Vote No to the Constitution,
and Save Europe from Itself (Again)
by Simon Wolfson

If you want to know why the European Constitution is a bad idea then just read it. This is not as easy as it sounds. I recommend that, if you are going to try, you should arm yourself with a packet of Pro-Plus and a bottle of Prozac. The caffeine will help keep you awake through 350 pages of turgid legalese. The Prozac might stave off the depression that will descend when you realise that so many of our liberties are being thrown away.

Rather than take my word for it, you can download the constitution's text via the Vote No campaign website and see for yourself. As a businessman, I am generally reluctant to get involved in politics, but once I had actually read it, I felt strongly that I had to join those who will oppose it in the referendum promised by the Prime Minister. The language is deliberately ambiguous, and it is stuffed with contradictory objectives. The lack of clarity is summed up by the Orwellian motto the constitution wants to put into law: "United in Diversity."

However, it leaves no room for doubt in one vital respect - it would transfer even more power to the EU. Because the constitution contains so many new powers for the EU, and is so vague, many vital issues would be resolved only when the European Court of Justice ruled on how it should be interpreted. For this reason, the constitution is the political equivalent of a blank cheque. Its full implications would become clear only once it had been ratified.

A constitution is meant to set out precisely where powers lie within a governing administration. But the EU Constitution defines most powers as "shared" between the member states and the EU. And it defines the word "shared" as meaning that member states can act only if Europe has chosen not to. This is an extraordinary proposal. It is like some dodgy time-share, in which the salesman tells you that you can use your new place in the sun "whenever we don't want it".

When it comes to its detailed policy proposals, the constitution is even worse, entailing a huge transfer of power over foreign policy and defence. For the first time, the constitution specifies that the EU's policies "will lead to a common defence". Just as ominous is the new European Armaments Agency, which is intended to further the military ambitions of the EU. The agency is intended to "co-ordinate" our military spending to fit in with the EU's military goals. What goals? What does "common defence" mean?

And what about the economy? Outside the euro zone, in control of our economy, Britain has thrived. We are growing faster than our competitors in Europe, and our unemployment levels are about half of the euro zone average. But the constitution, which says "member states shall co-ordinate their economic policies within the union", would mean our losing control of our economy, and our advantages would be put at risk. The EU's remit could extend to government borrowing, spending and even taxation. The constitution would also give the EU more power over competition policy, foreign trade and social security. How would this benefit businesses in Britain?

People in business are particularly concerned by the constitution's proposal to give the EU new powers over employment policy and by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. These would give the EU a platform to meddle in every aspect of our employment law, with potentially disastrous implications.

Regulation is a very serious problem already. It seems that the EU does not realise that Europe is not a fortress, but must compete with the rest of the world. Gordon Brown has said that half of all the regulations that impact on British businesses come from the EU. The constitution would accelerate this.

If the transfer of power in itself does not sufficiently worry you, then the rhetoric of the constitution should leave you in no doubt. The document reads like the ramblings of a slightly pompous megalomaniac. For example, the drafters are "convinced that the people of Europe are determined to transcend their ancient divisions and, united ever more closely, forge a common destiny". What gives them this entirely unjustified conviction? How can they be so sure of what the people of Europe think, let alone that we want to forge a common destiny? It should worry us that this small political elite claims to have an unerring insight into what we want, not least because its ambitions are so broad.

A constitution is supposed to set out a political framework, rather than attempt to specify in minute detail what policies should be followed. A successful example is the US Constitution, which has endured for more than 200 years, partly because it is brief and perfectly expressed. But the rambling EU Constitution would set in stone a series of politically fashionable objectives. These include "social progress" and a "high level of improvement of the environment", "combating social exclusion" and "the promotion of social justice". But who defines social progress? Is France's 35-hour week social progress? I don't think so, but under the constitution we wouldn't have a say. Decisions would be taken by people who are far removed from the concerns of businesses in Britain.

Given the fundamental flaws in the constitution, it is unsurprising that we have heard so few positive arguments in its favour. Its few champions try to convince us that there is no alternative. More often they just spin the vague fear that, if we do not sign up, we will be left isolated. This is nonsense. There is a world of difference between isolation and the independence we should seek to retain.

So this is a critical moment for the EU. Even Tony Blair has admitted it needs "radical" reform. The euro countries have high unemployment. The EU's institutions are not accountable enough, and wide open to corruption. The CAP is costly and damaging to poor countries.

The politicians should understand that the British people will not be intimidated into accepting this constitution. To reject it, all we need is common sense and a little courage, two qualities the British people have in great supply. If we vote No, we will not only be sending a powerful message about the type of Europe we really want, but also doing the whole of Europe a great service. Not for the first time.
The Dail Telegraph, 29th October 2004

Simon Wolfson is chief executive of Next and a board member
of the Vote No campaign (www.vote-no.com)

Further Resources
Ten Minutes to Midnight by Phillip Day
Vigilance by Ashley Mote

Fed up with the EU and want to do something about it?
Spread the word to friends with The Real Face of the European Union, our video documentary (PAL format only) which lays out the serious problems with the European Union and what you can do about it. Also, don't miss the two following incisive commentaries on the dangers of Britain's involvement with the EU:

Click here to purchase or review any of the above.
Click here for telephone sales around the world.