Back to Brussels Blog homepage
Europe’s constitution: saving something from the wreckage is as easy as 3, 2, 1
January 25, 2007
I’ll be in Madrid on Friday, listening to the representatives of 20 countries protesting their love for the European Union constitution (deceased), and insisting that as much of the hallowed treaty should be saved as possible.
That is their right and they have a point. After all, 18 out of 27 member states have ratified the constitution (that’s the equivalent of 270m people) and Portugal and Ireland will also be in Madrid as non-ratifying but honorary "friends of the constitution".
But they should prepare to be disappointed. The fact is that if anything is going to be saved it will have to be modest, unthreatening and boiled down to its barest essentials. This is how you do it:
First, you ditch Part III of the constitution, the bulk of the original treaty which was a worthy attempt to pull together the EU’s 17 existing treaties into a single readable text. Unfortunately it reminded French voters of what was written in the founding Treaty of Rome 50 years ago about free trade and open markets, so perhaps it’s best to keep that sort of thing out of public view.
Second, you strip out the main "innovations" contained in Part III and put them in the new slimline treaty. They include new EU powers in justice and home affairs and a bit more European action in energy and defence. Only the first of these - the extension of qualified majority voting to criminal law and immigration matters - could be considered a significant transfer of sovereingty to Brussels, and even these provisions are subject to "emergency brakes" to defend vital national interests.
Third, get rid of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Part II of the constitution). All you need is a single article in the new treaty referring to the charter and the modest legal rights it confers in the operation of EU policies.
Fourth, change the constitution’s name to something less threatening. Also change the nomenclature to allay public concern: why not call the promised new EU foreign minister something dreary like "European foreign policy coordinator"? Then you could ditch the official designations of the EU’s anthem, flag, motto and national day that makes Dutch voters fear the Union is turning into a superstate.
Fifth, you could try to add some waffly, legally non-binding declarations about "social Europe" and something on the environment for the Dutch.
Voila. You are left with a boring institutional treaty which embodies most of Part I of the constitution - the useful stuff about a new full-time EU president, foreign minister, new voting rules and smaller Commission and a couple of new policy ideas from Part III. Who could possibly object to that?
And more importantly, what politician would really want to trouble their voters by holding a referendum on such a bland document? Apart from Segolene Royal.
It may fall well short of the ambitions and dreams of some of those gathered in Madrid on Friday, but I reckon the final text will look something like what I have just described above.
More of a ‘boring institutional treaty’, certainly - but thoroughly dishonest.
The problem with coming up with a new treaty is that the 18 who have already ratified the existing document (though only two had a public vote on it) would look foolish in having to ’start again’.
Hence their, and Merkel’s, interest in merely attaching a ‘Social Protocol’ to the existing document. They hope a protocol, plus an improved public mood due to a change of president, will squeeze it past the French public in a second referendum. And that, in turn, may pressure the Dutch into changing their minds too.
How this clear strategic split will be resolved will prove very interesting.
But those who would feel it necessary to ‘hide’ actually very significant parts of the Constitution like Part III or the Charter for fear of ‘upsetting’ the voters again are tacitly acknowledging - but undemocratically ignoring - legitimate public concerns across Europe about the limits of the one-size-fits-all EU integration process embodied in detail in those parts.
These parts were what worried people. The democratic response by EU leaders is not to hide them away, but change them.
The hard truth however is that they can’t be changed to meet the diverse national needs of every potential participant. The French wanted less economic ‘liberalisation’ and a more prescriptive social model - the Dutch feared more interference, particular in areas such as their liberal drug laws.
The rational conclusion should be that EU one-size-fits-all is now being driven too far - into too many areas of national policy, down into too much detail.
But unfortunately the EU project is still being driven by fanatics for one-size-fits-all integration, determined to push on with their 1950s-planned project regardless of Europe’s diversity.
Even if it means concealing things which they well know voters would object to.
That is hardly healthy for Europe’s democracy or, consequently, stability.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | January 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pm | Report this commentI don’t see what is dishonest about a treaty text - it is a text that is by definition publicly available and can be debated by the public in an unrestricted way.
I am also not convinced that Stuart is right to be so pessimistic about the ability of EU countries to agree on a new treaty - I think it is entirely possible. Indeed, I think a treaty negotiated by 27 is likely to be much lighter (and therefore better) than one negotiated by 6 or 12 or 15.
Actually George I hope you’re not far off the mark, but I am somewhat concerned that the Friends of the Constitution may be a little too attached to the old text and in particular to the policy sections.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | January 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am | Report this commentWhat would be dishonest would be suggested ideas like maintaining, but hiding, EU commitments to ‘free trade and open markets’ out of public view, because it might upset voters in some countries.
Also the idea of disconnecting the Charter and just ‘endorsing’ it with a single article - once again moving highly contentious parts (not beyond scrutiny altogether, of course) but further out of sight, hoping fewer will ‘notice’.
Plus renaming certain plans in more dreary terms so as to disguise what they actually are - like the EU Foreign Minister, or the name of the document itself.
We will see what actually happens. But *if* such ideas are followed, that would be tacit acknowledgement by those driving the process that certain EU plans and ‘one size fits all’ EU principles, when described honestly, do not command popular support.
