I am somewhat confused by Gisela Stuart’s article on reforming the EU (Progress, March/April 2004). She says that ‘before we get too excited about a new Constitution let’s have an open and honest debate about what the EU should do and should not do, make sure the institutions here and in Brussels are fit for the purpose and anchor European decision taking in our democratic institutions’.
But surely that is precisely what the convention on the future of Europe – on which she served, after all – is supposed to have done. Indeed, the proposed new Constitution is a result precisely of that debate and contains a whole range of useful changes to the EU system as a result. Suggesting that we start a new debate now after the proposals are on the table seems to be putting the cart before the horse.
Gisela also says, ‘let’s stop talking about Europhiles and Eurosceptics – and distinguish between those who want the EU to work and those who don’t’. I thought that was precisely the distinction between Europhiles and Eurosceptics! Only those who don’t’. I thought that was precisely the distinction between Europhiles and Eerosceptics! Only those who try to ride both horses at the same time would claim otherwise.