Europe's future: Ask an expert

The BBC's Europe correspondent, Chris Morris, answered your questions on the EU's draft constitution.

Click here to read the transcript

---

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has attacked Eurosceptic 'delusion' over Europe's draft new constitution.

In a speech in Poland, the prime minister criticised anti-Europe voices for spreading absurd stories about Europe's draft new constitution in an effort to "spook" the British public.

He said anti-Europeanism is an "out-of-date delusion" and does not equate to British patriotism.

No referendum was needed on Europe's draft new constitution because the UK was winning the argument against the idea of European superstate, he insisted.

In his speech, Mr Blair urged Poland to support joining the European Union and he also he mounted a strong appeal for strong trans-Atlantic relations.

Will a new EU constitution make a difference? Should there be a referendum? How will a new constitution affect EU enlargement?

You put your questions on the draft constitution and plans for the future of the European Union to the BBC's Europe correspondent, Chris Morris, in a LIVE interactive forum.

---

Transcript:

Andrew Simmons:
Hello and welcome to this BBC News Interactive forum, I'm Andrew Simmons. The publication of the European Union's draft constitution this week has been greeted with some measure of hope and frustration, but mostly by indifference across Europe. In Britain members of the Opposition Conservative Party have attacked the proposals, fearing they'll lead to a European super state. They've called for a referendum, but the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, speaking in Poland, attacked what he called the Euro sceptics out-of-date delusion. He said no referendum was needed in Britain because the UK was winning the argument against the idea of a European super state.

The BBC's Europe correspondent Chris Morris has been following the arguments. He joins us from our studio in Brussels to answer your many questions. Let's start off with a question from Marijn, who is originally from Holland who asks: As a Dutchman now in the UK I find the Government's position on the future of Europe a touch dishonest. Politicians in Holland have said all along that the whole point of the EU is to have full political unity across Europe in a federal system. Our neighbours say likewise. If the whole point of the EU exercise, constitution included, is formation of a federation of member "regions", why is Blair trying to delude the UK people by pretending otherwise?

Chris Morris:
Well I don't think that's quite fair to Tony Blair. Certainly in countries like Holland, neighbouring countries to Holland, like Belgium and Luxembourg, there is strong support for a much more centralised federal Europe. But that doesn't mean that just because politicians there are saying that it's actually what's going to happen. Britain, I suppose, is right at the other end of the spectrum. But there are plenty of European countries who don't want this to become some form of super state - it's not what they believe this should be about.

Yes, there are moves towards more centralisation in some areas, for example, on asylum and immigration policy in this draft constitution, there would much more central decision-making. There would be the loss of any single country vetoing decisions. Now most people say that's not a bad thing anyway because on something like asylum and immigration, when so many of the issues are cross border issues, there has to be some sort of centralised system for it to work effectively. So just because politicians in one country are saying this is the road to a federal European state, doesn't really mean that's what's going to happen.

Andrew Simmons:
Before we move on let's go this e-mail that's come in since we've been on air. It's is from Tim Oliver in the UK who asks: Do you think the media's shock and horror stories (which were referred to by Tony Blair in his speech today) come from the fact that this is the first time that many of media's so-called experts and commentators have ever looked at a European treaty in depth?

Chris Morris:
Well there's obviously a lot of politics behind this. But it does make me smile a bit, I must admit, when I see headlines like "The End of a Thousand Years of British History" because this treaty is simply not that dramatic. Now the British Government representative on the convention, Peter Hain, said it is simply a tidying up exercise - it's more than that - but it is not the end of history as we know it.

When you look at the previous treaties, a lot of things which are in this draft constitution have already been part of British and European law for many years. So I do think there's partly a degree of ignorance there also partly a degree of trying to politicise this issue in any way possible. But the Government's just as guilty of that in some ways - its saying, this is really a very small change - it's a bit more than that. And I think, as is often the case in politics, you have to look for the truth somewhere in the middle.

Andrew Simmons:
Kit de la Mare, UK: Do you believe that giving the EU legal personality (when the EC already has it and conducts international agreements on the UK's behalf in areas like external trade)will expand the competences of the EU?

Chris Morris:
Well, in theory, yes. What it could mean, for example, is if the EU has a single legal personality it could in future sign treaties on behalf of individual member states. But I'd stress the phrase "in theory". For example, it's possible that if the EU has a single legal personality it could have a seat on the United Nations Security Council. But the two European countries, Britain and France, who have permanent seats on the UN Security Council, will not be giving those seats up. They are, if you like, the jewels in their diplomatic crown. So there are things which this treaty says could happen which won't necessarily happen. It enables some things, I think, having a single legal personality, but it doesn't necessarily lead to immediate practical changes.

Andrew Simmons:
Chris, you won't be surprised to hear that the e-mails are piling in on the issue of a referendum in the UK. Tom from England asks: Is it not actually illegal for Mr Blair to do this without asking us first? As far as I know, he doesn't have the right to permanently hand over any sovereign rights whatsoever, only the right to do it temporarily.

