Chance for a Real Debate on the EU´s Constitution
Kirsty Hughes and J. Ignacio Torreblanca
January 24, 2007
After 18 months of dispiriting limbo since the French and Dutch twin ‘nos’ to the EU’s draft constitution, the pretence of a period of reflection (more a long period of inaction and worry) is over. Heading the German Presidency, Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that informal and private discussions are to be held among the member states on what to do with the constitution, (a constitution declared dead by many but refusing to go quietly).
But the German softly-softly approach looks like being rudely upstaged by the gathering in Madrid on 26 January of those 18 countries – ‘friends of the constitution’ – who have already ratified it. And even two countries who have yet to ratify – Ireland and Portugal – have asked to come as well, declaring that they too are friends of the constitution.
The decision by Spain and Luxembourg to set up this event has annoyed some – from the German presidency themselves, to other doubters on the constitution notably the UK, Poland and the Czechs, to the French and Dutch who remain undecided as to what if anything they would like, or be able to do, to help Europe move forward again. But while those who are dismayed by the Spanish-Luxembourg move mutter and complain about idealists versus realists, this may prove to be more a conflict between democrats and cynics.
Back in December 2001, in their now perhaps regretted Laeken declaration, the EU’s leaders owned up publicly to a loss of public support and engagement in the political project that is today’s Union. In ringing terms, they declared they would close the gap between Union and public, project the EU as a political and moral force in the world, and make sure the soon-to-be enlarged Union would be efficient as well as more democratic. And to show their new transparency, and as a first step to engaging the public, for the first time the EU held 18 months of public discussion in the constitutional convention, before reverting to a more typical closed doors approach to finally agree the constitutional treaty.
It was because the EU recognised it faced these challenges – of no longer being an elitist body, of truly democratically engaging the public, and developing a real strategic approach and structures for an enlarged Union – that it adopted this high profile Laeken declaration, and this is why so many member states went on to say they would ratify the constitution through referenda. Time, it was said, for a major shift.
But faced with the twin French and Dutch ‘nos’, the EU’s leaders have been dismally non-plussed ever since. With the approach of the French presidential election, the hope is (with little discussion of where the Dutch stand) that Sarko or Sego will help find a way out of the mire. And behind the scenes, many hope that some form of ‘mini-treaty’ as proposed by Sarkozy could be the way ahead. Sotto voce, many also admit that his proposals are not so ‘mini’ but argue that if some but not all of the key institutional and democratic changes are squeezed into a redrafted version of the Nice treaty, then they can be ratified through parliaments, while politicians explain to their publics that these are all much smaller, more technical, less significant (but somehow dearly needed) changes. On top of that, many have rushed to denounce referenda as undemocratic – something we would not have heard if the French and Dutch had voted ‘yes’, when the talk would have been of resounding endorsements by the people.
This is a long, and deeply cynical, way from the refreshing honesty and recognition of the need for real democratic change in the EU back in 2001. And so, in fact the Spanish and Luxembourgers are to be congratulated: for bringing clearly, into the public light of day, the political disagreements as to where to go next with the constitution; for challenging the French and Germans not simply to concoct some behind-the-scenes deal that everyone else will be pressured into signing up to; for not disowning their own work and political support for what was in the constitution (signed after all by 27 governments and endorsed by 500 MEPs).
To criticise the Spanish-Luxembourg move for potentially derailing the private German discussions, is to show scant regard for democracy and public debate. It is a back to the old days of elitist, intergovernmental agreement that alienated the European public in the first place. Some say that it will make life difficult for the French presidential candidates as they may find their hands forced to commit to positions on the constitution during their election campaigns – but wouldn’t that be democratic, and haven’t Sarko and Sego already made public pronouncements?
Others argue the January 26 meeting in Madrid will polarise the EU, between the twothirds who have ratified and the one-third that have not? But why should it when all 27 governments did originally sign the constitution, and there is no agreement among the non-ratifiers, not even among the French and Dutch, as to which bits of the constitution are no longer acceptable? And how can the EU public be expected to support treaty changes (even if they no longer get a voice through referenda) where the deal, and the debate is all held behind closed doors?
The dash to get away from the dreadful, ungrateful public may anyway not succeed. The Irish will almost certainly have to hold a referendum on any future treaty. Under Segolene Royal, France may do so too, leaving the British in a quandary, once again facing domestic calls for a referendum that a Brown government won’t know how to win.
