HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

The Treaty of The European Steel and Coal Community was signed in Paris on 18 April 1951 and came into force on 25 July 1952.

The Schuman plan as it was called was approved by the French Government on the 9 May 1950. Although reaction to the proposals was mixed some believing a new steel company cartel was being formed and others believing that the plan represented American control over Europe, public opinion was generally favourable even though the full significance of the plan was difficult to grasp. The European countries that had been approached had no wish to be left on the sidelines in the rebuilding of Europe. The ratification of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ESCC) was reached without any major obstacle in any of the six countries (Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries), signing the treaty.

This document is considered the foundation document of the European Union.

The Treaties of Rome, following the success of the (ESCC) (and the failure of the European Defence Community), the two communities initiated the organisation of the economic and atomic energy areas. The Treaty of the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Treaty of the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) were both signed on 25 March 1957 and came into force on 1 January 1958.

In April 1955, the foreign ministers of the six (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands) meeting in Messina, resolved to work together towards closer economic integration. Paul-Henry Spaak, the Belgian Minister for Foreign Affairs was named head of a committee charged with preparing a report on the topic. This Report, which was delivered in May of 1956, recommended the creation of a common market for all goods and services, based on a customs union with a common external tariff. It also proposed a union in the field of nuclear energy.

The Treaties of Rome consist of:

• The Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC);
• The Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) or (Euratom);
• A Convention on certain institutions common to the EEC, the EAEC and the European Steel and Coal Community (ESCC).

The UK joined the EEC in 1975, the Prime-minister at the time being Sir Edward Heath.

The Single European Act, apart from minor modifications, this Treaty was the first major reform of the European Union since the 1950s. The SEA introduced measures aimed at achieving an internal market (for instance harmonisation) plus institutional changes related to these (such as generalisation of qualified majority voting and a co-operation procedure involving the European Parliament). It also provided legal form for European Political Co-operation (EPC). The SEA was signed in February 1986 and came into force on 1 July 1987.

During the time of Prime-minister Margaret Thatcher.

The Maastricht Treaty. The Treaty on European Union initiated the road to political, economic and monetary union. It was drafted at a historic juncture when the re-unification of Germany and the fall of the Soviet Block made a re-thinking of the European Project necessary, among several significant innovations such as EU citizenship and the EMU. The Treaty of Maastricht created the so-called three pillar structure. It was signed on 7 February 1992 and came into force on 1 November 1993.

During the time of Prime-minister John Major

The Amsterdam Treaty. Enlargement towards the East and several issues on the EU agenda prompted the negotiation of the Amsterdam Treaty just four years after the conclusion of the Treaty of Maastricht. Negotiations, however, took place in a less optimistic climate. The Treaty of Amsterdam opened the way to re-enforced co-operation but it failed to solve institutional issues created by the forthcoming enlargement. It was signed on 2 October 1997 and came into force on 1 May 1999.

During the time of Prime-minister Tony Blair.

The Nice Treaty, dealt mainly with the institutional adaptations required for the expansion of the Union to twenty-five Member States. These issues had remained un-resolved with the Treaty of Amsterdam and they provided the background for one of the most difficult negotiations in the history of the Union. The Treaty was signed on 26 February 2001 and came into force on 2 February 2003.

Again during the time of Prime-minister Tony Blair.

The EU Constitution. Towards the end of the Twentieth Century, it became clear for a large number of European leaders that the EU required a re-foundation and renovation that included the distribution of competencies, simplification, and the incorporation of The Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Convention on the future of Europe produced a fully-fledged proposal for a Constitution or Constitutional Treaty for Europe. Italian and Irish presidencies had led the negotiation and final approval of this document. On 29 October 2004 the Heads of State or Government of the twenty-five member states and the three candidate countries signed the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe which has never been ratified.

Again during the Time of Prim-minister Tony Blair. However, please note this Treaty was never brought into full force and effect.

