You are in:
- Archives » 2007 » April 2007
"We Don't Need No Constitution"
What with him having only weeks left in his job, one would wonder why Tony Blair continues to care about such things, but this week saw some rare good news from Europe for the British PM when he found an important ally in the EU Constitutional debate.
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende declared with Blair that the EU doesn't need a constitution, and instead should concentrate on fixing existing treaties. "An amending treaty within the existing European treaties that makes the rules work more effectively" is what's needed, says Blair.
The Dutch, you will remember, rejected the EU Constitution a week after the French in 2005. Cue great relief from Tony Blair, who had caved in to pressure to grant the British a vote on the treaty - a referendum supporters of the constitution looked certain to lose. Aha, cried Blair, now the French and the Dutch have rejected the treaty, the British don't need to vote after all. The Constitution is dead. The Brits weren't alone: The Irish, the Czechs and the Danes also put the constitutional debate on ice.
Unfortunately for the British PM, prominent Eurocrats weren't going to let something as insignificant as democracy stand in the way of their blessed treaty. British crocodile tears had barely dried when governments in Germany and Spain began considering ways of reviving the corpse. Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel made a return of the Constitution a key part of her foreign strategy - unsuprisingly, as Germany stood to gain more votes to reflect its size under the treaty.
Germany now holds the EU's rotating presidency. Following secret discussions with representatives of all EU nations (and even the names of delegates from each nation were kept secret), Berlin plans to round off its presidency with a "road map" to the constitution.
Of course, such a road map is likely to have numerous detours, depending on the moods of the various governments. Most important is France, where the outcome of the presidential election will determine much of the treaty's shape.
Socialist Ségolène Royal wants to add a "Social Chapter" to the treaty, buying off left-wing opposition with the promise of internationalising France's social concerns. The new, "Social" constitution would then be presented to the French electorate for a second referendum.
Mme Royal does not address the fact that those 16 (and two pending) states which have already ratified the treaty did so in its current form. A revision designed to placate France's left (which is already well to the left of most of Europe's left-wing parties) could need a second vote in many nations, and could well be rejected.
Her centre-right rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, is keen to avoid another referendum. Claiming that it would be offensive to demand that the French vote again , he wants to see the constitution slimmed down and presented to parliaments rather than the people. Unusually, this is a middle ground he seems to share with Tony Blair and Jan Peter Balkenende.
Sarkozy, Blair and Balkenende might differ on what they want the slimmed down treaty to contain, but their hope that a damaging referendum can be avoided will give Eurocrats some cheer. After France's, and then Holland's devastating rejections of the treaty, many governments vowed to avoid referenda ever again.
Indeed, some, such as France's outgoing president Jacques Chirac, quickly learned that the threat of a referendum would quickly bring obstructive Eurocrats into line. It's as if federalists are frightened of democracy.
The Economist presents another angle: Eurocrats complain that without the Constitution, Europe "cannot work." The EU now counts 27 members - old treaties such as Nice can no longer support such a complex network of states and governments.
Not so, said the paper. Not even the accession of Romania and Bulgaria seems to have stemmed the flow of EU legislation, and despite headline-grabbing posturing from Poland's leaders, new EU states are rather less obstructive than the EU's senior members. The EU is working, rather too well for Eurosceptics.
Like so much else in Europe, complaints about creaking machinery of state and backlogged bureaucracy are nothing less than thinly disguised excuses for a power grab. Here's the Economist, again:
"As for talk of new voting rules, these conjure up images of late night cliffhangers, in which new laws scrape through by a bare majority. But that is not how the EU works. In both the commission and in meetings of national ministers, votes are generally shunned in favour of consensus. Abolishing national vetoes still matters, but for a different reason. When laws can be approved by majority vote, governments enter negotiations in a state of fear, knowing that doubters can easily end up isolated; a knowledge that pushes everybody towards compromise, gives the commission more power and promotes “more Europe”. If countries have a veto, they can sit out the argument and simply say no. When eurocrats call for more streamlined decision-making, what they mean is making life more frightening for laggards. Hans-Gert Pöttering, president of the European Parliament, is admirably frank: “If you have majority voting, you can overrule those who don't want to move ahead.”"