The EU needs to move on. It needs to regain political energy and confidence – internally, in its region, globally. It can’t do that until it finds a way out of its constitutional debacle. Germany must take the lead in its presidency. But it should have the confidence and the democratic instinct to welcome, not contest, the Madrid meeting. Grubby deals, even in rooms no longer full of smoke, are not what the 21st century EU needs.
*This analysis has simultaneously been published at http://www.EurActiv.com
6 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI | bookmark on del.icio.us.
Leave a comment
Advertencia de Protección de Datos:
Los datos personales capturados con ocasión de la utilización del formulario de comentarios (nombre/apodo, dirección de correo electrónico, sitio web y dirección IP), serán incluidos en un fichero del propietario del sitio web y se publicarán (excepto su dirección de correo electrónico y su dirección IP) en esta página con la finalidad de permitir opinar públicamente al lector, así como para en su caso contestar al comentario o consultas que formule. Podrá ejercitar sus derechos de acceso, de rectificación, de cancelación y de oposición en lo referido a dichos datos personales dirigiendo un correo electrónico a la dirección: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
----
Privacy notice:
Please be informed that by using the comments form, your personal data (name/nickname, e-mail address, website and IP address), will be included in a file owned by the website proprietor and published along your comment (except for your e-mail and IP addresses), in order for the reader to publicly comment, as well as -should that be the case-, to respond to any comment or query that readers may have made. You will be able to exercise your rights to access, rectify, cancel and oppose such personal data by sending an e-mail to the following address: datos.personales@blogeuropa.eu.
I have a feeling that the Germans were not planning to wait around to long, this BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6212855.stm
Mentions the coming 50th anniversary calibrations, and the German plan to make a Berlin Declaration in March which is to be a ‘statement of the Union’s fundamental values and aims’ wording that closely resembles the constitutional language.
As is the nature of the presidency they do not have very long to act, the constitution is most definitely back on the table, and it is time to decide, do we go face a uncertain future together or apart.
Comment by DrJeff — January 24, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Brilliant!!!
I would like to congratulate Jose Ignacio and Kirsty for their analysis. Now let’s hope that tommorrow’s meeting would end up with a clear message to all European countries and citizens.
Best regards,
Maria
Comment by Maria Lopez-Contreras Gonzalez — January 25, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
Excellent analysis of the future for the European Constitution.
I only hope that next time we vote,if that is the case, for the a modified Constitution, we would do it in a single day pan-european vote, of all european citizens of the members states.
Comment by jose manuel aguilar de ben — January 29, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
The EU’s Constitutional running sore continues to erode any lingering (some might argue non-existent) sense of confidence the European electorate may have in the ability of political élites to deliver a coherent response to the pressures placed upon the Union by a dynamic 21st. century global environment.
Political leaders in the European arena were (I would argue) aware of a growing sense of disenchantment with the European project even before Laeken – the declaration was their attempt to forge a bridge across an emergent chasm of public disillusionment; “democratic deficit” was certainly in the common vernacular pre-Laeken http://www.newton-dunn.com/pr-releases-new/challenge.htm
The grand idea of an “Ever closer union” and the process of integration was initiated by a generation suffering from the “shock and awe” of two European civil wars and a profoundly held belief in strategies designed to make the reoccurrence of such tragic events a physical (if not moral) impossibility, initially by merging the resources and infrastructures required to wage mechanised warfare and latterly by laying the foundations for the integration of individual National political, social and judicial systems through which such ruinous policies had been previously prosecuted.
Times change and Europe now faces a very different set of challenges, perhaps less immediately obvious than a V Rocket landing on your house or soldiers herding you into a concentration camp, but nevertheless retaining the potential for equally dire consequences. Climate change could ultimately lead to mankind’s extinction and others would argue that global cultural conflict (extreme or more subtle in form) now represents an perennial threat to the actual fabric of European society.
I have always fully supported the sentiments underpinning the desire to secure a lasting constitutional settlement for Europe, binding its citizens together through the vehicle of a democratically accountable, open and transparent, institutional hierarchy, reflective of the true diversity of its people rather than the artificial constraints inherent within the “Europe of Nations” constitutional template bequeathed to successive generations by the founding treaties.
