Higher costs on businesses through extra EU obligations on top of national ones would be imposed. In addition taxes will be imposed at the national level, poorer States will be affected more than richer ones and weaker companies more than strong ones. This would adversely influence employment and economic growth prospects in the poorer and weaker economies.

5. Obligation of "loyal co-operation"
Article 8 also "sets out the obligation of loyal co-operation of Member States vis--vis the Union, and the principle that the acts of the Institution are implemented by the Member States."

The world "loyal" means the Member States owe an obligation of loyalty to the EU which indicates the superiority of the latter and underlines its Federal character. The article imposes on Member States an obligation to refrain from any action at the national level which is contrary to the interests of the EU. Such an article could be used by the ECJ when reaching its legally binding judgements.

In other words, national government must give priority to EU objectives, in matters not transferred to the EU. But what if these EU objectives conflict with national political objectives? For example an electoral mandate may oppose the EU Rapid Reaction Force's involvement in a war, or to resist EU tax harmonisation, or a government's expansion to increase public sector spending - even if that breached the Growth and Stability Pact.

5.1 The Union adopts "laws and a change of name
Article 25 refers to the "procedures for the adoption of laws and framework laws..." This is only a change of name as the EU's directives and regulation are of course laws, but the use of the common word "law" underlines the fact this is a Constitution for an EU State, which makes laws just like other States.

5.2 Subsidiarity remains just a word
Article 7 "sets out the principles of Union action which must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the treaty, within the limits of the competences conferred by the treaty, and in compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality."

Genuine respect for the principle of subsidiarity would indicate a major repatriation of competences to the Member States from the supranational level - a fundamental shift of gear from centralisation to decentralisation. There is no indication whatsoever the outline Constitution envisage anything like that.

Article 10 indicates the "areas of exclusive Union competence." Article 11 "the areas of competence shared between the Union and the Member States," and Article 12 "areas where the Union supports or coordinates action by the Member States, but does not have competence to legislate."

It is the Union through the ECJ which will decide the boundaries and extent of the relevant legislative competences in any case of dispute. These articles provide considerable scope for the EU to usurp many of the remaining powers of national governments.

5.3 Abuse of power - as long as it is unanimous
Article 8 of the Constitution envisages continuance of an Article contained in the 1957 Rome Treaty. This provides that if action should prove necessary to attain one of the EU's objectives, where the treaty had not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal of the Commission, may take the appropriate measures.

Seldom used before the 1980's, since then this article has been used for a major extension of EU policy-making and legislation into areas not provided for in treaties. Many regard this as quite illegal. This article effectively permits the EU to do what it likes - as long as the Council acts unanimously. Such provision has no place in any democratic Constitution.

5.4 The Union to be "fully financed by its own resources".
Article 38 "states that the Union budget is fully financed by own resources and sets out the procedure for establishing the system of own resources."

On the face of it, this implies the end of national contributions by Governments to the EU and total reliance instead on EU levies and taxes imposed on citizens and economic actors. Full financing from "own resources" makes the EU budget wholly independent of its Member States, as is the norm with national Federations.

5.5 Suspension of all rights of Union membership
Article 45 "establishes the procedure for suspension of Union membership rights if a Member State violates the principles and values of the Union."

On the face of it this goes further than Article 7 of the EU Treaty which provides for States being deprived of "certain of the rights" of membership. This a very drastic sanction, which in practice is more likely to be sued against small States rather than big. Ostensibly directed against support for neo-Nazism, it installs a form of totalitarianism at EU level.

5.6 Withdrawal from the Union
Article 46 "would mention the possibility of establishing a procedure for voluntary withdrawal from the Union by decision of a Member State, and the institutional consequences of such a withdrawal". The former USSR Constitution had a similar provision but none of the constituent republics exercised this right.

6. Same undemocratic EU - only with more powers for Big Members
6.1 Commission remains in driving seat of EU legislation
Article 18 confirms the non-elected Commission would retain the monopoly of legislative initiative in the EU, as against elected parliament or the Council of Ministers. This has been regarded as a basic principle of supranationalism and the "Community method" making the Commission into the "guardian of the treaties". Under the Treaty of Nice the Commission comes more under the influence of the Big States than before, through their voting weight in appointing the Commissioners by qualified majority.

6.2 Creating an EU President and EU Prime Minster
Article 15 bis reads: "When the Convention has discussed it, this article could establish the terms of office and appointment procedure for the Presidency of the European Council, its role and responsibilities."

The Big States are pushing for a permanent European Council President, instead of the present six-monthly EU presidencies that are shared equally amongst all the member States.

