- Introduction to the Major Issues section
- Pages 11 to 16 of The European Union and You
..............................................................................................................................
Part six
Major Issues
"What the Union lacks and what the nation
states have built up over centuries is - habitual trust." Dr.
Marlene Wind, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen.
A Critical Appraisal of the Commission White Paper on
Governance, 2001 1
"People increasingly distrust institutions
and politics . . . The problem . . . is particularly acute at
the level of the European Union. Many people are losing
confidence in a poorly understood and complex system." -
European Gover-nance - a White Paper prepared by the
European Commission, Brussels, 25 July 20012
"What makes people unsatisfied
is that they accept lies."
D H Lawrence in Courage.
"Truth is the fundamental basis of
democracy. MPs are elected to lead the country, not mislead
it." - Adam Price MP in BBC2 programme, The Ministry of
Truth, 11 October 2007.
What has gone wrong with the great European
political experiment?
As mentioned elsewhere, the Constitution
was officially abandoned in June 2007. The new ideas it
contained are to be retained and added to existing treaties
(with just a few very slight modifications). Comments in this
chapter on "the Constitution" and its provisions therefore
remain completely relevant.
As discussed in Part One, leaders of
the European Union recognised some of the major failings of
the EU in their Laeken Declaration of December 2001.
When the 2004 Constitution, which they accepted as "the
answer" to the EU's problems, was rejected by the people of
France and Holland in 2005 these leaders were
uncharacteristically stunned into silence. They seemed at a
loss to understand what may be wrong with the political system
which they are trying to direct. The best they could do was
give themselves three more years to "reflect" and come up with
convincing solutions.
What they are faced with is a crisis in
public confidence which is shared by some politicians,
including leaders of EU states. This is caused by:
- institutional defectiveness - including democratic
weaknesses and a baffling complexity of organisational
arrangements
- doubts about the unification of the states of
Europe into a single superstate
- doubts about or rejection of key policies
- a sense that decision-makers are unknown, remote,
unreachable and out-of-touch
- lack of integrity and accountability of politicians
and bureaucrats
- endemic corruption
- the complexity, incomprehensibility and
unacceptability of the Constitution.
EU leaders must properly understand the
nature of the problems in order to resolve them if the EU is
to regain direction, credibility and support from the citizens
of Europe.
There are at least a dozen vital issues
which EU leaders must address. The move by EU leaders in June
2007 to hide the Constitution’s innovations by dispersing them
among the articles of existing treaties was a seriously
misjudged move - audacious, foolhardy and dishonest. If this
re-assembly of the Constitution is introduced without
eurocitizens having a chance to vote on it then antagonism to
the EU project will escalate.
Major reform is needed to rescue the EU
project. Without it the citizens' revolt will grow in strength
and leaders of member states themselves will take unilateral
action to backtrack on commitments - as they already have over
free trade and immigration. (See Tide turns against free
trade in Free trade and Enlargement below.)
Reforms may come in piecemeal actions by individual states,
by the agreement of new treaties or through a radically
re-written constitution. Whatever happens, the European Union
is likely to undergo significant change in the next few years.
But what changes should be made? What should be the
priorities?
The At a glance section looks at the biggest problems
briefly. These are then explored in more detail in this
chapter together with other major issues.
.........................................................................................................................
Pages 11 to 16 of The European Union and You
European leaders at the crossroads
2001-2007 and beyond
Awareness of widespread disaffection
prompted the writing of the Laeken Declaration, the European
Constitution and six years of reflection
Which way now for Europe?
Reform of the EU has
been under discussion for many years and EU institutions
themselves as well as critics from outside the institutions
have put forward their complaints and proposals. Each of the
treaties which have developed the European Union from its
original association of six states has aimed not only to
expand the scope of its powers, but to improve the
effectiveness of the way it worked.
The Treaty of Nice
had been signed on 26 February 2001 and had not even come into
force when the fifteen heads of EU member states, the European
Council, met in Laeken, Belgium, in December 2001 to review
their own concerns and the widespread unease. The Conference
produced a declaration outlining what it considered were the
strengths of the EU and presenting a list of numerous problem
areas - questions which it considered needed answers and
remedies. The document, The Future of the European Union,
(also known as The Laeken Declaration)7
is a key document in understanding the European Union in the
twenty-first century. Whilst recognising that many things
needed to change within the European Union and identifying
some directions in which policies ought to move the leaders
refrained from suggesting specific answers. They seemed
conscious that the European Union had reached an historic
impasse. They summarised their position in these words, "The
Union stands at a crossroads, a defining moment in its
existence."
