A Constitution for the European Union

After 18 months of debates and sometimes hot discussions, various events celebrated the achievement of the writing of the first European Constitution ever, common to 15 European states and very soon to 25. On Friday 13th of June the whole Convention which wrote the text hold a final plenary session in Brussels where the main speakers approved the final version. On Friday 20th of June, in Thessaloniki, the President of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, handed over the text very solemnly to the Heads of State of the Union and of the ten future members. Although little attention in the media had been given to that process started on February 28th 2002, this whole work reveals a considerable step for countries which had been at war for centuries, and still recently 60 years ago. Who would have said two years ago that they could succeed in writing a common Constitution? Not a revolution in this long process, but a symbolic and powerful step forward in this attempt to build an “ever closer Union”.

Consensus on a text could be reached at the last moment because oppositions were very strong between eurosceptics and federalists, between big states and small states, between old member states and candidate countries. Some delegates of government had clearly marked the line they would not be passed. A spirit of negotiation has been necessary all along, particularly in the final week. No one is totally happy.

“This text is not perfect but it is more than we ever hoped” said Giscard d’Estaing several times. The Constitutional Treaty is made of 4 parts: the first, the most important one, gives the objectives and orientations (59 articles); the second is made of the Charter of fundamental rights written by another Convention during the year 2000; the third, the larger one, is made of 338 very technical articles of application of the principals into policies; the fourth part includes all dispositions on the scope and final provisions of the Constitution (9 articles). This Constitution abolishes all preceding Treaties (Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam, and Nice).

The discussion on the first part, the most important, has taken most of the time since it gives the values and the organisation of the Union. It is worth giving a quick evaluation of that part and on the conditions of its writing. The Convention was asked by the European Summit of Laeken in December 2001 to draft a Constitution for the new Europe which will have 25, even 30 members in some years to come. It was made of 105 members coming from the governments and the Parliaments of the 15 member states and from the 13 candidate countries, from the European Parliament, and from the European Commission. It was a very open assembly which worked under the eyes of hundreds of specialists, journalists or lobbyists of all kinds, who were ready to intervene in their own way. A very transparent process indeed where one could follow at all steps the debates as well as the publication of the texts on the Internet.

After four months of open debate, the Presidium of the Convention selected ten subjects to be studied by working groups. The results allowed a first consensus on specific topics. The civil society (and the Churches) had been able to express itself already in June. At the end of October 2002, the President proposed what he called a skeleton of a Constitution. Then, chapter after chapter, the Presidium proposed project of texts which were later discussed and amended. The chapter on institutions has been the most difficult to write. The preamble was given to discussion only at the end of May 2003.

Positive aspects

The result is full of positive elements, but leaves some questions non-answered. The positive side includes several improvements in the democratic practice in Europe: we find a guarantee on fundamental rights in the Union by the inclusion of the Charter of fundamental rights which becomes legally binding for all member states. It recognises the dialogue with civil society, and especially with the social partners. It gives more meaning to the election of the European Parliament who will elect the President of the Commission. Subsidiarity, a key pilar of the EU system, will be controlled by national Parliaments. This answers quite well to the desire of many to protect the national identity, without blocking the whole system. The text states also that “decisions shall be taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen” (art. 45). Democracy will be also helped by the great simplification of all the texts organising the Union and by the establishment of a juridical personality given to the Union.

Progress was also made in the search for efficacy of the European institutions. The appointment of a European Minister of Foreign Affairs should make clearer the action of the Union in the world as long as the member States can agree together on a common policy. The President of the Commission has more power since he can choose his Commissioners. More and more decisions will be taken through the method of a qualified majority (and not unanimity which can prevent the Union from moving ahead). The European Parliament itself gets more power being a co-legislator with the Council on most areas of decision. And the European Council gets a great visibility and stability with the creation of a permanent President of the Union. No more rotation of presidency every six months.

Last but not least, the Constitution provides the possibility of voluntary withdrawal from the Union (art 59). Even if this door out is not used, the simple mention of this possibility could relax those who are a little afraid of getting further in.

Limits and questions

These very positive aspects of the new Treaty should not hide various problems which are temporarily solved, but which will come back very soon in the forefront of the debate since the governments must now discuss that project in an Intergovernmental Conference before it is proclaimed solemnly and ratified by each member state.

The European Commission has been very critical of the timidity of the Convention on the extension of the areas where the qualified majority vote will be applied. With 25 members, the Union will go too slowly if it keeps too much unanimity. The Commission regrets also that the procedures of revision of the Treaty remain too complicated through constitutional ratification. But the main problems are directly institutional, the creation of the new position of a President of the Union for two and a half year (renewable once). Many observers are afraid that this would create a source of trouble in the delicate balance of the three institutions, the Parliament, the European Council and the Commission. The role of the President is not so clear. He could become a real competition with the President of the Commission. On the other hand, this proposal has the advantage to give a face to Europe which has been too much criticised for being an anonymous bureaucracy.

The biggest institutional problem remains the composition of the European Commission. This might look like Chinese to non-specialists. The Nice treaty in December 2000 had decided that the Commission would have one commissioner for each country up to 27 members. The European Council would see later what to do as long as a rotating system was put in place. Two objections: the Commission is becoming too big, and after 2007 (the date when there will be 27 members), the rotating system will exclude some countries from the Commission. Although the commissioners are not supposed to work for their country, the new member States want absolutely to have a commissioner. The Convention, under the influence of its President proposed to have 15 voting European commissioners (coming from 15 countries), and a group of other commissioners without vote (coming from the other countries). The project seems nice, but experts are sceptical. This debate is rather Byzantine, but the consensus on it is fragile.

Whatever happens at the institutional level, all the countries will have to learn a new way of working. A group of 25 members do not act as easily as a group of 15. Participants in the Council of ministers know that already. Everybody will have to adapt to that situation in the framework of the new system, with the desire to go on building the common house of Europe. But the delay given for the application of the institutional reforms (2009) might disorganise the whole system and give bad habits to all.

The Convention did not give much to dream about the future. Probably, it kept in the shade the questions on identity although the values of the Union have been clearly stated (art 2). We still do not know what is the “European States”, an expression that is used several times without definition. No one spoke for instance about Turkey although Giscard d’Estaing made a noisy declaration on that issue. But this Convention did certainly a great job to allow this huge political body of Europe to get ready. We know better what to do and how to do it. It is quite an important achievement.

Place of Churches

In this debate a specific mention should be made about the relation of the Constitution to Churches and religion, issue which was much discussed in the media. Finally, the preamble mentions the “cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe”. That is a very open formula, which does not mention Christianity, as desired by Germans, Polish an Italians. But the opponents to that mention being so strong, the consensus could be reached only in the middle of the road.

Beyond that discussion on the preamble, the article 51 gives a place to “churches and religious associations and communities” which have never been recognised so clearly in the past, and which some countries of Europe do not recognise at all. The Treaty even asks that the Union “shall maintain an open, transparent and regular dialogue with these churches and organisations” because of "their identity and their specific contribution”. This article 51 is an extraordinary recognition of the contribution of churches and religion to the collective life in a political entity, the European Union. Religion is not limited to private life, but is recognised here as an element of public life. No one thought two years ago that such recognition could be possible.
 

Pierre de Charentenay SJ, Director of OCIPE
Brussels, 23 June 2003

© Jesuits in Europe

Text of the European Convention

[Top]    [Home]