Those proceeding regardless - merely trying to cast a fog over them - would reveal themselves not as democrats but as zealots for 1950s-planned EU integration.
If certain things upset voters in certain countries, here’s a ‘radical’ idea…
Why not respect Europe’s diversity, and leave policies to their elected governments. Don’t try to disguise and enforce bland centralised EU conformity in areas where there is none.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | January 31st, 2007 at 5:28 pm | Report this commentWell here’s a thought for you Stuart - maybe what was dishonest was calling the EU Foreign Minister a Foreign Minister, when what he would really be is much closer to a “foreign policy co-ordinator”. Maybe the whole discussion about the reform of the COnstitution is actually about being more and not less honest.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 1st, 2007 at 12:00 pm | Report this comment‘Co-ordinator’. Oh please. Nice try, but now try reading the Constitution.
Article I-12(4), for example, would have given the EU the power to “define and implement a common foreign and security policy” to (in Article I-16) “cover all areas of foreign policy” and which member states would be required to “actively and unreservedly support … in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity”.
The EU Foreign Minister was proposed in Article I-28 to “conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy”.
It really couldn’t be clearer. Note the word “define” particularly. Surely not so much ‘co-ordination’ of national policies as (typically) seeking the creation and governance of central EU policies.
The Constitution was in some such ways (most evident in the title itself) actually a rare moment of candour, casting aside the EU’s formerly successful strategy of hiding what is being created in wordy obscurity.
Using the ‘C’ word alone has let the cat out of the bag to a large extent, and I’m not sure even a reversion to obscurity can now lever it back in again. Given most people want European co-operation but not a highly centralised yet barely accountable EU State.
I think this mistake happened because the Constitution’s creation was driven almost exclusively by a small clique of old guard out-of-touch EU-Statists such as Valery Giscard d’Estaing - still clinging to the ideas prevalent in their politically formative years, despite our living in a very different world today.
If you think that ‘almost exclusively’ claim is an exaggeration, try reading what Labour MP (and former Constitution Praesidium member) Gisela Stuart has had to say on her experiences.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 1st, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Report this comment‘Co-ordinator’. Oh please. Nice try, but now try reading the Constitution.
Article I-12(4), for example, would have given the EU the power to “define and implement a common foreign and security policy” to (in Article I-16) “cover all areas of foreign policy” and which member states would be required to “actively and unreservedly support … in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity”.
The EU Foreign Minister was proposed in Article I-28 to “conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy”.
It really couldn’t be clearer. Note the word “define” particularly. Surely not so much ‘co-ordination’ of national policies as (typically) seeking the creation and governance of central EU policies.
The Constitution was in some such ways (most evident in the title itself) actually a rare moment of candour, casting aside the EU’s formerly successful strategy of hiding what is being created in wordy obscurity.
Using the ‘C’ word alone has let the cat out of the bag to a large extent, and I’m not sure even a reversion to obscurity can now lever it back in again. Given most people want European co-operation but not a highly centralised yet barely accountable EU State.
I think this mistake happened because the Constitution’s creation was driven almost exclusively by a small clique of old guard out-of-touch EU-Statists such as Valery Giscard d’Estaing - still clinging to the ideas prevalent in their politically formative years, despite our living in a very different world today.
If you think that ‘almost exclusively’ claim is an exaggeration, try reading what Labour MP (and former Constitution Praesidium member) Gisela Stuart has had to say on her experiences.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pm | Report this comment‘Co-ordinator’. Oh please. Nice try, but now try reading the Constitution.
Article I-12(4), for example, would have given the EU the power to “define and implement a common foreign and security policy” to (in Article I-16) “cover all areas of foreign policy” and which member states would be required to “actively and unreservedly support … in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity”.
The EU Foreign Minister was proposed in Article I-28 to “conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy”.
It really couldn’t be clearer. Note the word “define” particularly. Surely not so much ‘co-ordination’ of national policies as (typically) seeking the creation and governance of central EU policies.
Simply re-naming the position as you suggest while changing none of the power transfers would clearly be dishonest.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 1st, 2007 at 4:07 pm | Report this commentSorry about duplication. Typepad reported an error and it was not obvious the comment had been submitted.
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 2nd, 2007 at 11:41 am | Report this commentStuart I have had this debate about the Constitution and the Foreign Policy before, but I suppose having you read the document is not going to be sufficient and I’ll have to point out that the Common Foreign Policy that Member States will have to support unreservedly is subject to a veto - and therefore to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from today’s situation.
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 2nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm | Report this commentSo in moving on to the slightly separate question of a veto, you concede the point that the EU’s intentions in this field are indeed about creating (’defining’) a single, central foreign policy?
Not, as your original suggestion of calling the person in charge of it the “foreign policy co-ordinator” implied, ‘co-ordinating’ separate policies of very diverse EU member countries?
Posted by: Stuart Coster | February 2nd, 2007 at 5:30 pm | Report this commentStuart I hink the veto is not separate but central. Hw can the Foreign Minister do anything more than co-ordinate given that Member States have a veto?
Posted by: Chris Sherwood | February 3rd, 2007 at 12:00 pm | Report this commentAnd now we have…the Lisbon Treaty. What remarkable forsight you showed.
Posted by: uk | February 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm | Report this comment