The Laeken Declaration
called for many popular and important reforms and changes of
direction. It called for more transparency, more democracy,
more clarity, more simplicity, more efficiency, for devolution
and less centralisation of powers (subsidiarity - laws passed
as close to citizens as possible), less rules, regulations and
red tape, the guarding of state parliaments’ rights to make
laws in certain areas, and the avoidance of "a creeping
expansion of the competence of the Union" and creating an EU
superstate. It proclaimed the need for peace, justice and
human rights.
Many serious criticisms,
including the running sore of EU corruption, the
dissatisfaction with agricultural policies, fisheries
policies, transport policies, plans to increase arms spending,
the EU army, and nuclear policy were not in the Laeken
mandate.
To examine the problems and come up with
proposed solutions the Council appointed one of the EU's elder
statesmen to lead a convention. "In order to pave the way for
the next Intergovernmental Conference . . . the European
Council has decided to convene a Convention . . . It will be
the task of that Convention to consider the key issues arising
for the Union's future development and try to identify the
various possible responses. The European Council has appointed
Mr V. Giscard d'Estaing as Chairman of the Convention."8
Valery Giscard d'Estaing put together a
team of people to consider the issues. This team took a great
deal of evidence. It met many times and produced, as its
response to the questions, a draft Constitution. This was
delivered to the ministers in Rome on 18 July 2003. Giscard
d'Estaing pointed to a key development that the Constitution
would bring about. "With this Constitution, Europe is taking a
decisive step towards political union." After further
discussions and amendments the leaders accepted the
Constitution.
At the signing ceremony of the final
version of the Constitution in Rome on 24 October 2004, Silvio
Berlusconi, Prime Minister of Italy and President of the
European Council,9 said, "Europe has at last acquired
a Constitution based on the twofold and indivisible consensus
of the citizens and Member States."
The consensus proved to be lacking in two
founding states of the EU. On 29 May 2005 the French rejected
the Constitution in a referendum. The Netherlands did the same
on 1 June.
On 18 June the EU heads of state responded
to the crisis by calling for a period of reflection. "We have
noted the outcome of the referendums in France and the
Netherlands. . . Citizens have . . . expressed concerns and
worries which need to be taken into account. Hence the need
for us to reflect together on this situation. . . We have
agreed to come back to this matter in the first half of 2006
to make an overall assessment of the national debates and
agree on how to proceed.10
One year later, at the June 2006 meeting of
EU heads of state, they decided to extend the period of
reflection into 2008. President of the European Council,
Austria’s Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, said at a
press briefing on 15 June," We had a very interesting
discussion on how to proceed on the Constitutional Treaty
as well as on integration and migration. These themes will
remain on the agenda over the next few years. . . The
presidency during the first six months of 2007 will present a
report following consultations with the Member States to take
stock of the state of discussions and examine future possible
developments. Future decisions will be based on this report.
The decisive steps should be taken in the second half of 2008
at the latest."11
In fact, following a two-day meeting behind
closed doors, EU leaders announced on 23 June 2007 that they
had reached agreement on "the way forward". The "way forward"
was, they decided, to stand still, keeping the substance of
the Constitution but in a repackaged form.
