You are in:
- Archives » 2006 » June 2006
The Boundary Commission
Fiddling the constitution and setting the EU's borders are Finland's priorities for its presidency.
Finland takes over the presidency of the EU tomorrow. The Finnish foreign minister, Erkki Tuomioja, has declared that there is "no chance" that the EU constitution in its current form will come into use. But his country's parliament is planning to approve the treaty, and is expected to do so by a huge margin. What gives?
In effect, Finns are giving moral approval to the constitution. Other countries have approved the constitution since France and Holland rejected it, even though all but a few Eurofanatics believe that the treaty, in its current form, is a dead duck. It's a way of demonstrating what zealous Europeans you are - or at least, how enthusiastic your parliaments are, at no cost.
Of course, the story might be different had these nations rushing to approve the document decided to consult their voters via a referendum, as France and Holland did. Tellingly, those countries who promised referenda on the constitution - Britain, Ireland and Denmark, for example, haven't proceeded, letting parliaments rubber stamp the treaty instead. The governments of all three countries support the treaty, but would risk a bruising, and potentially humiliating battle to persuade voters to approve it. What sort of idiot would risk his or her political career on the EU Constitution? Jacques Chirac hasn't been the same since France defied him and voted no - and that was when the constitution mattered, when it was worth fighting for.
Better, then, to wait until 2008, when a new treaty is installed - almost certainly without referenda.
The Finns predict v2.0 will be little different. "The easiest part to jettison is the name, we are happy to call it something else, but the big institutional balances in it must be retained," Tuomioja told the BBC, "as much as possible will be retained."
He added that there's no point rewriting the constitution - no-one wants to start negotiations again from scratch.
There's little to add here: The treaty was rejected on its own terms, so it will be altered ever-so-slightly and approved over the heads of the people. Indeed, by 2008, when v2.0 comes into force, many of the proposals in the original document will have been sneaked into action anyway, so the old "retroactive" Euro argument will prevail - "why, we've been using this system for ages, and you've never complained before. We're simply approving what is standard anyway."
Little wonder voters are increasingly disillusioned with the EU.
Despite the latest constitutional shenanigans, Finland doesn't see the treaty as the major issue of its six-month presidency. The size of the EU, and which nations can be feasibly absorbed into it, is likely to be Finland's main concern. Romania and Bulgaria are set to join next year, but this could be delayed until 2008. Turkey wants to continue its drive towards membership, in the face of opposition from voters in many nations and rising disillusion among Turks themselves, who see such opposition, as well as the EU's sluggishness, as indications that they are not welcome. And Turkey has another hoop to jump through - it must recognise Cyprus and allow Cypriot ships and aircraft into its territory from 2007, otherwise negotiations could become even more fraught. Cyprus is an EU member now, and could veto Turkey's membership. Chirac promised the French - ever suspicious of enlargement - another referendum, this time to approve Turkey's membership. Chirac will be long gone by the time such a decision could come to a referendum - at least a decade from now - but his successor may be forced to observe his promise.
That's not to mention several other EU states, led by Austria, who also oppose Turkish membership. It's an issue the EU will try to sweep under the table, but it is unlikely to go away as negotiations continue.
Indeed, one could certainly detect enlargement fatigue in the EU's corridors of power, as well as among its citizens. Though federal schemes, such as the constitution and monetary union, tend to progress steadily via back-room deals and intense behind-the-scenes pressure from federalist bureaucrats, issues like enlargement and liberalism swing back and forth.
Back in 2000, Europe appeared to be moving in a more liberal direction - when the Lisbon Agenda for jobs and growth was agreed. Six years on, and the pendulum has swung the other way, with protectionist governments, led by France, pressuring the EU to resist globalisation. Citizens, even in economically liberal countries, haven't been convinced that the seepage of manufacturing jobs and financial services to Asia have delivered economic benefits. It's likely that protectionists hold the upper hand for the time being.
Same for enlargement. Following 2004's biggest-ever expansion of the EU, those who counsel consolidation and reflection are gaining the upper hand. Britain always pushed for enlargement, reckoning that this strategy is less likely to lead to political union. Others pressed for more intensive integration of those states already in the union. The effect of this could be what Tony Blair appears to dread - a Europe of core states integrating faster than a broader EU of loosely-integrated trading nations - not least because Britain's people would vote to avoid close integration.
Once Romania and Bulgaria join - and there are doubts about these two - enlargement is likely to halt for a while.
One of the main reasons for this is the lack of obvious candidates. Russia will resist the EU's expansion to its doorstep - and besides, those former Soviet satellites who didn't join in 2004 are too poor by EU standards to join up. Press further east and you get to the big central asian Muslim nations - hardly likely candidates, especially if Turkey is proving so difficult. Some politicians have proposed inviting North African states into the EU economic circle, if not the exclusive club - Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria... eventual members of the EU? Further east, again, the only nation with the right economic and democratic credentials for membership is Israel, and one can hardly imagine Eurocrats queuing up to invite the Israelis into their club.
Worryingly for enlargement enthusiasts, most potential new members are poor. As the big western nations, with one or two exceptions, are getting richer painfully slowly, more net contributors are needed. Doubtless Europhiles swooned over Timothy Garton Ash's joking suggestion that Canada be offered membership - though one can predict pressure on Norway and Switzerland might heat up in the next few years.
Finland is determined to investigate where Europe's boundaries really lie. In political blocs, with a line running down through the former Soviet Republics? Culturally, with a line excluding the Muslim world? Romantically, ending in the Urals to the east, the Mediterranean to the South, the Arctic to the north and the green hills of Ireland to the west? Or in terms of influence, with concentric circles of power and persuasion reaching into North Africa, the Middle East, even as far as Lebanon, Iran, Russia? It's likely to be the big question, not just for Finland, but for the entire EU.
