UK objects to new 'federal' blueprint for Europe

Britain's bid to shape a new constitution for Europe was in trouble last night, when it rejected as unacceptable a draft text calling for the European Union to be run partly "on a federal basis".

The use of the "f-word" has enraged the Government because of its "superstate" connotations in Britain.

Peter Hain, the Welsh Secretary, launched an angry attack on the document and claimed it contradicted the work of the convention on the future of Europe on which he sits. "A lot of representatives are wondering whether the people who drew up this document have been going to a different convention," he said.

Drafts of the first 16 articles of the proposed constitution for the EU were produced by a 13-strong praesidium, or steering committee, working for the president of the convention, Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

Through Mr Hain, the Government has been highly energetic at the convention and has often claimed it was winning the argument. Yesterday its tone changed as Mr Hain savaged the draft articles, arguing that their content "does not reflect the consensus of people on the convention".

M. Giscard hit back, responding that the convention's working groups were "the basis on which this text was drawn up".

The 105-strong convention is due to draw up a final draft constitution by the summer. It will be sent to heads of government who have the final say.

Many in Britain think that the word "federal" means a centralised system, but the word has a different meaning in other countries, including Germany where it stands for devolved government. Mr Hain said: "The word federal means different things to different people and it has to be clear: this speaks of federal powers within a constitution but we say the member states are the key building blocks and there must be no question of a federal superstate being erected."

The Government is also angry at a draft article that would make the EU's charter of fundamental rights legally enforceable. This document, which lays down entitlements for EU citizens, now has only declaratory force.

Britain has other problems with the document. It says the way the document defines the powers of the EU could produce confusion and allow encroachment by Brussels. Nor does it like a clause which makes it clear that countries inside the euro can make their own rules without the participation of nations such as Britain which stay outside.

Finally, it objects to its references to economic and foreign policy. Mr Hain insisted: "The EU has no authority in foreign and economic policy."

Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "This constitution is a blueprint for a federal European state ... Labour told us that a Charter of Fundamental Rights would have no more legal relevance than a copy of Beano. Now we are told that the Charter will be an integral part of the constitution."

But Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat MEP who sits on the convention, described the document as "an extremely positive step forward."