Never sign a contract unless you know exactly what is in it. That is a golden rule for most business people, and one reason why many of them are concerned about the draft constitution which EU leaders will be debating on Thursday and Friday. The constitution is a draft contract so hedged about with fudge and footnotes that many executives rightly feel that it will remain dangerously ambiguous no matter how many “red lines” the British defend. Some fear that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, part of the constitution, could undermine Britain’s liberal labour laws. That there is still so much confusion about this provision so late in the day demonstrates why politicians should let the constitution pass into history as a dead letter.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights includes a right to work, a right to strike and a workers’ right to information. None of these sound particularly unreasonable in themselves. But their loose wording creates a clear risk that they will eventually require interpretation by the courts. Some businesses worry that the charter will lead to large numbers of people claiming new rights in court cases, and that this could reverse the light-touch labour market regulation that Britain has so painstakingly achieved.
While a mass of litigation seems unlikely, there are clearly risks that, once loopholes are created, people and their lawyers will slip through them. The UK’s opt-out from the Working Time Directive for example, which is already under review, could easily be challenged under the clause in the charter that “every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours”.
A war of footnotes is now being waged. Explanations are being attached to certain clauses in the charter to try to reduce their impact. Some lawyers claim that the charter is harmless because its clauses apply only when member states implement EU law. Others say that the distinction between EU and national laws is increasingly meaningless because EU laws drive more than half of British legislation. Tony Blair yesterday promised to get a wording that would secure British interests.
All this time-consuming fuss goes to the heart of the problem. Why have a charter in the constitution if it is toothless? If the charter is not an expression of rights on which people can base claims, why not make do with a simple expression of principles? Either the charter is harmlessly meaningless or dangerously meaningful. The failure to distinguish between rights and principles is ridiculous. Mr Blair should argue that a statement of aspirations is better than an inedible recipe.
Advertisement
It should not have taken pressure from the Confederation of British Industry to make the Government look again at this document. The whole sorry story of this constitution has been dogged by a lack of consultation and debate, both with the public and with business. A new EU power over energy was not removed from the constitution until Shell and BP wrote to ministers explaining the potential threat to their business. The Government is still not resisting the proposal that the EU should co-ordinate economic and employment policies, despite the obvious risks to the economy and the welfare of all workers. Joblessness is the most basic denial of workers’ rights.
Europe needs a functional treaty to cope with a membershp of 25 countries and one that is precise not vague, and free-market not statist. The Prime Minister is to be applauded for standing firm against tax harmonisation and similarly anti-competitive ideas. By now he has read the small print: it will surely be difficult for him to conclude that he should sign on the dotted line.