The European Union traces its immediate history to the 1957 Treaty of Rome which created the Common Market for the original "six" - Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The Treaty's explicitly declared objectives are "to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe ... the constant improvement of the living and working conditions of the people, the reduction of differences in wealth between regions." *
Following the enlargement of the EU on 1 May 2004, the EU has 25 member states. They are:
Have any countries ever left the European Union?
As an overseas territory of Denmark, Greenland was obliged to join the then Common Market in 1973, despite a 1972 referendum showing 70% opposition. Following a further referendum on 23 February 1982, Greenland left the European Community. Greenlander opposition to the imposition of the Common Fisheries Policy, coupled with a general rise in support for home rule, were the main factors in Greenland's decision to withdraw. Interestingly, one of the budding politicians who welcomed Greenland's decision was one Robin Cook, later the UK Foreign Secretary, who commented that "this shows it is politically and diplomatically possible to negotiate withdrawal." *
Britain became a member of the Common Market on 1 January 1973. Section 2 of the enabling legislation, the European Communities Act, 1972, established the principle that European Law would always prevail over British Law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British Parliament.
In 1992 the Single Market was launched. The Single European Act 1986, which facilitated this process, reduced Britain's independent decision-making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making.
The 1992 Maastricht Treaty greatly enhanced the powers of the European institutions. * As the former Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Sir Peter Smithers, puts it: "When the Maastricht Treaty was before Parliament John Major forced it through by ruthless whipping and unacceptable personal pressures. It surrendered sovereign powers of the Queen in Parliament to an unelected body in Europe without a clear mandate from the electorate." * Maastricht established the concept of European citizenship and laid down the agenda for the creation of the single European currency (the euro).
Under the 1998 Amsterdam Treaty, the European Union, instead of being a community of nation states, became a "legal personality" in its own right, capable of acting as a single entity in international affairs; able, for example, to sign treaties binding on all its constituent member states. The competence of the European Court of Justice was extended and the Council of Ministers given powers to impose penalties on any member state found "in persistent breach of the Treaty".
The 2000 Treaty of Nice took further steps towards the creation of a centralized European state. Britain surrendered its right of veto in thirty additional areas of policy setting. In not a single area did the Treaty of Nice return power to the member states, or reverse the process of further centralization and control from Brussels.
As used in the European context, 'federalism' is a political model involving the effective abolition of the independent nation states of Europe in favour of a single central government enjoying legislative and executive powers." * Supporters of federalism maintain that the end result would be the evolution of the current European Union into a 'United States of Europe.' German Chancellor Schröder believes that "a federal order in Europe seems the best guarantee for solidarity and prosperity. With us in Germany the federal system has proved itself." (In other words, the German political model should be imposed on the rest of Europe.) *
Opponents of the European Union usually divide their arguments into two categories, those relating to loss of sovereignty, and those relating to economics, although there are inevitably overlaps between the two issues. It is also worth testing the validity of some of the arguments put forward in favour of the EU.
This is the view that by allowing a supranational body to override the powers of the domestic Parliament, legislature and judiciary, Britain has ceased to be an independent nation (or at the very least is in danger of doing so).
So are concepts like 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Basically, 'sovereignty' means retaining the right to govern ourselves, a right we have largely lost since joining the EU. It is arguable that any binding international treaty limits sovereignty. However, as the former Master of the Rolls Lord Denning pointed out in 1990 (ie even before the Maastricht and subsequent treaties) EU interference in all aspects of British commercial, judicial and cultural life has become "a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses."
EU membership entails an intolerable interference in the decision-making powers of the British Parliament, and, by extension, of the British people. These range from the absurd (such as the regulations on the size and straightness of cucumbers and bananas) to wide ranging interference in the economic and judicial independence of the United Kingdom.
Why was the 'Metric Martyr' case so important?
The prosecution, in April 2001, of a Sunderland greengrocer for selling a customer a pound of bananas very publicly demonstrated the extent to which European regulations supersede British law. Commenting on what he called a "test case of national importance", the presiding judge, District Judge Bruce Morgan, said that we now operate under a "new legal order" in that the 1972 European Communities Act intentionally surrendered Parliament's sovereignty to the primacy of European law and the European courts.
Gerald Bartling QC, a leading European law specialist, made clear the consequences of this decision - as well as its remedy - when he said that "the short answer is that unless and until Parliament repeals the European Communities Act 1972, then European law takes precedence."
The Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations 2001 (S.I., 2001, No. 85) will make it a criminal offence, from 2009, to even mention imperial measurements in trade, public health, public safety and administrative purposes.
The case demolishes the claim of supporters of the European Union that the EU does not interfere in British culture and way of life. What could be more intrusive than legislating to prevent one Briton selling another Briton a pound of fruit? *
Mr Blair's favourite 'Euromyth' - that the EU wants to impose straight bananas on consumers - does actually have a basis in fact. Commission Regulation Number 2257/94 details the regulations covering the quality standards for bananas, including the requirement that they be at least 5.5 inches long and 1 inch wide. The regulation includes the provision that they be free from "abnormal curvature".
