Letter: Amendments to the Maastricht treaty
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Two points are neglected in the absorbing debate about the Social Protocol. First, the UK government has a moral, legal and political duty to try to get the treaty in force. This means not only beating off the opposition in this country, but also helping the Danish government to do so there. On 18 May, what the Danes will vote on is the original Maastricht treaty with the UK opt-out on social policy plus the Danish 'set of arrangements' of Edinburgh.
The Danish political parties are trying to convince themselves and a sceptical public that renegotiation of Maastricht is impossible at this stage. Were the UK to force a renegotiation, it is almost certain that the delicate party compromise in Denmark would fall apart. Therefore, those pro-European Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs who are minded to vote for the essentially destructive Amendment 27 would be wise to get their sights on the consequential renegotiation of the treaty taking place only once the existing treaty has come into force on 1 July. Such a constructive objective should even attract the support of several pro-European Tory MPs - who have been rather quiet.
Second, on the matter of the Crown prerogative, the Maastricht Bill itself is not a ratification measure. Indeed, only three of the seven titles of the treaty are included in the Bill anyway. The transfer to the European union of sovereignty in the fields of foreign, internal and external security policy is not deemed to have consequences in domestic law.
The amendment of the EC treaties, on the other hand, certainly requires Westminster legislation in order to become directly effective in the United Kingdom, not least because of earlier UK EC Acts which stipulate constraints on the growth of the powers of the European Parliament.
As Maastricht does enhance the power of the parliament significantly and substantively (though inadequately), the current Westminster palaver is certainly necessary. Any attempt to bypass the Commons would be a political outrage and a constitutional anachronism - and would be immediately challenged in both UK and EC jurisdiction by some enterprising (and rich) citizen- elector.
Yours faithfully,
A. N. DUFF
Director
Federal Trust for Education
and Research
London, SW1
15 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments