EU Constitution
The European Union has seen many ups and downs in its history, yet one that struck at the very core of its existence was the French and Dutch rejection of the EU constitution during the two referenda held in May and June 2005. The failure to launch a new stage in the European integration process has not only harmed the Union itself but also its credibility within the European and the international scene. Yet, with the accession of new member states, Bulgaria and Romania in January 2007, the necessity to revive the dead treaty seems more urgent than ever.
The purpose behind the creation of a European Constitution was to facilitate decision making, increase cooperation amongst member states and prepare the Union for future enlargements. Such prospects do not seem too harmful, yet what were the concrete changes that infuriated the French and Dutch so much causing the treaties’ demise?
The EU constitution had proposed to give the EU, for the first time, a legal personality with the ability to represent itself as an individual body in international law. In addition, new ‘shared’ competencies would have been established in areas of territorial cohesion, energy and space, as well as an increase in common criminal judicial proceedings. Furthermore, it would have created a new Union Minister of Foreign Affairs responsible for coordinating foreign policy across the Union, representing the EU abroad, in areas where member states agree to speak with one voice.
The most urgent changes, for the Union to function efficiently with 27 members, were the institutional alterations it proposed. These amounted to an increase in qualified majority voting (as opposed to unanimity), an increase in the duration of the presidency of the council to two and a half years instead of six months and a reduction in the size of the Commission. A qualified majority is defined as at least 55% of the Council, comprising of at least 15 Member States and themselves presenting at least 65% of the population of the Union.
According to Nelson Jung, an EU lawyer at Clifford Chance, the enlarged European Union will become increasingly difficult to govern based on the existing decision-making rules. Jung claims ‘under the existing Treaty, the EU may face stalemate and ultimately inaction over important policy decisions affecting nearly 500 million EU citizens.’ Moreover, he criticises that it is often overlooked in public debates that member states would retain their veto rights over key policy areas such as taxation, defence or foreign policy under the constitution.
The main opponents of the constitution claim that if qualified majority voting replaced unanimity and if the Commission was reduced in size, it would increase the democratic deficit. In addition, it is stressed that the paper was too lengthy, promoted too much integration by establishing an anthem and a ‘European moto’ and was, in short, trapping the statehood of its member states. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel rejects such criticism, suggesting that it would be ‘an historical failure if we do not succeed in working out the substance of the constitutional treaty.’
The European Constitution would have introduced changes to the existing structures of the EU in order to facilitate its day-to-day running, yet whether these changes would have decreased national sovereignty is debatable. The French and Dutch undoubtedly perceived the coming of a constitution with the end of sovereign nationhood, yet the future will tell whether a Europe of 27 can efficiently function under the old structures.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Dear Beatrice May,
I didn’t intend to write an essay but here we go:
There appears to be two different interpretations to the referenda results of June 2005. You mention the ‘harm’ it has caused to the EU but haven’t substantiated such a claim but also the loss of credibility it has resulted, the latter is debatable. Allow me to foster that true heart of the EU – the core principle – which is evident in the preamble in the Treaty on European Union;
“DESIRING to deepen the solidarity between their peoples while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions”
I am sure that you will agree with me on two grounds from this statement. Firstly, how can we truly deepen our solidarity if we are quick to condemn “infuriated” countries that choose not to adopt the Treaty of Lisbon? They represent the true people of Europe as once again the preamble in the Treaty on European Union says;
“RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity” (the last part is the most significant)
How can we enforce one of the most significant changes to the face of Europe, without considering the “Peoples of Europe”? If this is how the state of affairs has become then I am truly sad to witness the common-core values of Europe crumble in our hands. In any case, I look forward to the referendum result of Ireland this summer – but I hope that it doesn’t mirror the result of the Treaty of Nice result!
February 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
To turn to more substantive grounds, you mentioned that the “European Constitution was to facilitate decision making, increase cooperation amongst member states and prepare the Union for future enlargements. Such prospects do not seem too harmful”. Indeed the EU has to prepare itself for expansions such as Romania, but the fact that you fail to recognise the dangers it may cause is alarming. I intend to consider each of your points in turn with specific references to the Treaty of Lisbon:
1. “facilitate decision making” – facilitating is perhaps not quite the right verb …
Article 61 (4) will necessitate Britain to consider the judicial decision of other member states – this will change the entire mechanism of the legal framework.
Article 69A (1) & Article 69 B will force Britain into synchronize or harmonise our criminal law with completely different jurisdictions.
