Sunday, April 24, 2005
Rejecting the Constitution - Time for a Plan B
How should we react if the French (or, for that matter, the Dutch or the Poles or the Czechs) say "no" to the EU Constitution?
The Pro-European Peter Mandleson, the British Commissioner responsible for International Trade warns this will result in "chaos" and "stagnation".
The EU Foreign Minister-designate, Javier Solana, has gone on record opposing the renegotiation of the treaty, as did the deputy head of the European Commission, Margot Wallstrom.
Meanwhile anti-Europeans claim that the rejection will stop the constitution in it's tracks, and it will leave the federalist plots lying in the dutbin, so we can carry on as a common market union.
There is a risk that a rejection will achieve nothing positive - no change to the direction of the EU, perhaps just a fudge along the lines of the Danish and Irish rejections.
For those people like me who look forward to a strong, confident Europe playing a positive role on the world's stage and locking in the values of democracy, freedom and free markets within the EU, we need to adopt a positive strategy, beyond scare stories of "chaos" and "stagnation". We need to acknowledge and address the legitimate concerns of euro-sceptics across the continent.
Remember, the point of the European Convention in the first place was to bring the EU closer to its citizens! (see Laeken Declaration) Ironically, the EU Referenda and surge in euro-scepticism have achieved this where the European Convention failed! At last the issue of Europe-level governance are being discussed by the people and not just stitched up by the political elites!
So, I propose a Manifesto for Reforming the EU Constitution. It is time for the political leaders of Europe to start listening to the people of Europe and stop their scare tactics and head in the sand approach. I firmly believe that Europe, including Britain, WOULD ratify a constitution that was responsive to their concerns.
Any ideas what this manifesto should include? Let me know by posting a comment!
My ideas to begin with:
1. More Accountable Council
The Council President and Foreign Minister should be elected by open, competitive elections - not inter-governmental stitch ups like we have at the moment for the Commission President. I suggest a system like this:
- Candidates should require nomination by at least 10% of MEPs.
- Nominations should close one month before voting to allow candidate to canvass support across Europe.
- Simultaneous votes should be held by Parliament and Council
- Voting should be published
- If no candidate wins on the first round a second vote is held one week later.
Under the proposed Constitution they can only be sacked by the Court of Justice in the case of gross misconduct, after a 2/3 majority referal from the Council. Parliament has no say.
This doesn't give any kind of political accountability.
The President should have to resign if a vote of no confidence is passed by at any time in either the Council (with QMV) or Parliament (with 2/3rds).
The Foreign Minister (who is only elected by the Council) should have to resign if a vote of no confidence is passed in the Council (with QMV).
Council of Ministers Chairs should be appointed by the Council President, not rotating as they are at the moment. This would make them more accountable.
These proposals would make the Council visibly more accountable to the electorate.
2. Scrap the Commission
There are two legitimate voices in Europe - the Council representing the governments and the Parliament directly representing the people. With a strengthened Council and Parliament, the time for a third voice has passed.
The Commission represents everything that's wrong about Europe - jobs for the boys, corruption, and lack of accountability.
The existing roles of the Commission should be split between the Council taking external matters and Parliament taking internal matters.
For example, the International Trade Commissioner should be elected in the same way as the Foreign Minister. The Competition Commissioner should be directly elected by, and accountable to, Parliament.
The Parliament or the Council should be able to propose laws on their own initiative.
Scrapping the Commission would make the EU visibly more accountable, simplified and more understandable. The small countries may complain, as the Commission gives them their time in the limelight. However, the Parliament already provides for over-representation ("digressive" representation) for small countries, and we've already seen how small country politicians like the Irish Pat Cox can rise to prominence in the Parliament.
3. More National Powers
The constitution says "the Union shall act only if ... the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States" (Art I-9 (3)). However this bold statement falls down in the mechanisms for implementing it.
At present there is a "Protocol" whereby national parliaments can present a "yellow card" and refer back matters which fail the subsidiarity principle. It's then up to the EU whether to change the law or ignore it.
This is not enough. The Protocol should give national parliaments a veto over matters that don't comply with the subsidiarity - a red card not just a yellow card.
This would address the fears of many British euro-sceptics who see the Constitution as too centralising.
4. Policy-free Constitution
The constitution should not specify policy aims, but should limit itself to the establishment of competancies. Policies should be decided by politicians not constitutions!
All policy statements should be stripped out from the constitution, so as not to bind future decision making. For example:
"Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities." (I-40 (3))
Most of Part III - Section III ("Internal Policies and Action") should be struck through. The same effect could instead be implemented via a decision of the Council, and this way be open to amendment and debate rather than set in stone in a constitution.
This could help address the fears of French left wingers and others who think the Constitution forces them to adopt "neo-liberal" policies.
5. Enlargement Referendums
Any enlargement of the EU affects all of the people who are part of the EU. Enlargement should be subject to a referendum, across the entire EU, requiring at least 50% yes, in addition to the current requirement for unanimous member state ratification.
This could help address the fears of French and Dutch right wingers and others who oppose the entry of Turkey into the EU.
6. Controls over European Army
The Constitution provides for the establishment - in all but name - of a European Army. The powers of this army needs to be better controlled:
- allow neutral countries to opt out (at the moment the Foreign Minister can use all the facilites of all member states)
This should address the fears of Irish rejectionists and others who fear the end of their neutrality.
- establish a "Rubicon" principle - i.e. the European Army (and the armed forces of other Member States) should be prohibited from operating within the territory of a member state without their consent
This should address the fears of British eurosceptics and others who fear the EU trying to impose its will militarily on member states that disagree, or even a future European civil war like in the US.
- specifically prohibit any operations outside the EU which breach the UN Charter.
This should help to address the fears of those who a fear a European "super-state" imposing its will on the world.
