| Author (Person) | Crossick, Stanley |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.20, 24.5.06 |
| Publication Date | 24/05/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 24/05/06 Foreign ministers of the EU will meet informally on 27-28 May to discuss the future of the constitutional treaty. Any solution they concoct would have to be acceptable to the governments, parliaments and citizens of soon 27 member states: a tall order. Fifteen member states - representing over 70% of the EU's population - have ratified the treaty. The citizens of France and the Netherlands rejected it in referenda, the same voters that had elected parliaments whose members were 90% and 85% in favour of the treaty. Some argue that it is undemocratic to proceed with ratification and find ways round a clear popular rejection of the treaty. Others argue that it is undemocratic not to proceed with ratification because Article 443 of the constitutional treaty requires the matter to be referred to the European Council if 20 member states have ratified by 29 October 2006. This provision would be meaningless if it did not expect the member states to complete the ratification process. The principles of democracy, equality and the rule of law are not therefore respected if rejection by two member states overrides the ratifications of 15 other states and the provisions of the treaty. But continuing the ratification is pointless unless a new treaty can be adopted at the end of the process. There is broad agreement that treaty changes are required to cope with an enlarged EU. In any case, the size of the next Commission will have to take into account the provisions of the Treaty of Nice, that there should be fewer commissioners than there are member states. The Nice treaty does not indicate a formula for reducing the size of the Commission, but the stalled constitutional treaty did suggest that the Commission should have a number of members equal to two-thirds of the member states from 2014. The member states agreed the text of the constitutional treaty after a long process involving a convention of representatives of governments, national parliaments and EU institutions, input from stakeholders and transparency. In retrospect, two serious mistakes were made. The treaty should not have been called 'a Constitution' and Part III - essentially a consolidation of the existing treaties - should not have been presented as an integral part of the new constitution. There are three broad choices for the future, with many variations:
The first is unworkable in a Union of 27-plus members. The second would be very difficult to agree among the 27 member states as the constitutional treaty was a compromise package. The third at first seems out of the question but is worth further exploration. The reasons for the French and Dutch 'No' votes were complex and cannot be interpreted as rejections of the whole substance of the constitutional treaty. Nevertheless, the European Union is seen as being too distant from its citizens and too opaque in its decision-making. The only way to reconcile the 15 'Yes' and two 'No' votes is to separate the constitutional treaty into three separate treaties. This is legally difficult. The legal services of the Council of Ministers and the Commission should be instructed to separate the constitutional treaty into three treaties without altering the overall substance: they could then be ratified separately. The three could be called the 'Basic Treaty' (the institutional and constitutional matters which currently form Part I of the constitutional treaty), 'Charter' (the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union, currently Part II of the constitutional treaty) and 'Consolidating Treaty' (Part III, on the Union's policies). The Charter is self-standing. If the Consolidating Treaty were ratified but not the Basic Treaty, or neither was adopted, the situation would be more or less as at present. A more ambitious variation would be to slim down the Basic Treaty to a minimum and transfer to the Consolidated Treaty most of the non-constitutional articles. The aim should be to achieve a political agreement at the June 2007 summit of the German presidency and after the French presidential election (May 2007). Once there is political agreement, an Intergovernmental Conference should be convened, followed by an intense public debate throughout the Union on the necessary objectives and policies of the EU and how best they can be achieved. Successful ratification would depend on the outcome of this debate. No worthwhile public debate is, however, likely without a vote at the end. Parliamentary ratifications could be completed by the end of 2008. National ratification referenda (where necessary) could be held in June 2009, at the same time as the European Parliament elections (ideally with the political parties nominating their preferred candidates for Commission president, so as to personalise the process). Political leaders must explain to their voters that the EU needs treaty changes to ensure that it can meet effectively its challenges on providing jobs and growth, security, sustainable development including tackling environmental degradation, energy security, foreign and security policy and eradicating poverty. Therefore, there has to be a new treaty. It would be virtually impossible for 27 countries unanimously to agree a substantially new text and there is no guarantee that such a new treaty would be ratified. There is no clear idea of what the citizens of 27 states want or don't want. Therefore, the easiest course would be to proceed with separate ratifications of three new treaties. Timetable
Major commentary feature on the way ahead concerning the Constitutional Treaty for Europe, rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005. The author suggests to separate the document into three separate treaties. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Politics and International Relations |
| Countries / Regions | Europe |