Article 18 bis "would establish the role and appointment procedure for the Presidency of the Commission." The Treaty of Nice confers on the Commission President powers similar to those of a national Prime Minister, such as the right to shuffle portfolios, require the resignation of national Commissioners and have a significant role in their nomination. The relation between the Council and Commission Presidents under the EU Constitution could be similar to that between an executive national President and a national Prime Minster, as in France and the USA. The President of the European Council would have a major role in representing the EU internationally and in foreign policy.

6.3 A common EU defence policy
Article 30 "would set out implementing procedures in the sphere of common defence policy."

The treaties of Amsterdam and Nice empower the EU to engage in offensive military action, thousands of miles beyond its borders. Presumably this article refers to an EU mutual defence commitment, comparable to the NATO and WEU Treaties. This could cause problems for the four EU members that are not yet in such an alliance: Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland. It is clear no military initiative will be taken unless it suits the larger Member States and is substantially under their control.

7. Democratic gloss on the EU State Constitution
7.1 A Congress of the Peoples of Europe
Article 19 "raises the possibility of a Congress of the Peoples of Europe", its composition, procedure and its powers to be "drafted in the light of the Conventions' work". There is no indication that the intention here is to give the peoples of Europe more power in the EU or to detract in any way from the Commission's monopoly of legislative initiative.

7.2 Participatory democracy through "citizens' organisations"?
Article 34 "sets out the principle of participatory democracy. The Institutions are to ensure a high level of openness, permitting citizens' organisation of all kinds to play a full part in the Union's affairs."

Brussels is already peopled by self-appointed citizens' organisations, many of them EU funded, and shows their purpose is to lobby for EU funds or to be nominally consulted by the EU institutions. They provide the facade rather than reality of democracy however. The Union's key decisions are taken elsewhere, with minimal popular control and democratic involvement.

7.3 A uniform election procedure for the European Parliament
Article 35 "would refer to a protocol containing provisions for elections to the European Parliament by a uniform procedure in all Member States."

This entailed the same election system for the European Parliament in all EU States, with EU funding for cross-national political parties, as provided in the Treaty of Nice.

People do not identify with the European Parliament and is the main reason why popular participation in elections to the European Parliament gets smaller each time in each country. The purpose of having a uniform election procedure throughout the EU, and provision for funding EU-wide political parties, is to get citizens to think "European" rather than nationally. It is unlikely to be successful despite the introduction of EU-wide party funding to encourage eager contest among politicians for such funds.

8. Ratifying the Constitution -repeal of previous Treaties
Article X in the Final Title provides for repeal of the previous EC/EU Treaties and their replacement by this Constitutional Treaty. This must be a breach of the sovereignty of national States if treaties which have been ratified by national parliament or approved in referendums are annulled in this way?

8.1 Constitutional ratification and simplification of the Treaties
The draft Union Constitution is divided between fundamental and non-fundamental elements. The former, "Part 1: Constitutional Structure", requiring treaty ratification for their subsequent amendment. The latter, "Part 2: Union policies and their implementation", possibly not requiring that.

It has been suggested the Constitution should provide for States which do not ratify should be forced out of the EU or have a semi-detached relation. An alternative is for provision in the Constitution to come into force for an inner group of Member States that wanted them and remain optional for others. This is now legally permissible under the "enhanced co-operation" provisions of the Treaty of Nice.

9. Conclusion
The attempt to foist a Constitution on the EU and give it legal personality comparable to its Member States is a further giant step towards turning the EU into a highly centralised Federal-style State. Such an EU Constitution would override national Constitutions in any case of conflict. Yet there is no EU Community of people, no European "demos", to give it democratic legitimacy.

If, as intended, the proposed Constitution incorporates the EU Charter of Fundamental rights and makes that legally binding under the treaties, it would extend the competence of the EU Court of Justice into virtually every area of citizens' lives and make national Supreme Courts and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg subject to the EU in politically highly sensitive matters.

The outline constitution proposes to merge the intergovernmental and supranational areas of the Treaties under a single institutional structure. This would strengthen EU powers and competence over Member States in new and important ways. The proposals represent a further stage in the assault on the Nation States of Europe and national democracy that underpins them, by the powerful political, bureaucratic and economic elites that are pushing the EU integration project. That is why citizens in every European country should oppose this EU State Constitution scheme on democratic and internationalist grounds.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* The Democrat is the paper of the Campaign against Euro-federalism (CAEF). This broadsheet was based on a TEAM Working Paper No.6 written by Anthony Coughlan - Senior Lecturer Emeritus in Social Policy at Trinity College Dublin. He is also Secretary of the research and information group - National Platform and a member of TEAM's Board.