Memorandum by the Brethren Christian Fellowship
We are thankful for the opportunity to provide
this submission in response to your Lordships inquiry.
Before commenting in detail perhaps we could
refer you to our Mission Statement on Europe which is appended.
The four founding freedoms of the Treaty of
Rome have provided the conditions and impetus for the economic
stability and prosperity of the Community through the Single Market
Programme. The single currency has contributed to this success
even though Britain has not yet become part of the euro-zone.
The "pillar" arrangement of the Maastricht
Treaty has been instrumental in maintaining the essential national
interest of individual governments in the sensitive areas of Common
Foreign and Security Policy and Justice and Home Affairs.
The present Reform Treaty now completes the
process started with the Amsterdam Treaty bringing freedom, security
and justice under Community competence, by involving the European
Parliament with the Council in the co-decision procedure. This
is a great disappointment. At best, such an arrangement can only
be arrived at by the lowest common denominator; hence British
protections and specific needs may be lost. With the further extension
of QMV and the prospect of further involvement by the European
Court of Justice in the sensitive areas of freedom, security and
justice it will be at the expense of national sovereignty and
the very fine influence of British courts.
We are thankful that there is still provision
for the British Government to choose whether or not to participate
in measures affecting these areas; but are concerned that the
consequential increased powers of the European Court of Justice
to intervene will increasingly limit national government options.
No one can anticipate the implications of the collapse of the
third pillar.
One particular concern that we have is the area
of family law measures—so many of which are derived from
the Christian heritage of Britain, established over centuries,
and thankfully still protected by consecutive British Governments.
We fully support the concept of mutual recognition between Member
States in this area, but we have already observed that elsewhere
in 2005, (Response to Commission Green Paper on Divorce) that
in the move to address the problems of divorce laws in cross border
connections, there is always the tendency for the "creep"
factors to come into play.
The uncertainty created by the ECJ Case 176/03
involving criminal sanctions in the event on environmental damage,
continues to provide evidence of the ECJ's outlook in extending
the boundaries of Community competence. The extent of the ECJ's
powers as the final arbiter of Community law is proving to be
without bound. If this trend continues, we fear what the consequences
may be of the ECJ's judgement in the whole area of freedom, security
and justice.
29 November 2007
| 