However, I remain deeply critical of the shadowy role played by individual member state administrations and particularly the intrusions of the larger Nation State actors into a constitutional process designed to deliver a document that will impact upon the everyday lives of individuals for generations to come. Europe should be a bottom-up construction and ordinary citizens represent the fundamental building blocs of any future European politicised society, not member (Nation) States!
So who are the real culprits in this charade of constitutional and political paralysis?
Perhaps we need to look no further than some of the murky details highlighted within the analysis provided by Kirsty and Jose Ignacio. I was a keen follower of the events (call me an anorak!) surrounding the Laeken Declaration and the Convention it spawned and I can concur with their account.
There was, during the 18 month period of open sessions referred to a real sense of optimism. Here at last was a chance for community stakeholders to make their voices heard.
How and why did that sense of optimism and genuine commitment evaporate? I have a painfully cynical but entirely plausible explanation.
During the open sessions contributors were mainly drawn from various political blocs within the European Parliament and/or representatives of European civil society. It is true that some were appointed by individual National Parliaments and it also true that a few of these contributors made passionate pleas for the repatriation of powers back to member state Parliaments but in a Federal system, competency should be allocated to the most appropriate tier of governance. It is ironic that mere mention of the dreaded “F word” in such circles is actively discouraged.
The buoyant mood referred to flowed from a sense that the discussions and debates were about the future of Europe and how it would shape the everyday lives of ordinary peoples. Here were innovative ideas being proposed that would begin to deliver a more accountable, citizen driven political culture, reflecting the rich diversity of European society – how naive and foolish we were to believe that such genuinely democratic outcomes could be realised!
The dawn was well and truly false – we had conveniently overlooked the fact that those contributors debating during the open sessions did not exert any real power or influence. The shadow of cynicism that settled upon proceedings when the Convention went into its “closed doors” hearings was an all too familiar reminder of the harsh realities imposed by intergovernmental back room wheeler dealing power politics. It was as though the open sessions had always been a mere precursor to the main event: “OK boys and girls, you can put your toys away now, the real movers and shakers are in town now!”
Power is a word bandied about in a political context but very rarely explained in terms comprehended by mere mortals not interested in the minutiae of political skulduggery. For me, the meaning of this word is very simple:
You have power when you can make a decision and actually implement it
You do not have power when you can propose ideas/policies but do not possess the influence to see them implemented.
It is this crucial difference that shapes how European politics is done.
Real power within the European institutional framework steadfastly remains within the Council: that is the Council of Ministers/European Council. The Commission can propose but it knows that any idea without the tacit support of a clear majority of member states (and quite often, unanimity) has no chance of surfacing as a serious policy outcome so they do not bother to float ideas that have no chance of success. I wouldn’t spend valuable time researching ideas if I knew they were doomed to failure, no matter how laudable/logical/equitable they might be.
It is member state administrations that remain deeply conservative in their increasingly desperate attempts to preserve respective fiefdoms of influence and power. Inside this closely guarded web of mutual intrigue there is a clearly established pecking order with France, UK & Germany at the pinnacle, Spain, Italy, Sweden & new entrant Poland (very much making its presence felt) on the next tier down and the remainder in layers below.
One only has to peruse any dialogue concerning the machinations of the European political arena to witness the negative impact flowing from this disparate array of National self-interests. At the first sign of discord on any particular issue, groups of politicians align themselves into cliques fractured along National lines of demarcation and the constitutional debacle is merely another example in a litany of European aspirations sacrificed on the altar of short-term domestic political expediency.
This parochial approach to political discourse within élites is mirrored by disparate National electorates across the Union. Juan Díez Medrano’s excellent dissection of this phenomenon exposes the National orientation of public attitudes toward European integration – http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7671.html
How can this seemingly perpetual cycle of self-serving Nationalist driven ineptitude be broken?
In terms of the Constitution:
1. The Constitutional Treaty in its original format is dead and buried (just repeat the words from the Monty Python parrot sketch to yourself a few times to get the general idea) and anybody attempting to resurrect it, lock stock and barrel, is deluding themselves and wasting the time of everybody else they involve in the process – it’s time to move on!
2. A revised and very much simplified Treaty has a chance to succeed but only if it remains true to basic principles that the mass of ordinary citizens can both understand and identify with.
3. The revised treaty should be subject to referendum because any document with constitutional implications is a matter for the people’s consent; a fundamental democratic tenant that cannot be sidestepped.
