Green ink (and a bit of sense) on the Charter

The Times today has a few letters responding to the government and Lord Wedderburn on the Reform Treaty.

Robert Gutfreund Walmsley’s letter makes depressing eurosceptic reading. What does he mean by the dual nationality provision? There?s nothing new in the Reform Treaty about nationality. He must mean the existing articles 17 to 21 of the European Community Treaty, which will be replicated with very slight (and insignificant) amendments by article 2(34) of the Reform Treaty.

I’m almost too dispirited to go on: but the existing opt-ins to justice and home affairs matters, which will be carried on and extended by the Reform Treaty, and to the Euro, which will also be carried on, have not yet been challenged – so there is no reason to believe they will be in future. Nor, since others like Ireland, Denmark and Poland either already share opt-outs and opt-ins with us, or want to, is it at all likely that 26 other countries would be lined up against us if ever there were such a challenge.

I’m afraid Mr. Walmsley lives in a Bill Cash world in which every word in every European proposal has been primed and laid by Guy Fawkes, in conspiracy with Napoleon.

Not that I’m against every type of euroscepticism: I’m not. Andrew Gardner’s letter shows why it’s right to be wary about what the government says it’s up to when signing up to treaties.

Denis McShane’s letter, finally, which is a direct response to Lord Wedderburn: I agree with him that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will not change employment law or practice in any member state. It won’t, and was never going to. That’s why it’s crazy that the government, egged on by fantasies peddled by the CBI, thought the see-through fig-leaf of a protocol was needed for purely political, presentational reasons.