Article 46A (your “legal Personality”) will expand upon the EU’s ability to sign international agreements that will be binding upon the UK. Need I say more?
2. “increase cooperation amongst member states”
Article 308 will permit even more expansions of the EU and grant to NO power to national Parliaments and electorate in the decision.
Article 176a the gives the EU control over Britain’s energy policy and usage.
I fail to see where the ‘co-operation’ exists?
February 26th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
3. “prepare the Union for future enlargements”
Including, article 308 (from above) essentially gives Britain no say to the expansions of the EU.
It is perhaps interesting to note the effect of the expansions of the future on Britain. Consider that at the moment, The Lisbon Treaty will reduce British voting influence in the Council of Ministers by 30%. The UK’s vote will be worth just 8% of the votes!
You mentioned in your third paragraph the notion of legal personality and its international legal effect, territorial cohesion, energy, space, criminal judicial proceedings. I am quite certain they have all been refuted with the exception of “territorial cohesion”, et voila;
Article 62 1 (a) will ensure that there are no ‘controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders’. The EU isn’t providing assistance as one would deduce from your word choice but rather taking over completely politically controversial matters, such as who can enter the country.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
So I would like to echo two phrases.
Firstly, “Such prospects do not seem too harmful”, you can’t be anymore erroneous. This treaty extends far out from the notion of European integration but to the unconditional control of the grip of the EU. After all, the new EU flag and EU anthem marks the end of Europe as people understands it.
That is most probably why all negotiations in the IGC have been kept secret to many Members of Parliament. But it doesn’t end there; they undo two referendums rejecting the constitution. The aftermath of his Treaty is that it will dissolve the existing notion of the EU, establish a new state with joint citizenship, legal personality and all tools of member states. Most laws will be adopted by civil servants and democratic deficit will grow. Lastly, the EU, has in effect ignored the Irish referendum too. This is a clear admission that referenda will not count even if countries do hold them and thus the EU has moved itself into a position where it can ignore (repeatedly) any concern from the member states with regards to the Treaty of Lisbon.
Secondly, this is a poignant quotation from Frank Zappa;
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.”
February 26th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I am still waiting for the referendum which was promised to be put to the British people by Gordon Brown in the General Election Manifesto of 2005. It has now become noticeable and evident that the people of Europe have voted ‘No’ to the Treaty at every opportunity they have been given and their view has been quashed. As Daniel Hannah, MEP, made the comparison earlier this month of the Treaty to the (Ermächtigungsgesetz) Enabling Act of 1933. The Enabling Act is considered to be one of the key factors (the other is the Reichstag fire) that allowed the Nazis to obtain doctorial powers through legal techniques.
Now you may ask what alternative do we have, but please consider the details below:
February 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
So I would lastly like to quote the Grandfather of British resistance to Totalitarianism, Edmund Burke;
“They must be worse than blind who do not see with what undeviating regularity of system, in this case and in all cases, they pursue their scheme for the utter destruction of every independent power; especially the smaller, who cannot find any refuge whatever but in some common cause.”
February 26th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
EFTA (European Free Trade Association) comprises of four non-EU European states: Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. EFTA member states have an average of approximately 40% higher GDP per capita (PPP) in USD than the EU all together. It is also second to the United States.(For more an amazing guide to EFTA, I would recommend seeing this pdf file: http://secretariat.efta.int/Web/Publications/this_is_EFTA/this_is_efta_2007.pdf)
The EFTA free trade agreement – updated – came into force in 2002 and facilitates the free movement amongst the four member states of goods, services, capital and people. But none of the four member states has transferred any legislative competence to EFTA or EEA institutions; as a result the decisions of EFTA states are made unanimously. This is in contrast to the supranational nature of the EU institutions, so EFTA states enjoy having their own unequivocal sovereignty. EU member states have no power to negotiate or vote in the WTO (World Trade Organisation) councils simply because they have transferred their competence to the Commission. However, EFTA states sit and vote at the WTO and have FTAs (Free trade agreements), so if we joined EFTA states we could trade easily with EU-25 and have a say in the WTO and retain our sovereignty. Lastly, EFTA states make a financial payment to EEA & EU programmes. In 2004, the total amount of EFTA contribution was approximately €363 million. This is approximately four times smaller than the annual UK per capita gross contribution to EU institutions.
So I would advocate against membership into the Treaty of Lisbon – i.e. withdrawal. This is because we have slipped into an obscure and risky path where the motives are no longer regarding Economic integration but the gradual enveloping of EU control of member states.