Chris Morris:
The whole point of the European Union is that it is a body in which member states agree voluntarily to give up some of their sovereignty - not necessarily all of their sovereignty but some of their sovereignty - and that's been the case ever since Britain joined the EU in the 1970s - it has given up sovereignty to Europe. Previous treaties, such as the Maastricht Treaty and the Single European Act, did things like setting up the internal market, the euro currency - I think you can make an argument to say that those were profound changes to way Europe worked than this treaty may be. So I don't think you can argue just on terms of giving up sovereignty that legally there has to be a referendum.

I think the argument for a referendum is much more a political one. If you think this is such a great idea, such a great treaty, then why not let the people have a say and I think there's an argument even for those who are pro-European - perhaps this is should be a time when we say, look this debate has become so politicised, perhaps it's is time for Britain to decide yes or no, do we want to be in or not and really have a referendum which wouldn't necessarily be dominated just by euro sceptics saying a lot of this is a bad deal, but would force those who are pro-European to come out fighting a bit more. I think that would probably be healthy for British politics in general.

Andrew Simmons:
In Brussels what is thinking behind Mr Blair's strategy? We have a question from Paul in England who asks: Why is Mr Blair afraid of open honest debate and a vote?

Chris Morris:
Britain is not the only country that won't have a referendum - several other countries won't. At the moment I'd say it's roughly 50 - 50 within the EU of countries which will have a referendum. A country like Ireland, for example, has a legal constitutional requirement to have one, other countries don't. I think a lot of people in Brussels frankly would be quite pleased to see Britain have a referendum, if of course the British people said yes because that would clear up a lot of problems. I suppose the biggest reason not to have a referendum - again it's a political one - is the fear that they may lose.

Andrew Simmons:
A question now from Piotr in Poland: I would have to agree with Romano Prodi, the constitution is not ambitious. There should be a full time EU president that should be elected directly by the people. There should be a powerful foreign minister that would speak for all the EU countries. I think common foreign and security policy should have received greater emphasis. Do you think that the UK could spoil it for the rest of us?

Chris Morris:
That's quite a lot to deal with. It's not just the UK who is fighting against less centralisation. I think you'd find very few countries at the moment who actually want a centralised president who is elected by the people. The proposal in the constitution, as it stands, is for a president of the European Council - that's the meeting of all the heads of government who meet four times a year - to make that presidency permanent and make that person somebody who'd represent the EU around the world. But that figure would be elected by the heads of government, not by a popular vote across Europe. And I don't think there are many governments at the moment who would favour that - that would a step too far.

As for common foreign policy, it is a difficult issue. Iraq proved just how very far Europe is from any kind of common foreign policy. I think it was a huge embarrassment for those who favour more of a common policy. But this is a process which will take years and years and years. Even if you set up a more powerful European foreign minister, you're simply not going to have countries like France, Britain, German, handing over all power to them - it's not going to happen. These are countries who are powers within their right and who want to retain that power.

Andrew Simmons:
Matt in the UK asks: How will the new powers of a European foreign minister affect our foreign policy when a conflict of interest arises?

Chris Morris:
I think the short answer is, as things stand, when there is a conflict of interest the nation states will win. That's what happened in Iraq - the EU tried to put together a common policy - it couldn't do it. Britain disagreed with many of its European counterparts, although a lot of countries that are about to join the EU next year - the new EU members in Eastern Europe - were more on the side of Britain and the United States. But essentially Europe was split down the middle so the nation states went their own way and the bureaucrats and officials who were tasked with trying to put together a single or a common policy, were made to look pretty foolish frankly because it simply wasn't working.

Andrew Simmons:
Phill, UK: What was the point of dropping the "F" word, that is federal, from the document? Surely you can't think that the public is so naive that they won't notice that the underlying issues haven't changed?

Chris Morris:
Again, he's absolutely right - you come back to politics - dropping the word "federal" doesn't actually change anything in the constitution and it doesn't change some of things that the European Union already does which are effectively on a federal basis. But of course there are different federal systems. A system like the United States is a federation but it's very different, for example, to Switzerland which is also a federation. So I think the word federal has become grossly misused, especially in British political debate, and it isn't something we should necessarily be so scared of.

But it was certainly, I think, Tony Blair, in a meeting with the president of the European Convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing , who persuaded him - look I just can't cope politically at home with the word "federal" and that's why its gone. But the questioner is absolutely right, it doesn't really change anything in the constitution at all.

Andrew Simmons:
Rev James C. Lovette-Black, USA: Given historic conflicts between states and federal rights that continue today in everyday American life, how will the EU constitution guarantee that the rights of each member state will be respected, while maintaining a high level of human rights and liberties at the EU's "federal" level?