So, these are a few ideas for how the EU Constitution should be reformed. Now over to you, what do you think?
The Pro-European Peter Mandleson, the British Commissioner responsible for International Trade warns this will result in "chaos" and "stagnation".
The EU Foreign Minister-designate, Javier Solana, has gone on record opposing the renegotiation of the treaty, as did the deputy head of the European Commission, Margot Wallstrom.
Meanwhile anti-Europeans claim that the rejection will stop the constitution in it's tracks, and it will leave the federalist plots lying in the dutbin, so we can carry on as a common market union.
There is a risk that a rejection will achieve nothing positive - no change to the direction of the EU, perhaps just a fudge along the lines of the Danish and Irish rejections.
For those people like me who look forward to a strong, confident Europe playing a positive role on the world's stage and locking in the values of democracy, freedom and free markets within the EU, we need to adopt a positive strategy, beyond scare stories of "chaos" and "stagnation". We need to acknowledge and address the legitimate concerns of euro-sceptics across the continent.
Remember, the point of the European Convention in the first place was to bring the EU closer to its citizens! (see Laeken Declaration) Ironically, the EU Referenda and surge in euro-scepticism have achieved this where the European Convention failed! At last the issue of Europe-level governance are being discussed by the people and not just stitched up by the political elites!
So, I propose a Manifesto for Reforming the EU Constitution. It is time for the political leaders of Europe to start listening to the people of Europe and stop their scare tactics and head in the sand approach. I firmly believe that Europe, including Britain, WOULD ratify a constitution that was responsive to their concerns.
Any ideas what this manifesto should include? Let me know by posting a comment!
My ideas to begin with:
1. More Accountable Council
The Council President and Foreign Minister should be elected by open, competitive elections - not inter-governmental stitch ups like we have at the moment for the Commission President. I suggest a system like this:
- Candidates should require nomination by at least 10% of MEPs.
- Nominations should close one month before voting to allow candidate to canvass support across Europe.
- Simultaneous votes should be held by Parliament and Council
- Voting should be published
- If no candidate wins on the first round a second vote is held one week later.
Under the proposed Constitution they can only be sacked by the Court of Justice in the case of gross misconduct, after a 2/3 majority referal from the Council. Parliament has no say.
This doesn't give any kind of political accountability.
The President should have to resign if a vote of no confidence is passed by at any time in either the Council (with QMV) or Parliament (with 2/3rds).
The Foreign Minister (who is only elected by the Council) should have to resign if a vote of no confidence is passed in the Council (with QMV).
Council of Ministers Chairs should be appointed by the Council President, not rotating as they are at the moment. This would make them more accountable.
These proposals would make the Council visibly more accountable to the electorate.
2. Scrap the Commission
There are two legitimate voices in Europe - the Council representing the governments and the Parliament directly representing the people. With a strengthened Council and Parliament, the time for a third voice has passed.
The Commission represents everything that's wrong about Europe - jobs for the boys, corruption, and lack of accountability.
The existing roles of the Commission should be split between the Council taking external matters and Parliament taking internal matters.
For example, the International Trade Commissioner should be elected in the same way as the Foreign Minister. The Competition Commissioner should be directly elected by, and accountable to, Parliament.
The Parliament or the Council should be able to propose laws on their own initiative.
Scrapping the Commission would make the EU visibly more accountable, simplified and more understandable. The small countries may complain, as the Commission gives them their time in the limelight. However, the Parliament already provides for over-representation ("digressive" representation) for small countries, and we've already seen how small country politicians like the Irish Pat Cox can rise to prominence in the Parliament.
3. More National Powers
The constitution says "the Union shall act only if ... the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States" (Art I-9 (3)). However this bold statement falls down in the mechanisms for implementing it.
At present there is a "Protocol" whereby national parliaments can present a "yellow card" and refer back matters which fail the subsidiarity principle. It's then up to the EU whether to change the law or ignore it.
This is not enough. The Protocol should give national parliaments a veto over matters that don't comply with the subsidiarity - a red card not just a yellow card.
This would address the fears of many British euro-sceptics who see the Constitution as too centralising.
4. Policy-free Constitution
The constitution should not specify policy aims, but should limit itself to the establishment of competancies. Policies should be decided by politicians not constitutions!
All policy statements should be stripped out from the constitution, so as not to bind future decision making. For example:
"Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities." (I-40 (3))
Most of Part III - Section III ("Internal Policies and Action") should be struck through. The same effect could instead be implemented via a decision of the Council, and this way be open to amendment and debate rather than set in stone in a constitution.
This could help address the fears of French left wingers and others who think the Constitution forces them to adopt "neo-liberal" policies.
5. Enlargement Referendums
Any enlargement of the EU affects all of the people who are part of the EU. Enlargement should be subject to a referendum, across the entire EU, requiring at least 50% yes, in addition to the current requirement for unanimous member state ratification.
This could help address the fears of French and Dutch right wingers and others who oppose the entry of Turkey into the EU.
6. Controls over European Army
The Constitution provides for the establishment - in all but name - of a European Army. The powers of this army needs to be better controlled:
- allow neutral countries to opt out (at the moment the Foreign Minister can use all the facilites of all member states)
This should address the fears of Irish rejectionists and others who fear the end of their neutrality.
- establish a "Rubicon" principle - i.e. the European Army (and the armed forces of other Member States) should be prohibited from operating within the territory of a member state without their consent
This should address the fears of British eurosceptics and others who fear the EU trying to impose its will militarily on member states that disagree, or even a future European civil war like in the US.
- specifically prohibit any operations outside the EU which breach the UN Charter.
This should help to address the fears of those who a fear a European "super-state" imposing its will on the world.
So, these are a few ideas for how the EU Constitution should be reformed. Now over to you, what do you think?