Similarly, European legislation lays down standards for the straightness of cucumbers. Interviewed on the BBC Today programme on 12 March 1996, Jacques Santer, then President of the EU, said "You know we hear so many of these stories in Brussels, sometimes I do not know whether to laugh or cry... We have a name for them, of course, Euromyths." When specifically asked whether the EU had legislation about the shape of cucumbers he replied: "No, no, not at this moment. I don't hope (sic) that we would have any regulation in the future."
This was, quite simply, untrue. There has been European legislation since 1988 entitled "laying down quality standards for cucumbers" which includes rules for the straightness of cucumbers. *
This is, of course, just one example of EU legislative lunacy. What often happens is that the EU will propose a measure which, thanks to the vigilance of our media, is exposed as costly or absurd. * The proposal is then hastily withdrawn, and the EU bureaucrats pretend that it was just a 'myth' in the first place.
Yes. A specific example was the legislation by the UK Parliament to prevent Spanish fishermen sailing under the British flag and so taking a quota of fishing rights allocated to the UK by the EU. The Fisheries Act passed both the House of Commons and House of Lords and was signed into law by the Queen in person. But, as the late Lord Tonypandy recalls "The politically motivated European Court of Justice instructed us that our Fisheries Act was illegal. They defined limits on what our Parliament could legislate. Our Westminster Parliament was humiliatingly put behind the European Union. As a further measure of contempt for Westminster, Europe proceeded to give the bullying Spanish fishermen authority to demand compensation for the period that our Privy Council, and our Parliament, by our legislation, kept them out of our waters." *
This direct interference in British law making is wholly contrary to the British constitution, under which it is understood that "Parliament ... has ... the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognized by the law of England * as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament." *
Is it true that the EU plans to abolish Trials by Jury?
Perhaps the most disturbing part of the Amsterdam Treaty are its provisions * for the legal system known as Corpus Juris to be introduced throughout the EU. (Corpus Juris can be introduced by Qualified Majority Voting, so the EU can introduce it even if we were to refuse it by a 100% majority in Westminster.)
Corpus Juris will set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe, initially on matters of fraud against the EU budget, later to be extended to all criminal activities, which will thus come within the EU purview. Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury - rights enjoyed by Britons since Magna Carta - are explicitly to be abolished under these proposals. *
The implications of this proposal cannot be overemphasised. As Churchill wrote "...the great principle of Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury ... are the supreme protection invented by the British people for ordinary individuals against the state. The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him judgment by his peers for an indefinite period, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments." *
The obligation to conform to the requirements of the Amsterdam Treaty explains the Government's determination to press ahead with the abolition of the right to Trial by Jury for certain offences, despite defeat in the House of Lords and widespread opposition from lawyers and civil rights groups.
So are the powers of the European Union increasing?
Yes. Even in 1995 the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) admitted that a third of all existing UK legislation arises from an obligation to implement EU law, and predicted that "in future, 70% of business law will come from that source." *
Furthermore, the European Union operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire which declares that once the EU has determined it has the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. This is a one-way street to centralization.
Is the European Union planning to extend the range of goods subject to Value Added Tax (VAT)?
The growth of EU authority over indirect taxation (VAT) illustrates the danger with EU law - a self-driven and continuous accumulation of power.
Article 99 of the Treaty of Rome called for the harmonization of indirect taxation to ensure "the proper functioning of the internal market" and in 1967 two directives required the adoption of VAT by all member states. The UK joined the Common Market on 1 January 1973 and VAT was introduced in Britain from April 1973.
In May 1977 and again in June 1978 the European Court forced Britain to end exemption and zero rating in several areas including construction of buildings, commercial fuel and power and news services.
The draft of the proposed European Constitution confirms the EU's rights and intentions in this field. Article III, 62 states that "European Law shall lay down measures for the harmonization of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation."
In short, Britain is obliged to harmonize VAT with Europe and will be obliged to charge VAT children's clothes, food, public transport, new houses, newspapers and books.
The European Commission intends to enforce the existing VAT system on Internet transactions, imposing a requirement on ecommerce firms to register, collect and account for VAT in the appropriate jurisdiction, even though there is no international agreement or consensus on this issue. (Outside the EU such transactions are free of VAT.) *
Yes. In fact, Article 192 of the Treaty on European Union contains a reserve power to impose individual taxation on everyone in the EU. It states: "Decisions of the Council or of the Commission which impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable."
The European Commission now is beginning to implement its powers of control over the member states' direct corporate taxation. * Under the Treaty of Rome, * the Commission can direct a member state to withdraw any 'offending' tax schemes or face being taken to the European Court of Justice.
Gordon Brown, at the March 1998 ECOFIN held in York, claimed that the UK's independence and autonomy in its tax affairs was unaffected. He has now been proved to have grossly misled the country on this essential point of British fiscal sovereignty. *