British EU blueprint aims to bury plan for superstate

Britain laid out its stall for the future of Europe yesterday, tabling a draft constitution for the EU designed to entrench the power of governments and head off a drift to federalism.

Commissioned and partly funded by the Foreign Office, the document, drawn up by a Cambridge academic, is not a formal government text, but encapsulates all the key demands of the British Government.

Out goes Europe's traditional objective of "ever closer union", and in comes a call for the EU to work in a way that will "encroach as little as possible on the powers of the member states". The EU is described as a "constitutional order of sovereign states" that combine their sovereignties "for defined purposes and within defined limits".

The document, billed as a simplification and clarification of existing EU law, has been submitted to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the former French president who is chairing an inquiry into the future of Europe. It is seen in Brussels as a significant pre-emptive strike because Mr Giscard will propose his own outline for a draft constitution at the end of the month.

Written by Professor Alan Dashwood, the draft constitution lays down the objectives of the EU and specifies policy areas which the EU should control, making clear that everything else should be the preserve of national governments. It was welcomed by Peter Hain, the Europe minister, who said it showed how the idea of a federal superstate has "run into the sand".

His decision to submit Professor Dashwood's blueprint but insistence that it is not an official text is testament both to the Government's boldness, and to its caution. Little more than six months ago, the Government accepted that the EU might adopt a written constitution, something once anathema to Labour. However, the decision to hand the drafting of the document to an outsider underlines the sensitivity.

The Government appears to be worried that the document will be compared with the end product of Mr Giscard's convention, leaving it open to claims that it has been defeated on key issues. Yesterday, the Conservative spokesman on the convention, Timothy Kirkhope, described the Government's tactic of distancing itself from the text as "a con trick of the greatest magnitude".

A proclamation, which would become a preamble to the constitution, states that national governments remain the fundamental building blocks of Europe and that the EU has "only those powers which have been conferred on it by the member states". By listing the powers of the EU, Professor Dashwood underlines the Government's basic argument in favour of a constitution: that it limits European integration to specific areas, rather than allowing it to become a journey without a final destination.

The text refers to a British-backed plan for a new president of the EU Council of Ministers to be drawn from the ranks of former premiers. And it recognises the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights as a legitimate source for the courts to interpret, something not yet accepted by the British Government, which is worried about enshrining entitlements such as the right to strike.

The Dashwood blueprint would also revamp complex internal structures. At present there are three "pillars", the first of which covers areas such as agriculture and trade where the European Commission has a full role, and the second and third of which cover foreign and security policy and justice and homes affairs, which are inter-governmental. These would be brought into one structure, although in some the national veto would remain. Foreign and security policy, and economic and social policy would be covered by a new act that would underline the powers of national governments.

The complex legal architecture of the EU would be simplified and the treaties that cover the EU, the European Community and the European Atomic Energy Community rolled into one. The entire enterprise would be called the EU and would have a single legal "personality", allowing it to sign treaties and sit on international bodies.