Constitution prompts Commons clash

Plans for Britain to sign up to the European Union's new constitution have prompted heated exchanges in the Commons.

Foreign secretary Jack Straw told MPs that there was a "clear patriotic case" for adopting the new rules for the EU.

But the Conservatives accused the government of surrendering more powers to Brussels.

With strong feelings within parties as well as between them, some of the Commons' biggest hitters were also taking part in the debate.

Former foreign secretary Robin Cook lampooned suggestions that Europe needs Britain more than Britain needs Europe.

And ex-Tory chief William Hague said that EU integration was leading to further alienation from the political process.

Patriotic case

Opening the debate, Straw defended the constitution as "a framework for our kind of Europe, which gives us a strong role in a union of free and sovereign nations".

"The constitutional treaty puts Europe's member nations firmly in control," he said.

"There is a clear patriotic case for this constitutional treaty: for a strong Britain in a reforming Europe, increasing our prosperity and our security, promoting our values, and enhancing our power.

"As the debate continues in this House and in the country, I am confident that the patriotic argument for Europe will win against the narrow, pessimistic isolationism of the anti-Europeans.

"And I say that because this is an argument about this country's future – about choosing to take our opportunities, to lead by engagement, and to work with others to increase Britain's prosperity and Britain's power."

That argument, however, was rejected by Michael Ancram.

The shadow foreign secretary said ministers were "running scared" of an early referendum on the constitution.

"We are against a constitution for Europe and we are against this constitution for Europe," he added.

And Ancram warned that ministers were failing to be clear about the transfer of powers contained in the new constitution.

"This is the government of the white flag and the black propaganda," he told MPs.

"Clearly the government are frightened that the more we debate it, the more the British people will see it for what it is - a significant change in the relationship between the UK and the EU, the first formal step towards a politically united Europe and, to coin a phrase, the capstone of a federal state."

The Liberal Democrats are backing the constitution but foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell cautioned that the government needed to do more to make a positive case for Europe.

"Since 1997 I think too many opportunities have been missed by the government to make the European case," he said.

"I think the government could have done more but I still believe the referendum campaign can be won so long as there is full engagement.

"It will require a great deal of application - application which we have not seen so far."

Tory divisions

Intervening in the debate, former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke said that the government had been weak in conceding a referendum having previously been opposed.

"It is my view actually that the greatest change we are making to our tradition of parliamentary democracy in this country and the role of this parliament in our national life is by conceding this particular decision to a referendum, because I don't think we will ever again win back for parliament the right to control the nature of our relationships with the EU," he cautioned.

Hague took a different approach, backing his party's frontbench.

"It is common ground in this House that there is a great deal of public disaffection with the political process, that disillusionment with politics has grown greatly in recent years and decades," he said.

"That is partly because of the increased gulf between the people of the country and the decisions that are made in their name - and the increasing power and increasing integration of political power in the EU is a key part of that process.

"That is a fundamental part of my objection to this treaty. I believe that is a fundamental test against which constitutional change should be judged.

"At a time of disaffection, does it make it better or does it make it worse? This treaty, this constitution will make it worse."

Labour splits

Meanwhile, Cook said opponents of the constitution had been making a case that was "22-carat nonsense".

"This treaty ought to be welcome to those who want to put a limit to the creep of competence to Brussels," he said.

"It specifically defines, limits and sets down what are the competences of Brussels.

"There's not a substantial expansion of competence anywhere in this constitution."

Labour backbencher Austin Mitchell, however said plans to hold a referendum were welcome.

But he warned that the constitution had been "foisted on the people of Europe" by a "euro-elite".

The document has "all the intellectual excitement of cold porridge", he added.

Business verdict

But while pro-Europeans are enthusiastically backing the constitution, business leaders appear more sceptical.

The Institute of Directors found that just 29 per cent of its members were prepared to sign up, with a further fifth in the "don't know" category.

However, just 25 per cent said their voting intention was firmly fixed.

"UK directors are not convinced by the EU constitution," said Miles Templeman, IoD director general.

"The government faces a major challenge if it is to convince businesses they would be better off with an EU constitution.

"However, business leaders remain ready to hear the case from both sides."

Vote No welcomed the results of the poll, saying it was "a significant moment in the EU constitution debate".

"Business opposition to the EU constitution will make it even harder for the government to win the referendum," said campaign director Neil O'Brien.

"This poll of IoD members will put pressure on the CBI to campaign against it too."

CBI fears

And in a sign of CBI concerns with the direction of EU policy, the business organisation said on Wednesday it was "appalled" that the EU may legislate to restrict companies' freedom to restructure.

It said it was concerned that the EU will "resurrect damaging proposals which would mean firms could only make redundancies when they are on the verge of bankruptcy".

"Only a week ago we had a welcome pledge from the Commission to free-up markets and regulate only where necessary," said director general Sir Digby Jones.

"This announcement will frustrate, not encourage, business hopes of a reform-minded Commission."