4. The referendum should be a simultaneous pan-EU event, no ifs or buts. The Constitution is a distinctly European issue with similarly European outcomes for European citizens. It is not a document for individual member states to dissect, apply a la carte (we like this part but we’ll opt out of that) preferences to, or use as a domestic political football. It should be considered by the citizens of the Union within a specifically European context.
For the more general long-term health of Europe’s future:
1. The concept of European integration is doomed to long-term paralysis and ultimate failure unless we can implement institutional reforms that will diminish the dominant influence of member state administrations.
2. The ceding of power in policy areas with pan-European import to a central administration, which should be inherently democratic, open and transparent in nature, can be counterbalanced by the devolution of effective competency (that means revenue raising powers commensurate with budgetary responsibility) in other policy areas, to robust semi-autonomous sub-national geo-political entities, i.e. Regions
3. Political, Legal, Economic, Social & Technological spheres of human activity are inexorably interwoven and interdependent. If we (as Europeans) decide that it is mutually beneficial to integrate in one area we are, ultimately, bound to integrate in others. In short the concept of a trade only relationship is both inefficient and unworkable in the long-term.
4. The orthodox Europe of Nations model is a constitutional dead-end. With the addition of each new member state, the political paralysis inherent within its structure becomes more obvious to all but those with a vested self-serving interest. Let’s not waste another 50 years discovering this axiom.
5. Innovative reforms are essential to re-energise the momentum for progressive change within the Union. One idea might be to replace the European Council/CoM, Committee of Regions and European Economic & Social Committee with an elected body (or Senate as some would call it) based on Regional criteria, thus creating a more recognisable bi-cameral institutional architecture. This would simultaneously inject democratic legitimacy and reduce the current burden of institutional complexity – less politicians and bureaucrats all round; a definite vote winner!
It is therefore no surprise to learn that groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo remain the principal barrier to the radical reforms required; the very same institutions who wield effective power within the current architectural structure of the Union – Member State administrations and specifically those of a larger and more influential stature.
The only power that will remove this barrier is that which lies within the collective hands of the European public – will they ever be bold enough to use it?
Comment by Peter Davidson — February 1, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Dear Peter:
I’m sure that if Jean Monnet, Robert Schumman, Spaak, Spinelly, Gasperi or even Churchill would have the chance to read you comment they would smile and they would say: at last, one citizen of the XXI century understans which were our aims when we create the European Communities.
I fully agree with the essential of the five principles you have established as the basis for the long term’s health of Europe future. But it has been a surprise to see them in written. When I explain what I would like for Europe I say more or less waht you have described. But I always warn to the audience that this is my personal “dream” so it does not mean that it is going to become really or that is shared by the rest of the Europeans citizens.
In fact, now I believe I will not see it. Maybe my grandchildren will be lucky enough.
I see ourselves so far away from those ideas.
If I have not understood wrong, you belive that the majority of european citizens share your idea of Europe, so you blame Member State administrations and specifically those of a larger and more influential stature.
I’am not so sure about that, as you seem to be. In fact, I believe that if, nowadays, MS’s administrations are so selfish that they are not cabable to see that Europe is the future, it would problably be because neither their citizens see that future as clear as you and me do. Don’t forget, for instance, that that everytime a Treaty -establishing an step more in the integration- has not been ratified it has not been the Goverment nor even the National Parliament who have said “no” but citizens in a referedum (Irland,Denmark, Netherlands, France).
Do you think, for instance that UK or Danish people would one day accept the euro?
Do you believe that French, English or German citizens would give up their own external policy as regards international conflicts (Yugoslavia, Irak, etc) and accept, as a best choice, a “single” European voice -a dream, I hope it will become reality in my lifetime-, even when they do not agree but a majority of states does?
I’m not so sure…but you don’t imagine how much I would like to believe you.
Regards,
María
Comment by María López-Contreras González — February 6, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
The Treaty for a European Constitution is dead, and I agree with Peter Davidson that it’s a waste of time and energy to try to “revive” it: it’s dead and burried, everybody can mourne it as he wants, but stop the nonsense.
But that doesn’t mean that Europe doesn’t need a Constitution, or that Europeans don’t want a Constitution. They might wish one, if given a good one.
So the right question seems to me: what would be a good Constitution for us Europeans ?
Comment by Zoltan Hubert — February 7, 2007 @ 12:28 am