The European Union’s first Constitution, creating a union president and foreign minister, has been 15 tortuous months in the making in Valery Giscard d’Estaing’s Convention.
The version that saw the light of day in Brussels this week will not be the final one: that still has to be negotiated by EU governments, who can use their vetoes to block proposals they dislike. But it will be fairly similar.
It is dense, complex stuff, heavy going even for specialists. Nevertheless, the first part of the treaty contains innovations that will significantly change how the union works and where power lies.
On balance, despite recent hysteria in Britain’s Eurosceptic media, there is little to worry defenders of the nation state, and a good deal of disappointment for those seeking a more radical approach to European integration.
Fierce arguments was expected when the document — drawn up by the former French president and his 13-strong ”praesidium” — was debated by the full 105-member convention on Thursday.
Article 1 sets the tone: ”Reflecting the will of the citizens and states of Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes the European Union, on which the member states confer competences to attain objectives they have in common.
”The union shall coordinate the policies by which the member states aim to achieve these objectives, and shall exercise in the community way the competences they confer on it.”
Here the word ”community” replaced the original ”federal” to assuage British concerns. But a commitment to the goal of ”ever-closer union” is expected to reappear in a preamble to the treaty.
The biggest single change proposed is for a permanent president of the EU council of ministers to replace the current system of biannual presidencies ”rotating” between member states.
This is confusing and unwieldly enough with 15 members in the club, but would be impossible with 25 from next year if small fry like Malta or Estonia were expected to run the affairs of more than 400-million people.
Britain and the other big countries have fought hard for the presidency idea, though most small ones and the European Commission strongly dislike it, fearing a dilution of their influence.
Closely related to that is the call for a European foreign minister to give greater coherence to the EU’s attempts to play a role on the world stage — an issue galvanised by bitter divisions over Iraq.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says the title is inappropriate. This is one of the battles ahead for Britain, keen to boost Europe’s performance, but anxious to ensure foreign policy remains a strictly sovereign affair. Britain also opposes the phrase giving the union competence for the ”progressive framing of a common defence policy”, and other references deemed likely to weaken Nato.
Another proposed change is that the commission president, currently Italy’s Romano Prodi, be chosen by EU leaders and then elected by the European Parliament, a way to tackle the lack of accountability of the ”Brussels bureaucrats”.
The favoured option for the convention federalists and Germany was a new job, combining the council and commission presidencies. But that was too radical for Giscard and the other ”bigs”.
Crucial details about these institutional changes need to be fleshed out before the treaty can be completed and signed in Rome next year.
Some draft articles are the EU equivalent of motherhood and apple pie, but have still been bitterly contested in the convention. The document introduces references to equality and non-discrimination, and invokes the need to combat social exclusion as well as respect Europe’s environment and linguistic diversity. ”Social partners”, usually meaning trade unions, must be consulted on key issues.
The Constitution enshrines the principle of ”subsidiarity” under which the union shall only act if a policy cannot be implemented at national, regional or local level.
It signals one serious problem for the Blair government: incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights, applicable to labour and social issues, into the treaty.
Another no-go area, especially for British Chancellor Gordon Brown, is the role of the EU in coordinating the economic policies of member states. It is an issue, too, that will become more problematic if Britain remains outside the eurozone. The 10 countries joining next year must adopt the currency.
Many issues come down to interpretation — with the sceptics always prepared to see a Brussels plot in the small print.
Article 10, for example, establishes the primacy of EU law over national law, though only where community law exists. Giscard’s spokesman said that was ”a description of the current state of affairs”.
Plans to reduce areas in which national vetoes can be used are signalled in the draft, but details were given in another part of the treaty, published on Tuesday.
The document refrains from defining what constitutes Europe — crucial in the light of aspirations by Turkey and Russia.
Provision is made for voluntary withdrawal from the union and for suspension of membership in case of a breach of fundamental values, an issue raised when the far-right Freedom Party joined Austria’s ruling coalition three years ago. — Â