Setting back the European Union - D'Estaing's Convention
The Convention chaired by Valery Giscard
d'Estaing set the European Union back several years. The task
it was given was to explore the issues identified by European
leaders in the Laeken Declaration in December 2001
(reflect on them) and come up with proposals for consideration
– a starting point for discussions. The Convention's task had
been clearly spelled out:
The Convention will consider the
various issues. It will draw up a final document which may
comprise either different options, indicating the degree
of support which they received, or recommendations if
consensus is achieved. Together with the outcome of
national debates on the future of the Union, the final
document will provide a starting point for discussions
at the Intergovernmental Conference, which will take the
ultimate decision.12
Rather than put forward
a range of proposals for consideration the Convention decided
it would take the final decision about what to do and set out
its conclusions in the elaborate form of a constitution,
probably the longest the world has ever seen. In presenting
the draft constitution Giscard d'Estaing asked for there to be
no changes. He claimed that "Re-opening it, even in part,
would cause it to unravel".13
This constitution might with benefit have
been rejected by European leaders. It was not what they had
asked for. There should have been a range of proposals for
reform for EU leaders to consider. As an alternative, the
convention's self-chosen response, a constitution, might have
been short, easily comprehended, and focused and practical in
the changes it proposed. But it did not propose remedies for
some of the most critical problems identified by Europe's
leaders. For example, whilst advocating transparency the
constitution itself conceals many of the crucial, contentious
issues, and pressing concerns. It barely touched on
institutional secrecy. Whilst advocating efficiency and
simplicity it is a vast, complex, and often incomprehensible
document which sometimes proposes bewilderingly complex
procedures and variations on procedures. The major issue of
lack of democratic accountability is not answered. Nothing is
done to ensure some areas of decision-making are reserved to
member states. Leaders had clearly stated that "What they
[citizens] expect is . . . not a European superstate," yet
D'Estaing boasted that the Constitution took a decisive step
towards making the European Union into a single state. If the
Convention had addressed even the inadequate requirements of
The Laeken Declaration then the EU would have been set
on the way to becoming significantly more democratic and in
tune with popular opinion across Europe.
With the rejection of the Constitution by
two member states European Union leaders have been forced back
to a consideration of the original problems, although many
deny this, insisting that the Constitution is the answer they
have been looking for and that eventually the citizens of
Europe will accept it.
Preparing the Constitution – difficulties and complaints
The Constitution was prepared and offered
as the solution to problems EU leaders identified. That being
the case why were there so few attempts to solve problems and
why were so many offered solutions so unsatisfactory?14
The failings of the Constitution may be
partly explained by the haste and pressure under which its
authors worked. Yet the authors appear to have gone to great
lengths to do a thorough and workmanlike job, as they explain
below. The Convention acquired a vast number of suggestions
and comments. Were its members capable, in a short time, of
assimilating and assessing such an enormous inflow of ideas
and information? Was it humanly possible to respond adequately
to such a plethora of advice? Could discussions and decision
taking have been better managed? Certainly some of those
present thought so. Here are three accounts of what happened.
Views of the President of the Convention
The authors of the European constitution
list the following as elements of the work of the Convention
which prepared the Constitution:
-
They worked for seventeen months.
-
The Convention’s meetings were open to the public.
-
There were 52 days of plenary sessions at which 1,800
interventions were heard.
-
There were eleven working groups, and three discussion
circles.
-
Convention members provided 386 written contributions to
the Convention as a whole, and 773 to working groups, and
discussion circles.
-
The Praesidium met on 50 occasions and submitted 52 papers
to the Convention.
-
Members of the Praesidium chaired the working groups and
discussion circles and presented their reports to the
Convention.
-
They received 1,264 contributions from NGOs, the business
community, academia and others.
-
Meetings were organised with churches, think tanks, NGOs,
youth organisations and representatives of local and
regional organizations.
-
Members from candidate countries
"participated fully in the Convention’s proceedings."
Summarised from a report
issued on 18 July 2003 and signed by the chairman of the
Convention, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing.15
Views of Gisela Stuart
The Convention brought together a
self-selected group of the European political elite, many
of whom have their eyes on a career at a European level,
which is dependent on more and more integration and who
see national governments and parliaments as an obstacle.
Not once in the sixteen months I spent on the Convention
did representatives question whether deeper integration is
what the people of Europe want, whether it serves their
best interests or whether it provides the best basis for a
sustainable structure for an expanding Union. The debates
focused solely on where we could do more at European Union
level. None of the existing policies were questioned.
Gisela Stuart, British Labour MP, member
of the Convention.16
Eight other members of the Convention
produced a summary of the Constitution’s failures to meet the
requirements of the Laeken Declaration:
Text of Minority report from members of the
Convention - The failures of the Convention17
The draft EU Constitution was never
drafted through normal democratic methods.
The applicant countries [ten countries
were about to join the EU] were treated as observers in
the Praesidium and had no real say.
