No need for a new constitution for the European Union; it's already got one

Perhaps, like Ken Clarke, who admitted he had not read the Maastricht Treaty, Mr Straw has yet to read the Treaty of Rome

So the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, has decided that there should be a written constitution for Europe. But there is one already. It is called the Treaty of Rome. This was signed on 25 March 1957 by the heads of governments of the original six members: France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. It is a remarkably simple and straightforward document.

Line one of the preamble states that the "high contraction parties" are "determined to lay the foundations of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe". In Article 1, they resolve to ensure the economic and social progress of their countries by common action to eliminate the barriers that divide Europe. There is a recognition that the removal of existing obstacles requires "concerted action in order to guarantee steady expansion, balanced trade and fair competition".

Article 2 states that "the community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among member states".

Article 3 sets out the activities and common policies such as agriculture, fisheries, transport, competition and the environment. Article 3a states that "these activities shall include the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to the introduction of a single currency, the ecu, and the definition and conduct of a single monetary policy and exchange rate policy".

Loathe the European Union though I do, it is impossible to deny the simple clarity with which the founding fathers wrote the original document. Sir Edward Heath appended his signature to the Treaty of Accession on behalf of the UK on 24 January 1972. So how it has been possible to have any misunderstanding about what "Europe" means I do not understand. It always seemed to me crazy to be "in Europe but not run by Europe". By definition, if we are in Europe, we must eventually be run by Europe. One of the most fantastic arguments put forward by the Johnny-come-lately Eurosceptics in the Tory party against further integration is the argument that they only voted for a free trade area. "We were never told about the single currency or the European Central Bank," they wailed during the 1990s when the row over Maastricht was at its height.

I recall Enoch Powell, during the passage of the Single European Act in 1986, warning that a pick-and-mix attitude to Europe was impossible. Which is why, though I cheered Lady Thatcher's infamous resignation rant against the single currency to the echo, I could never quite understand her attitude given that every last detail providing for a European Central Bank to control monetary policy is all clearly set out in the Treaty of Rome.

So what is Mr Straw's game? Perhaps, like the Tory Chancellor Ken Clarke, who admitted he had not read the Maastricht Treaty, Mr Straw has yet to read the Treaty of Rome. He implies that there should be clear limits to Europe's busybody role. Well, even here, the treaty deals with that in pretty clear terms. Article 3b: "In areas that do not fall within its executive competence, the community shall take action, in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states and can therefore, by reason of the scale or efforts of the proposed action, be better achieved by the community."

I suspect that Mr Straw, like all his predecessors, makes the mistake of thinking that the Treaty of Rome is some historic, flowery document written on parchment and signed with quill pens and too complicated for ordinary mortals to understand. What strikes me, nearly 50 years on, is the remarkable clarity of the document and the remorseless way in which its provisions continue to be implemented to the spirit and the letter by the institutions of the community. (Article 4: "The tasks entrusted to the community shall be carried out by the following institutions – a European Parliament, a Council, a Commission, a Court of Justice, a Court of Auditors.")

The ringing clarity of the original treaty means that Mr Straw is playing other games. He is terrified that the European project is coming unstuck and becoming progressively unpopular, thereby threatening the prospects for winning the vote to join the euro. He is also frightened about the outcome of the proceedings under way at the convention set up at the European Council at Laeken. The Laeken declaration asserts that "the EU is a success story", but admits that it is perceived as remote and interfering. It has charged the convention, under the chairmanship of the former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, to simplify the treaties, tackle the democratic deficit and examine the case for a constitution.

But David Heathcoat-Amory, the Eurosceptic Tory MP who sits on the convention, is not holding his breath. In all the meetings he has attended, he has not heard one speech that does not envisage a continuation of a federal or quasi-federal EU. "They seem more interested in defending their existing institutions than engaging in real debate... To them any suggestion of Less Europe is a retreat and a defeat. The only solution is More Europe."

If it is serious about the lack of democracy in the EU, this convention must recommend the transfer of powers back to member states. The subsidiarity principle has been persistently ignored. Weak ministers, says Mr Heathcoat-Amory, connive at this because they like legislating behind the closed doors of the Council of Ministers rather than being exposed to national scrutiny. This enables the Commission to take matters into its own hands with a stream of directives. Most recently it has spewed forth the Physical Agents (Vibration) Directive. Almost no one knows who dreamt it up, discussed it or voted for it. Yet it will make it illegal to sit on a tractor for more than a certain number of hours a day. Because it is EU law, it cannot be amended or defied by the House of Commons.

In the dark recesses of Mr Straw's past is the heartbeat of a once-proud anti-marketeer. In those far-off days of the 1975 referendum, when he was under the spell of his mentor, Barbara Castle, he was clear about the implications of the Treaty of Rome. Expediency probably dictated his change of heart. Now he has to bang the drum for the euro while recognising the growing public antagonism towards the greater EU project. To do this, however, he would need to persuade the EU to amend the original Treaty of Rome that states that member states "shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this treaty". But in the long term, the only honest way of objecting to the EU in its current form is by abrogating the original treaty.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk