Inflatable Bulldozer installed by the IND/DEM group during the Summit. On the front was written: "Clearing the way for the new constitutional treaty".
From the draft Constitution to the Reform Treaty
Monday 25 June 2007
What counts for me is that we have emerged from paralysis German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at the end of the European Summit on Sunday morning. It seems that, although the previous draft of the Constitution was facing fierce opposition, the Heads of State and Governments have emerged with an acceptable solution. The plan is to write a Reform Treaty before the end of 2007 and to have it ratified by all member states by 2009, before the European elections.
The Reform Treaty, far from making things simpler and more understandable for citizens, is a mix of compromise and synonyms. The negotiations on the Reform Treaty have focused on two main objectives: reaching an agreement at any cost and avoiding as far as possible ratification by referendum. Why? Because the Heads of State and Governments know perfectly well how disastrous a referendum could be for their European project from which the people feel excluded.
Compromise was necessary to convince the UK, Poland, France, Czech Republic and the Netherlands to come back to the negotiation table. Due to its newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy who was the promoter of a mini-treaty, France easily joined the yes-side right after having obtained the scrapping of undistorted competition from being written in the objectives of the Union. Dutch Prime Minister Jan-Peter Balkenende managed to get national parliaments a greater say over proposed legislation and in response to his electorates fear over enlargement he also negotiated tougher criteria for ascension for future would-be member states. The Czech Republic obtained clearer language on the division of competencies between the EU and member states.
Of the five opponents to the draft EU Constitution, Poland and the UK were probably the toughest to convince. The UK threatened to walk away from the summit if its conditions were not met and Poland made a great deal of rejecting the proposed double majority voting system. The UK secured weaker language on foreign policy, made sure it could opt out of taking part in EU cooperation on police and judicial matters and secured what diplomats say is a "de facto" opt-out of a charter setting out the civil, social and economic rights of citizens. In Poland, the Kaczynski twins went home triumphant, claiming they had maintained the voting system of the Nice Treaty until 2014 with a transitory phase starting in 2014 until 2017, after which there shall be the implementation of a double majority system (a majority being 55 percent of the member states and 65 percent of the EU population).
The agreement on the simplified treaty, or the Reform Treaty, will rise like a phoenix. Reborn from the very ashes of the draft Constitution the new treaty will hardly hides its similarities with its predecessor. European leaders insist that the Treaty is necessary for good governance in Europe, and that Europe is in a state of crisis and needs a way out. However the path that leaders have chosen is dishonest and leads to confusion. The tricks used are numerous - from replacing the EU foreign minister with an EU High Representative to scrapping the symbols of statehood i.e. the flag, anthem, motto and the name - constitution. Nevertheless the substance of the Treaty will remain untouched.
Playing with language and meanings is useful for some governments who wish to appease their electorate. However, when these changes are clearly orientated to avoiding the obligation of referendum, then it is called denying the people their own rights: the right to accept or refuse taking part to what looks more and more to a European supranational state. There are only two member states which cannot legally avoid having a referendum on the new Treaty, Ireland and Denmark. Let us hope that the citizens of both countries shall remind their leaders and hopefully the rest of Europe that the EU should be based on the needs of its citizens and not the desires of its leaders.
Sources: Open Europe, EUobserver