Listen to the Irish
José M. de Areilza
June 9, 2008
A friend of mine says that the Irish are a very fortunate people, because they are liked by everybody. According to him, everywhere an Irish goes she will find sympathy for her country. Well, not these days in the corridors of Brussels institutions and in some European capitals.
In face of a possible Irish No to the Lisbon Treaty, academic arguments about the inadequacy of referenda for ratification of EU Treaty reforms are rehearsed once again. Also back are enlightened despotism observations like “they are going to get it wrong, just can´t trust ordinary citizens with European democracy”. The irony is of course that the whole design behind the reform method and the form of the Lisbon Treaty was to avoid any referendum, even though the Treaty contains a lot of the Constitution rejected by the French and the Dutch people in 2005. It was a fast track reform, a return to the elitism of the original Communities. The masquerade was not perfect because the Irish Constitution demands a referendum for EU reforms, nevertheless. (more…)
Mito y realidad del Tratado de Lisboa
José M. de Areilza
14 de diciembre, 2007
Ayer se firmó en Lisboa el nuevo Tratado que reforma la Unión Europea. Una peculiaridad de este acuerdo es que ya antes de su adopción se ha creado un mito alrededor suyo. Los líderes europeos lo presentan como una manera pragmática de sacar de una supuesta parálisis a la Unión, una vez ha fracasado la Constitución europea. Merece la pena separar el mito y la realidad, aunque, como nos recuerda el historiador Fernando García de Cortázar, las historias creadas para hacerlas pasar por verdad muchas veces terminan atrapando a sus propios inventores y la fábula oficial puede acabar triunfando.
En su versión mítica, el texto adoptado se presenta como un rescate de sólo algunas partes de la Constitución, una operación que habría sido posible en buena medida por la renovación del tándem franco-alemán por Angela Merkel y Nicolás Sarkozy. El Tratado de Lisboa permitiría que al menos funcionen las instituciones de Bruselas de modo más eficaz y democrático, en una Unión con 27 Estados miembros muy diferentes en grado de desarrollo económico, político y social. Su redacción a través de un lenguaje oscuro y difícil y las numerosas condiciones, opt-outs, protocolos y declaraciones, todo ello en mayor grado que lo acostumbrado en la UE, se justifica diciendo que versa sobre cuestiones muy técnicas y que la complejidad es uno de los precios que hay que pagar para proseguir con la integración europea. El abandono de los símbolos constitucionales y la palabra «Constitución» se explica como una decisión de posponer los debates más polémicos sobre la identidad europea y facilitar el acuerdo y el paso hacia la «Europa de los resultados» que reclaman los ciudadanos europeos.
Hasta aquí la máscara con la que se intenta hacer más valioso y atractivo el acuerdo. La realidad es otra. Detrás de Lisboa no hay una renovación profunda del tándem franco-alemán con un proyecto europeo compartido y atractivo para todos los europeos. (more…)
The Comité des Sages: a wise idea?
J. Ignacio Torreblanca
December 13, 2007
European leaders are set to examine a proposal by French President Sarkozy to launch a “Comité des Sages”, a committee of the wise, to address the future of Europe. At a time when the EU is about to close more than ten years of institutional reforms and several years of Treaty negotiations, Sarkozy’s proposal has been received with scepticism.
The concerns are manifold. First, several member states (especially those that failed to ratify the Constitutional Treaty) fear that the work of the Comité could negatively interfere with the successful ratification of the Lisbon Treaty – for example in Ireland, the UK or Denmark. Second, the clear link between Sarkozy’s proposal and his negative stance on Turkey’s EU membership is a cause for concern in enlargement-supporting member states.
Thus, as originally formulated, Sarkozy’s proposal was likely to damage the twin motors of European integration: namely its deepening (the Lisbon Treaty) and its widening (Turkey and further enlargement). No wonder then that for the last couple of months, several member states have mobilized to dilute the proposal and reorient it into something entirely different.
The proposal has been coldly received by the EU institutions. EC President Jose Manuel Barroso warned against undermining “legally binding agreements pertaining to accession negotiations”. EU Communication Commissioner Margaret Wallström criticized the elitist flavour of the Comité and called for civil society to be actively involved in the debate about the future of Europe. And the European Parliament also seemed uneasy with a committee that would be controlled by the Council, with little involvement by other institutions.
Yet, the most important reactions have stemmed from the “Turkish connection”, which President Sarkozy explicitly admitted when presenting the initiative in August: “Pressing questions are being asked, especially in the wake of the latest enlargement: where are the Union’s borders? Should the Union have borders? Are further enlargements compatible with continuing integration?” This led Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn to warn against the committee providing an “excuse” for leaving Turkey out. “As to the famous idea of setting up a wise men’s group to ponder the EU’s future in 2020-2030… I am not sure if I am convinced of its added value; if it is really composed of wise men – and women, as it must – I am sure that they will see that enlargement is not the problem but rather a vital part of the solution to many problems that the EU will face in the coming decades”. (more…)
My take on the Lisbon Treaty
José M. de Areilza
November 21, 2007
A few days ago I was asked to make a presentation on the new Lisbon Treaty. The main question I tried to answer was: “What will the new EU be like under the Treaty of Lisbon?”.