Only three political families were
represented in the powerful Praesidium which drafted the
tunnel vision text.
The members were refused the right to
have their amendments translated, distributed, discussed
and voted upon.
The Convention had no members for that
half of the population which rejected the Maastricht
Treaty in France or the Nice Treaty in Ireland.
Not one single Eurosceptic or
Eurorealist person was allowed to observe or participate
in the Praesidium, nor any of its assisting secretariats.
Giscard [d’Estaing] did not allow
democracy and normal voting in the Convention. The draft
constitution runs counter to all democratic principles. We
want a new draft from a much more representative
Convention, democratic in content and democratic in
procedures.
Laeken's Lost Missions
As members of the Convention, we cannot
endorse the draft European Convention. It does not meet
the requirements of The Laeken Declaration of
December 2001. Laeken says ‘The Union must be brought
closer to its citizens.’ The transfer of more decision
making from member states to the Union, concerning
criminal justice matters and new areas of domestic policy,
will make the Union more remote.
Laeken adds that ‘the division of
competences be made more transparent.’ But the new
category of 'shared competences' gives no assurance about
how power is to be shared, particularly as member states
will be forbidden to legislate in these areas if the Union
decides to act. The EU court in Luxembourg will decide on
any doubt.
Laeken describes the Union as ‘behaving
too bureaucratically.’ The draft Constitution fails to
address the 97,000 accumulated pages of the acquis
communautaire, and proposes a new legal instrument, the
‘Non Legislative Act,’ whereby the non-elected Commission
can pass binding laws.
Laeken calls for the ‘European
institutions to be less unwieldy and rigid.’ But the
Constitution gives more power to all the existing EU
institutions and creates a Europe of Presidents, with more
jobs for politicians and less influence for the people.
Laeken highlights the importance of
national parliaments, and the Nice Treaty ‘stressed
the need to examine their role in European integration.’
National Parliaments lose influence relative to the
Commission, the European Parliament and the European
Council. Their proposed new role in ‘ensuring’ compliance
with the subsidiarity principle is in reality no more than
a request which the Commission can ignore. Not one
competence will be returned to member states.
Laeken calls for ‘more transparency and
efficiency’ in the Union. The Constitution concentrates
more executive and budgetary power in the very EU
institutions which have been the subject of repeated and
continuing scandals over mismanagement, waste and fraud.
Laeken suggests the possibility of a
constitution: ‘The question ultimately arises as to
whether this simplification and reorganisation might not
lead in the long run to the adoption of a constitutional
text of the Union.’ The suggestion that the existing
intergovernmental Treaties be transformed into a new
European Constitution was rapidly seized upon, but without
any study of either the alternatives on offer or the
long-term consequences of such an act.
Lastly, Laeken's overriding aim was a
Democratic Europe. The draft Constitution creates a new
centralised European state, more powerful, more remote,
with more politicians, more bureaucracy, and a wider gap
between the rulers and the ruled.
The EURATOM treaty was brought
into the Constitution in the last moment without any
working group having the time to revise it."
Signatories:
William Abitbol (Alternate Member)
European Parliament
Jens-Peter Bonde (Member) European
Parliament
Per Dalgaard (Alternate Member) Denmark
- Parliament
John Gormley (Alternate Member) Ireland
- Parliament
David Heathcoat-Amory (Member) - UK -
Parliament
Esko Seppanen (Alternate Member)
European Parliament
Peter Skaarup (Member) Denmark -
Parliament
Jan Zahradil (Member) Czech Republic –
Parliament
Members of the Convention.
[END OF REPORT]
The signatories to the
above statement have produced a short alternative to the
Constitution, The Europe of Democracies, which is
printed towards the end of this book, starting on page 367.
EU leaders prepare to stand still
On 23 June 2007 the leaders of the EU
maintained their collective amnesia about the problems they
had identified at Laeken in 2001. They reached an agreement on how to pursue
their 2004 plans for running Europe. In essence they agreed to
drop the word "Constitution" and reformulate almost all its
provisions in existing EU treaties. They remained at the
crossroads with essentially the same plan that failed so
dramatically in 2005.
This is discussed in
Part Five, The Reform Treaty - the Constitution Repackaged.
To top of page
|