The Lisbon Treaty. This Treaty was initially known as the Reform Treaty and is an international agreement which amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union, The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU Member States on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 December 2009. It amends the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Rome. At Lisbon the Treaty of Rome was re-named the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Prominent changes include the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least forty-five policy areas in the Council of Ministers, a change in calculating such majority to a new double majority, a more powerful European Parliament forming a bicameral legislature alongside the Council of Ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure, a consolidated legal personality for the EU and the creation of a long-term President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union of Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Treaty also made the Union’s Bill of Rights and the Charter of fundamental Rights, legally binding. The Treaty, for the first time, gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU and a procedure to do so.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrines certain political, social and economic rights for European Union citizens and residents into EU Law. It was drafted by the EU Convention and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However, its then legal status was uncertain and it did not have full legal effect until the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009.

During the time of Prime-minister Gordon Brown.

POINTS TO NOTE:

There are a few points to note in relation to the development of the European Union:

• The original Treaty was put in place to create a common economic policy to help rebuild Europe after the Second World War.
• The original Treaty was between six of the worst affected countries.
• The UK consented to join the EEC at a time of great financial disadvantage in this country (I remember, I was there). It was believed that a bigger common market would provide a bigger trade voice in the world than every country working on its own.
• The monetary union has proved a huge stumbling block for the European Union, as was warned at the time of the union. The reason why the UK has not joined the currency union.
• The Common Agricultural Policy has provided subsidies to farmers, however, the policy was not thought out clearly enough, in the early years, we had Butter Mountains etc. This policy does really need to be looked at properly.
• The Treaty of Lisbon has really proved to be a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it does strengthen the core of the European Union and the common trade policies. It also increases the free trade area for goods and services. The free movement of people allows UK citizens to travel and work freely throughout Europe as well as the other way round. On the other hand the creation of a central EU Parliament and some of the structure of the EU outlined in the Lisbon Treaty is very difficult for individual governments to stomach. To the minds of some, the parliament creates a centralised government for Europe, and in their interpretation lessens the role of the individual state governments.
• Within the Lisbon Treaty there are sensible guidelines in respect of votes cast by MEPs.
• The European Union has a separate legal identity.
• The Charter of Fundamental Freedoms referred to in the Lisbon Treaty referring to the European Union cannot be construed as being the same as the European Convention of Human Rights or the European Court of Human Rights. The European Union and the European Court of Human Rights developed along separate routes.

I started this research because I wanted to understand why the Government wanted to abolish the Human Rights Act and start again. Except with reference to the Treaty of Lisbon I can still see no reason why we require to abolish the Human Rights Act.

As I have stated above, the European Court of Human Rights is separate from the European Union. It is an independent court. The judges that sit in that court represent different nations in Europe.

A judgement is not made by one judge but by three independent judges to ensure the legal reliability of a judgement.

The UK was a founder member of the Council of Europe, a major contributor and signatory to the European Convention of Human Rights, however it was not a signatory to the founding treaty of the European Union, therefore, it can reasonably be construed that even if the UK were to leave the EU individuals would still have a right to be represented at the European Court of Human Rights which protects every European citizen within a country that signed the original European Convention of Human Rights Charter.

The other question I faced in respect of human rights law yesterday was with regard to jurisdiction.

The Human Rights Act ensures that a case has to be taken through all due process of law within the country of origin before it will even consider a case. There are reasonable safeguards in place to ensure that all sides of the argument are considered before a case is even allowed to fall within the remit of the European Court. Cases are heard in the Country of origin.

Here are some points to note:

• In the UK, there are separate legal procedures in Scotland and England.
• A new Bill of Rights would have to be adapted to Scottish Law in Scotland.
• You do not have to abolish the Human Rights Act to create an independent Bill of Rights for the UK.
• The judiciary in England and Scotland are independent from Government.
• The European Court is an extra safeguard for an individual against violation of human rights by the state.
• It can be construed that the European Court is also an extra safeguard helping the UK judiciary to remain independent, thus enabling UK judges to make sensible, balanced judgements.

My plea to our own Scottish Government as well as the UK Government is quite simply please do not abolish the Human Rights Act. You see, it is easy to opt out and take the wide path. It is easier for a Government, because it makes the route for their policies smoother, to say let’s do away with a perfectly workable law and create something that suits our purposes, even if it knows that it is not going to be in the interests of the people of their Nation, as well as not being cost effective. The much more truthful, rewarding route is to find a real policy that works for everyone, building on what is already in place. Put the people first in this instance please.

featured image link click here  and find out about european law