EU Drops Constitution, Pledges New Treaty

A few years ago, as the euro was proving itself a useful currency, the passion in many salons around Europe was for an EU constitution. Of the 27 member states, 16 have ratified it. However, it cannot enter into force without unanimity, and Dutch and French voters rejected ratifying referenda a couple of years ago. The agreement has been on hold since then, and this week, the EU great and good decided to take it off life support. Undeterred, though, they have promised a new agreement to make the Union work better. Germany, the current EU president, has already offered a draft “Reform Treaty.” Better still, leave well enough alone for a while.

The trouble with Europe as a political federation is, sadly or gladly depending on one’s view, Europeans themselves. On the one hand, there is a large segment of Europe that believes a federal superstate is just what the Continent needs to fulfill its 21st Century destiny. On the other hand, there is a significant body of opinion that would rather be governed by the existing national governments on the grounds of democracy, subsidiarity and simple bloody minded nationalism. Interestingly, during the first few years of the century, those wanting the superstate tended to be those in government, while those preferring, in De Gaulle’s words “Une Europe des Patries,” were usually those who were out of government or largely apolitical.

Thus in 2005, the political insiders were pushing for a European Constitution drafted by France’s Jacques Chirac and running a couple hundred pages in length (Note to Eurocrats: a good constitution can fit on one broadsheet, allowing for wiggle room that future events will demand). People who couldn’t stand to read all the instructions for their DVD players were asked whether this manual for running Europe was for them. Not surprisingly, they said “no” or more precisely, the Dutch said “neen,” while the French said, “non.” It was easier than actually reading the damned thing.

The Reform Treaty would make some improvements, but Britain’s government still wants to ensure that the Charter of Fundamental Rights doesn’t become legally binding, especially when it comes to Britain’s social and labor laws. The Blair government would also like to ensure that Britain gets to keep its veto over justice and home affairs issues and would like to keep majority voting circumscribed. That is all problematic. According to the Guardian a senior German official said, “It’s a proposal from the [German EU] presidency and it does indeed contain a proposal to make the charter legally binding.”

There does seem to be a way through this, though. Britain’s common law tradition makes it a special case among the civil law nations of Europe. Privately, Berlin has signaled that this would allow for opt-outs if needed. The Guardian quoted a different German official as saying, “We need to mutilate the constitution in order to save it.” It has come to that, German humor.

What the new deal doesn’t acknowledge is the simple fact that most Europeans don’t see anything horribly wrong with the current arrangement. The EU of 2007 is a long way from the European Coal and Steel Community of 1957, and while it isn’t a federal state (yet), the EU does have an official presence in global affairs. This lets even small European nations have more say in the world than they would otherwise possess. If reform is needed, let it come from the bottom up, not the top down. Otherwise, “non” and “neen” will be joined by “nie,” “nein,” and “bugger off.”

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home