EU Referendum

[Shammu]

EU Referendum

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has produced a "mythbuster" document on the new constitutional reform treaty.

Headed, "EU Reform Treaty: 10 Myths", the format offers statements purporting to represent criticisms of the treaty, with a rebuttal under each. As might be expected, it is a mixture of truth, half-truths, downright lies and propaganda. We'll look at each in turn, in separate posts.

The first deals with the claimed loss of Britain's seat on the UN Security Council. The text is as follows:

    1. The UK will lose or have to vacate its seat on the UN Security Council.

    No. There is no question of this. The UN Charter is clear that international organisations like the EU cannot be members of the UN (including holding seats on the Security Council).

    The EU Presidency (currently Portugal) and the current High Representative (Javier Solana) can already address the UN Security Council where invited to do so on an issue where the EU has an agreed policy. This is in addition to national statements made by each member.

    The German Presidency, during the first six months of 2007, addressed the Security Council on behalf of the EU on eight occasions.

    The Reform Treaty package will include a clear Declaration stating that the new Treaty will not affect the responsibilities of the Member States for the conduct of their foreign and defence policy – including at the UN.

    It is strongly in the UK's interest that, where we have agreed a position with our EU partners, the EU makes its voice heard. The recent EU statement supporting the UK on the Litvinenko case is a good example.

Here, we cannot but help agree with the principal denials in the first paragraph, and specifically, "There is no question of this." There is, as we have pointed out several times, nothing in the new treaty which requires, suggests or otherwise implies that the UK will have to vacate its UN Security Council seat.

What we are seeing, we wrote recently, is an extension of the current procedure. When the EU has a "common position" on an issue before the Security Council, it will be presented by the EU's High Representative speaking from his own "seat" on the Security Council, rather than have (or in addition to having) the case presented by either or both the British or French representatives. This is affirmed by the statement.

However, you would not expect the FCO to outline the real threat which, in the way of things EU, is much more subtle. In fact, therein lies the Eurosceptic problem. EU treaties are nothing if not nuanced, involving a gradual shift of power, often over a series of treaties, with no dramatic steps. Each one is deniable and no end point is declared.

For sure, the EU's long-term objectives undoubtedly include a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, as indicated by Malloch-Brown. But there is nothing formally in writing so that the ambition is deniable. Any such accusation – as here – can be batted away, leaving the grey, subtle shifts in the treaty, over which it is virtually impossible to have a clear argument.

That is the genius of this gradualist approach to integration, which is strewn with traps for the unwary critic. Project beyond what is strictly in writing in the treaty and the case can be dismissed as a "myth" with its advocates branded as "Europhobes" or even "swivel-eyed loonies".

Thus do the Europhiles continue to pretend that the changes are minor and technical and, even as the Observer remarked yesterday, no one really believes this, it is frustratingly difficult to lay a glove on them.

As an alternative, you can go for the high ground, as does Simon Jenkins in the Sunday Times, with a robust condemnation of Brown's refusal to agree to a referendum. But then, there is always Denis MacShane sniping away in the background, leaving the public bemused and uncertain.

Fighting this treaty and the process of integration, therefore, isn't easy. But what is certain is that overstating the case, or making false or unprovable accusations, does not help the cause. On the contrary, it just provides ammunition for the FCO mythbusters.

EU Referendum

[Shammu]

Continuing our series on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office "mythbuster" document on the new constitutional reform treaty, we look today at the second of the "myths". This concerns the "EU Foreign Minister", the "straw man" assertion being that he "will control Britain's foreign policy".
In rebuttal, the FCO maintains:

    No. The proposed High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will report to the Member States on foreign policy – i.e., the 27 national Foreign Ministers in the Foreign Affairs Council and the 27 national leaders at the European Council.

    The post will bring clarity to the EU’s existing external actions by combining the roles of the current EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (Javier Solana) and the Commissioner for External Relations (Benita Ferrero-Waldner). This is intended to avoid wasteful institutional wrangling and enable the EU to act effectively at the international level.

    As is the case now, it will be the Member States, acting by unanimity, who set the EU's common foreign and security policy (CFSP) objectives. And it will be the Member States who task the High Representative to take forward activity under the CFSP. Where we don't agree we can still act independently.

As far as it goes, the core of this response is true enough but, as always, the devil is in the detail – and much of the detail is missing.

One of the more important details missing is that, under the existing arrangements, the foreign policy of the Union is conducted by the rotating presidency – usually jointly by the head of government and the foreign minister.

There is also provision for action by the "troika", the current, preceding and successor member states acting together and, in some circumstances, an ad-hoc group such as the EU-3 of Germany, France and the UK which carried out the negotiations with Iran.

This can be a mixed blessing as some member states are overly enthusiastic about pursuing the EU agenda but the point is that, currently, the foreign policy is under the direct control of member states. Under the new treaty, it is still controlled by the member states, but at one step removed.

As to the High Representative being required to "report" to the member states, this is only in a manner of speaking. This implies a subordinate position, which is not reflected in the treaty. He actually presides over the Foreign Affairs Council – the most powerful committee of the Council of Ministers - taking the place of the foreign minister representing the rotating presidency. Not only does this effectively sideline the member states, it puts the High Representative in the dominant position.

Furthermore, the new constitutional reform treaty, Article 9b - which sets out the composition of the European Council - also allows for the High Representative to "take part in the work" of the European Council. Thus, the High Representative has a seat at the table with the heads of states and governments of the EU, effectively on equal terms with them.

Additionally – and again not mentioned by the FCO - the High Representative becomes a vice president of the Commission, taking the place of the commissioner for external relations and, with it, his considerable budget.

The implications his chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee, his membership of the European Council and of the commission are considerable. The post spans three of the most powerful institutions in the Union, and gives the holder considerable individual power, not afforded to any of the heads of government of the member states or any of the ministers.

More specifically, it gives the High Representative a significant degree of autonomy, in the context of the old saw: "he who is responsible to two masters is responsible to none". A skilled post-holder can very easily play off each of the institutions against the others, between which there is already some tension.

Then within the new treaty, the extent of the post-holder's power is explicitly stated. He is charged with conducting the Union's common foreign and security policy (Article 9e) and is required to "contribute by his or her proposals to the development of that policy". And, while he is bound by a "mandate" from the Council, once given, he has considerable autonomy in its execution.

Also buried in the treaty (Point 39) is an amendment to Article 21, replacing the first paragraph. Where, in the existing treaty, the Presidency is required to consult the European Parliament "on the main aspects and choices of the common foreign and security policy …", this function is taken over by the High Representative. Once again, the member states are sidelined, as a paid apparatchik is now charged with presenting the Union's policy to the EU parliament.

Additionally, there is a subtle enhancement in the role of the parliament. When the existing treaty merely requires that the "Presidency shall consult the European Parliament", this now becomes, "shall regularly consult the European Parliament".

Bearing in mind that, in the Maastricht Treaty, the common and foreign security policy was strictly intergovernmental – and thus the parliament had no role - gradually the parliament is being upgraded as an active player in the shaping (and approval) of this policy – diluting the power of the member states.

All of this makes the High Representative a very powerful player in the shaping and execution of the Union foreign policy. As a full-time paid official of the Union, he owes his allegiance to it, and can afford much more time and energy to it than any minister of any of the member states.

However, nominally, the foreign policy is indeed still under the control of the member states, but their grip is much weakened. Collectively, these subtle but important changes in the treaty represent a significant diminution of the power and influence of the member states. To that extent, the FCO rebuttal, in playing down the extent of the transfer of power, is concealing rather than illuminating the reality.

EU Referendum