APPENDIX 12
Memorandum from the Brethren in Britain
Thank you for the invitation to submit evidence
to the European Scrutiny Committee regarding the EU Constitutional
Treaty which is now awaiting ratification by national parliaments.
We are known as Brethren to many Members of
the Committee, having had personal contact with them about the
Treaty over a period of time. We do not pretend to approach this
subject as understanding it, (although we believe that the implemention
of the provisions of the Constitution will be a giant leap into
uncharted territory), but rather from a moral angle, and from
practical experience gained in our contact with the EU Institutions
and the UK Government at every level.
Q1. The practical consequences of the new
references (in Articles 1-2 and 3), to the Union's values and
objectives
Article I-2. The Union's
values
"Values" are not judiciable: therefore
the consequences must be negligible.
Article I-3. The Union's
objectives
Objectives can only be achieved by implementing
measures. These will be judiciable. Objectives are not. Consequences—negligible.
Q2. Whether the Treaty makes "enhanced
co-operation" more likely
We consider this question is very closely linked
to Question 9. The answer must be "yes", whether the
treaty is ratified or not. It already exists in well defined areas,
and it is a well known fact that certain Member States wish to
integrate further and faster than others, which no doubt they
will, whatever happens. This observation is based on Article I-43.
Member States will be able to make use of the Commission, the
European Parliament to "further the objectives of the Union,
protect its interests and reinforce its integration process"
(Our bold lettering). No doubt at some stage, the European Court
of Justice will become involved when a Member State or an Institution
does not get its own way. The Government, thankfully, has made
it clear that it does not accept an integrationist approach, and
will therefore stand apart when it is in the national interest
to do so.
Is it possible, that enhanced co-operation
in a shared competence could become an exclusive competence in
a future Treaty revision?
In the event of a major crisis, we consider
that the UK should be capable of standing alone within all the
areas of Shared Competences as defined in Article I-13 without
being ensnared in enhanced co-operation to our disadvantage.
We would not presume to question why the Committee
has omitted the question of Structured Cooperation (Articles I-40
(6) and III-209), but we see a very similar issue to enhanced
co-operation.
Any arrangement whereby Member States are enabled
to go further and faster than others must involve a substantial
risk. National security and defence is very topical since 9/11.
The Government cannot afford to relax its defence capabilities
by implementing defence spending as is at present proposed.
We recognise that the UK armed forces and their
armed capability in the field are the best in Europe, and should
be provided with all the resources they need to carry out the
tasks allotted to them, particularly when operating within NATO,
and with our American allies.
The Government must resist the temptation to
rely on concepts enunciated in the founding Treaties, such as
"world peace can be safeguarded only by creative efforts"
(ECSC) and "Resolved by thus pooling their resources to preserve
and strengthen peace and liberty . . ." (EEC)
". . . the day of the Lord so cometh as
a thief in the night. For when they shall say Peace and safety;
then sudden destruction cometh upon them . . ." (1 Thessalionians
2:2&3)
The UK, therefore should also be able to stand
alone in defence capabilities.
See also comments on Question 9.
Q7. The effect of the "horizontal"
clauses which govern the application of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights
We are thankful that the provisions of the Charter
are addressed "to the Institutions, bodies, offices and agencies
of the Union . . . and to Member States only when implementing
Union law", however, we are alarmed by the provision of Article
II-52 (3) . . ." This provision shall not prevent Union law
providing more extensive protection.
The recognition of Christian conscience. and
the upholding of Scriptural principles governing human relationships
is totally ignored and denigrated in the Charter, as follows.
Every plea at national and EU level for the
provision of Christian conscience in EU social policy implementation
nationally has been met with polite refusal. EU anti-discrimination
policy totally ignores the moral dimension of a Christians manner
of life .We insist that Article II-10 provides no protection for
us from the overarching power of the Institutions when initiating
social policy legislation. Moral discrimination has already been
outlawed and sacrificed to an EU ideology which leaves God out
of its reckoning. NB The refusal by certain Member States to
allow the Name of God to be included in the Preamble.
Article II-9 includes two rights, "the
right to marry" and "the right to found a family".
The Explanations to the Charter, annexed to the Final Act explains:
"The wording of the Article has been modernised to cover
cases in which national legislation recognises arrangements other
than marriage for founding a family. This Article neither prohibits
nor imposes the granting of the status of marriage to unions between
people of the same sex".
So long as EU policy and Member States promote
alternative life styles which are anti-Christian, and apostate
in character, it is to be expected that the sanctity of marriage
will be invalidated and the family, the core principle of society,
will be broken down as divorce increases.
The effect of "horizontal" clauses
governing the application of the Charter from a Christian perspective
will not afford any protection for our consciences. It is a great
disappointment that this Charter should have been granted the
status it has been given.
Q9. What the consequences would be if the
Treaty is not ratified
Failure by Member States to ratify the Treaty
will be the catalyst for enhanced co-operation to flourish. We
predict that certain prominent, federalist minded States will
wish to extend their existing unofficial "enhanced co-operation"
to the detriment of their more intergovernmentally minded neighbours
who do not wish to go so far.
Failure for the Treaty to be ratified would
of course, result in the Pillar Structure remaining in place for
the foreseeable future. However, the proliferation of enhanced
co-operation between different groupings of Member States will
lead to instability and economic stagnation. The present unilateral
agreements between Member State, outside any Treaty obligations
are to be preferred to even the Pillar Structure introduced by
Maastricht.
SUMMARY
We maintain that the UK should retain the capability
to be able to stand alone in every area of the Union's competences
in the event of any major EU or global crisis in the future. We
are not qualified to define how this could be done but we are
thankful for Christian leadership in our Prime Minister, Mr Blair,
who has retained the initiative against terrorism, and whose Government
has maintained prosperity in our nation relative to the stagnation
found elsewhere in Europe. He should continue to resist imposition
of burdensome regulation which is proving counter-productivity
to European prosperity, through unnecessary harmonisation and
interference in national traditions.
We do not believe our nation either needs
nor wants this Treaty to be ratified.
CONCLUSION
We wish to record our appreciation for the work
the European Scrutiny Committee undertakes, which must often be
onerous due to the sheer volume of the work undertaken. We also
appreciate the openness of the Committee's proceedings and the
friendly atmosphere whenever we attend.
7 September 2004
| 