As I prepared my lecture, I was reminded of a friend who claims that he has never met a pesimist who was wrong. My main conclusion is that with the death of the European Constitution we have damaged the Community “material” constitution, in fact it is quite interesting that both the terms “Constitution and “Community” have been expelled out of the European Union system by the Lisbon Treaty.
You will find attached my presentation (in Spanish only, for the time being) and I look forward to your comments!
Treaty of Lisbon: “jamais vu”
José M. de Areilza
November 3, 2007
This week I have had the chance to take part and follow the first debates on the new Lisbon Treaty. Instead of the feeling of “deja vu” that one sometimes get when discussing EU institutional reform -the same topics on the table, easy to predict sub-optimal solutions- I had a different sensation, a feeling I would call of “jamais vu”: Lisbon is one of the lowest points in European integration, in terms of living up to ideals and the demands of democratic process and political debate. The only way to justify the method and form of the new reform is by embracing pragmatism so much that one borders becoming cynical. It is a cheap “Machiavellian moment” instead of the Tocqueville moment we were suposse to be living some years ago. Of course, political correct views point out that Machiavellian moments eventually let you move towards Tocquevillian moments and less correct views wisper that in reality all Tocquevillian moments are very much Machiavellian, for instance the elitist Convention.
But its still cheap Machiavelli to me: EU leaders agreeing to avoid referendums and negotiate by fast track based on an obscure mandate in three months a reformed EU Treaty, that is substantially equivalent to the failed Constitution -texts that smell Constitution please use the back door-, withouth the name, symbols, constitutional language and who knows if constitutional character -so much for the existing EU material Constitution! Plus, leaders not wanting to publish a consolidated version of the new Treaty until it is ratified, European citizens should not waste their time reading the new rules of the game, written in non-sensical Dada fashion. A technocratic fuite en avant we do not deserve, that mandarins can only explain through chilidish metaphors like that of a ship wreckage (the French and Dutch nos) and the European leaders heroically saving the passengeres and the cargo.
The content of the new Treaty does not justify anything. Some of the new rules improve policy-making, but others will not necessarily (let’s discuss the new Charter of Human Rights). In any case, policy improvements do not justify the total departure from the rethoric of bringing citizens and institutions closer. Pragmatism, we Europeans should know it by now, needs real limits in order to be acceptable.
Luckily, I finished this depressing week by going to a fantastic European movie I very much recommend, called “Once”, a great story that involves Irish and Czech musicians, with classical overtones. It helped me recuperate from too much “jamais vu”.
Seminario “España ante el debate constitucional europeo”
El pasado día 10 de octubre se celebró el 5º seminario BlogEuropa.eu, dentro del programa “Hablamos de Europa” patrocinado por el Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores sobre “España ante el debate Constitucional Europeo” impartido por J. Ignacio Torreblanca, Director de la Oficina de Madrid del European Council on Foreign Relations y profesor de Ciencia Política en la UNED, y por Jose M. de Areilza, Vicedecano del Área Jurídica y titular de la Cátedra Jean Monnet del Instituto de Empresa.
J. Ignacio Torreblanca inició su análisis del nuevo Tratado señalando que nos encontramos ante la mayor operación de marketing de la historia de la UE. Un mal ejercicio de comunicación para una potencia que presume de legitimidad basada en la aceptación (soft power). Tristemente, mucho de lo que se está haciendo dará la razón a los euroescépticos. En cuanto al análisis del Tratado de Reforma, no hace falta ser un defensor de la difunta Constitución Europea para afirmar que comparte con éste prácticamente todo su código genético, lo afirma la Cámara de los Comunes, que tras haber comparado los textos ha concluido que son: “substantially equivalent”. Por ello, en algunos países el Tratado de Reforma no se quiere presentar en su forma consolidada a la opinión pública antes de ser ratificado por los parlamentos nacionales.
Para J. Ignacio Torreblanca hemos rescatado lo peor del viejo método de reforma de tratados (la diplomacia jurídico-secreta) sin haber recogido lo mejor de la Convención (la lógica constituyente y ciudadana). Con el viejo método, los Estados se mostraban capaces de llegar a acuerdos, pero experimentaban dificultades a la hora de explicarlos a la ciudadanía y, posteriormente, de obtener su ratificación. Sin embargo, en esta ocasión, pese a los antecedentes, no se ha dedicado tiempo a pensar en la ratificación por los Estados. Con un texto oscuro y de peor calidad, el resultado está el aire. (more…)