Apr 5
Damn straight, Bill!
The Truth about the EU Constitution and a referendum.
Re: Referendum is essential
Date: 5 April 2004
Sir – You ask how the Conservative Party would reverse the “inglorious revolution” whereby not only our laws but also our constitution, including Parliament, would be subsumed by the European Constitution (leader, Mar 30).
This is known as the primacy question. The Foreign Secretary has alleged that Article 10 of the European Constitution does no more than restate the constitutional position reflected in Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. He has repeatedly stated that there is no fundamental change in the relationship between the European Union and the member states. He is wrong.
The European Court of Justice does not at present have explicit power to strike down Acts of Parliament. This is for the national courts. However, many experts who gave evidence to the House of Lords European Union committee believe that the constitutional position will evolve under the constitution and no national court will be likely to refuse the jurisdiction of the European Court on the question of EU competence. They argue that the European Court will derive its increased authority from the “public will” that it will embody. The constitution opens with the words “reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe”.
The classification and division of competencies, which the House of Lords describes as “an issue touching upon the fundamental nature of the union and its relationship with the member states”, is said by them to be “new”. So much for the assurances of the Foreign Secretary. A referendum is essential.
From:
William Cash MP, Shadow Attorney-General, 2001-2003, London SW1
1 Comment so far
It is incredibly worrying to think that a legally-binding treaty – a new constitution – affecting nearly every aspect of the law and every element of British life, a document which even begins with the words ‘reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe’, could replace the existing constitution without there being so much as a referendum with some form of ‘qualified majority’ condition attached – or, more reasonably – mandatory unanimity.