THE BIG ISSUE

by RAY FLEMING
HANDS up those who have read the EU's new Reform Treaty about which so many negative opinions are being expressed. No one? Nor have I because it doesn't exist in a readable form; since it is a “treaty” and not a “constitution”, which it replaces, it is drafted as a series of amendments to the previous treaties on which the European Union has been built, the Treaty of Rome (1957), the Single European Act (1986) and the Maastrich Treaty (1991) being the most important of them. The lack at this stage of a draft text of the Reform Treaty does not help rational debate on it. But nor does it sanction deliberately misleading and inaccurate claims about the Treaty's purpose and content, or allegations, especially in Britain, that since it is the Constitution in disguise Gordon Brown must honour the pledge made by Tony Blair in Labour's 2005 election manifesto to hold a referendum if the Constitution were to be approved at an EU summit, as it was. But then, of course, the Dutch and French voters rejected it in referendums later in 2005 and the Constitution was put on one side for “a period of reflection” even though 18 member states had already ratified it, among them Spain. The reflection ended at the EU summit this June when it was agreed to replace the Constitution with a Reform Treaty which Mr Brown insists should be subject only to Parliamentary debate and approval, the procedure followed for the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty. The Portuguese government which currently holds the EU presidency is shortly beginning detailed discussions on the finalisation of draft text of the Reform Treaty with a view to getting approval of it by the end of October and the formal signing at the EU summit in December. A frequent allegation made against the Reform Treaty is that it is “90 per cent” the same as the Constitution. I have not seen this proved in any acceptable way but even if it were true it is a simplistictic point which overlooks the fact that not all the Constitution dealt with matters of major importance; the question that needs addressing therefore is whether its substantial matters have been lost or retained or changed. Those who were worried about state-like symbols such as an EU flag and anthem will be relieved to know that these have disappeared from the text as has the idea of giving the EU a “legal personality” and a number of other “wish-list” proposals. They will not be missed. The important point is whether the reforms designed to make the EU a more efficient and significant entity have been retained: it has to be kept in mind that the initial need for the Constitution arose from the recognition that an organisation designed for twelve members could not function properly with 27 and that therefore institutional changes were needed. Those opposed to the Reform Treaty on principle, as opposed to on euro-sceptic opportunism, worry because some of its provisions may imply a loss of national sovereignty beyond what has previously been thought acceptable under earlier treaties. Foreign policy is one example and the proposal for a semi-permanent president of the Council of Ministers is another. I propose to write about these and other objections to the Reform Treaty, including those likely to come up at today's TUC Congress, in this space later in the week. This really is the Big Issue, we should be in no doubt about that.