Michael Ancram on the EU constitution

As Europe's leaders gathered in Rome to sign the new EU constitution seven politicians and business leaders gave their thoughts on what it could mean for Britain.

Charles Kennedy Lib Dem leader "Nothing in constitution can force Britain into single currency" Jack Straw Foreign Secretary "EU constitution strengthens role of national governments" Caroline Lucas Green Party MEP "It marks a dark day in the history of European Union"

Michael Ancram Shadow foreign secretary "Countries have constitutions; nation states make treaties" Roger Knapman UKIP leader "Successive Labour and Tory governments signed away British rights" Lord Haskins Businessman and Labour adviser "EU has delivered unprecedented peace to western Europe "

Paul Sykes
Businessman and
Tory supporter

"Brussels is a
government trying
to build a nation

Michael Ancram

Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram has been a vocal opponent of the EU constitution

The European Union is not working as it should.

It is too bureaucratic, too distant, too unaccountable, produces too much regulation and does too much too badly.

Everyone agrees that the EU needs to change.

The EU constitution is exactly the wrong kind of answer.

Rather than solving the EU's problems, it would make them worse.

As its power has grown so has popular disenchantment.

This year's European elections saw the lowest ever turnout across the EU.

The constitution embodies all the old thinking that is steadily alienating the EU's institutions from the peoples of Europe they are supposed to serve.

Lazy assumptions?

If taking powers from Europe's nation states and giving them to Brussels were the solution the EU would be a shining success, because that is exactly what has been happening with increasing speed over the past few years.

This constitution would give the EU a new president, its own foreign minister and diplomatic service and turn the European Court of Justice into a kind of Supreme Court

This constitution makes all the old, lazy assumptions that have done so much damage to the EU: that every power it has is used well, that none should be returned to the nation states of Europe, that the European Commission needs more powers to regulate and that the power of the European Court of Justice should be boosted at national governments' expense.

This constitution's ambitions are extraordinary.

Federal state?

The Belgian prime minister, Guy Verhofstadt, has described it as the 'capstone' of a 'federal state'.

Indeed, he is right. Countries have constitutions; nation states make treaties with each other.

This constitution would give the EU a new president, its own foreign minister and diplomatic service and turn the European Court of Justice into a kind of Supreme Court.

Coupled with a flag, an anthem and a currency it is hard to see how this constitution is about anything other than turning the EU into a single country.

The constitution would have serious implications for Britain, which would affect our daily lives.

Asylum

The EU's powers over criminal justice would be widely expanded, including the creation of one post - the 'European Public Prosecutor' - that the Labour-dominated committee of MPs described as potentially 'an instrument of oppression'.

We would be bound into common European policies on asylum and immigration.

The EU would also increase its power over include energy policy, trade, social security and civil rights.

The biggest winner from all this would be the European Court of Justice.

It would decide what all the new powers and rights mean in practice. That court has an important role in making sure that European countries stick to common rules.

Change of heart?

But in a Europe where people increasingly feel that decision makers are too unaccountable and too distant giving more power to unelected judges in Luxembourg does not strike me as a great idea.

The EU needs to be something more useful than a one way street to an unaccountable and distant federal state

I can understand why the Liberal Democrats support the constitution: they have always favoured a federal Europe.

Indeed, this constitution does not go far enough for many of them. But Labour's support is harder to explain.

Only four years ago Tony Blair said he saw no need for an EU constitution.

Labour opposed almost all the new measures in the constitution.

Defeat?

They put down 275 amendments to the text but got only 27 of them accepted: not a great score.

New powers and posts that Tony Blair and his ministers had described as 'unacceptable' or 'damaging' were given the nod.

Labour may now describe the constitution as some kind of success, but objectively it represents an extraordinary defeat for Britain's vision of Europe, another sad testament to Labour's reputation for being all talk.

Tony Blair will not even have a democratic mandate when he goes to sign the constitution on Friday: more people voted in the European elections in June for parties that oppose it than for parties that support it.

But if the constitution is rejected we will have a wonderful opportunity to create the kind of flexible Europe that will work in the twenty first century in which Britain can feel comfortable.

Co-operation

I want to see the EU really reformed so that it is no longer characterised by high unemployment and dodgy accounts.

We need to let those countries that want to share more powers go ahead, but in return bring back powers from Brussels to Britain where the EU performs badly, like the destructive common fisheries policy or the red tape-making social policy.

We can accomplish a great deal working with other European countries that we cannot do by ourselves.

The EU needs to be something more useful than a one way street to an unaccountable and distant federal state; and if we are going to get that there could be no better start than binning this constitution.