Chris Morris:
I think the answer to that is that at the moment the European Union and the United States are not directly comparable. In the United States far more power is administered on a federal basis. For example, if a single state of the union, be it Texas, California or whatever, wants to block something in the Senate, well, it only has two votes like everyone else and it can't do that if there is a majority against it. But on key areas, and that's been one of the crucial debates behind the scenes as this draft constitution came out on things like taxation policy, on foreign policy - every decision will still have to be made unanimously. In other words, every decision will still have to be made unanimously - any one country would be able to block any foreign policy decision, anything on taxation which it didn't like. So I think it is really too soon to try and compare the United States and the European Union as federal entities - they're simply too different at the moment. And the nation states in Europe, I think, are still pretty much in the driving seat in the EU, although a lot of Euro sceptics in Britain fear that that's going to change.

Andrew Simmons:
Jon Worth, UK asks: I would like to ask Mr Morris what he thinks the word "federal" means, and whether he could reply in straight language that does not use the word "fear", "super state" or "national interest".

Chris Morris:
Well federal means a form of government where sovereignty is shared between a central authority - in this case, the European Union - and states which are part of that union. But as I said in the previous answer, what it all depends on is how much sovereignty, how much power, you give to that over-arching central authority, the federal unit. And in the case of the European Union at the moment, it's not that much - its growing, there's no doubt about that, it is getting more and more as each treaty comes into force - and I think that's the argument of Euro sceptics, they fear this is federalisation by stealth.

But there's not much stealth in this document. It's an open process - the debate in the convention has been open, the document is on the website for anyone to read and I'm not sure that it is, as I said before, this dark day in British history because the British Government has maintained the policies it wanted in many crucial areas - in others it will have to give ground. The idea that it can simply win in everything doesn't really ring true because this is a search for a consensus. It needs all 15 and eventually all 25, when the 10 new countries come into the EU, to agree on a single document. So you have to compromise on some of your principles.

Andrew Simmons:
Les Rhodes has just sent this e-mail in. He asks: Is Euro scepticism a peculiarly British thing? What do voters in other EU states think about this?

Chris Morris:
I think it's fair to say, it's probably stronger in Britain at the moment than anywhere else but it's no means unique to Britain. Countries like Denmark for example, there's a fairly strong streak of Euro scepticism there. When they held a referendum a few years ago on the euro, there was an assumption that the Danes would say, yes, we want to be part of the euro. I think the government thought it was going to win and until quite late on it seemed that that would be the case. But people stood up and said no. The Euro sceptics fought a very good battle in that referendum and Denmark voted no. So it's not unique to Britain, but it's certainly much more widespread.

I was looking at some of the papers from across Europe in the last few days - while the story of the emergence of this draft constitution has been all over the front pages of the British press, many of the other European newspapers have been all over the front pages of the British press - many of the other European newspapers have been covering it in the middle pages and much of their coverage has actually been saying, look at what the British press are saying. So I think there is a certain amount of bemusement amongst some other Europeans when they look at some of the hysterical tone of the debate in Britain.

Andrew Simmons:
Kymn, Australia: The EU is constantly expanding - are there any provisions in the constitution to eject a country? For example, could the rest of Europe reject Britain (especially after the Iraq)?

Chris Morris:
The short answer to that is no. There is nothing in the document which says you can kick anybody out. There are things which say you can leave voluntarily. For the first time this constitution would set up a mechanism for people to leave voluntarily but that would be in itself an extremely complex political and legal business. But no - no one can be kicked out for bad behaviour.

Andrew Simmons:
Matthew Head from England asks: Leaving aside the question of whether or not the EU will become a super state, would a European super state be such a bad idea? If so, why?

Chris Morris:
Well that's really a matter of opinion. Some would like to see a European super state to be a counter-weight to the United States. That has essentially been the argument - although he hasn't been the term super state put forward by Jacques Chirac in his opposition to the war in Iraq. This is not just about Iraq but about not creating a uni-polar world where only the United States holds any real power around the world. Now obviously the more the European Union centralises, the more powerful it becomes, the more you do have alternative. But there's a question there - do you actually want to set up a rival entity or do you want to have a partnership? So these are pretty broad philosophical questions.

I think at the moment, most people in Europe - certainly what opinion polls would suggest - would be opposed to the idea of a big super state simply because they like their national identity. Just because, for example, the Germans have given up the deutschemark or the French have given up the French franc doesn't necessarily mean they want to be any less German or French. They're partly European now but national identity, I think, in Europe is still important.

Andrew Simmons:
Austin Spreadbury, UK asks: If this constitution proves to be a step too far, what would be the consequences of our leaving the EU?

Chris Morris:
It would be a very, very complicated process, as I said. I think any assurances that have been given in the past about how that would be done wouldn't really be worth the paper they were written upon. I think a lot would be dependent on the politicians who were in power at the time because this is something that would have to be negotiated - how you extract one country from incredibly complicated legal treaties and so forth. So it would be a very difficult process - a very long process. Nobody has tried it before but at least this constitution will set out a way - saying if people want to leave badly enough, I think rather reluctantly on most people's part, we would set out a way for you to do so.

Andrew Simmons:
Chris Morris, thank you very much for your time. Thank you to you the viewers for your questions. That's all we have time for, from me Andrew Simmons and the rest of the team here goodbye.