EUROPE
The EU constitution’s “yes” countries should push ahead regardless
Summer 2007
As Europe’s leaders try to get to grips with the impasse over the EU’s constitutional treaty, Nicolas Schmit, Luxembourg’s Delegate Foreign Affairs Minister, surveys the options open to them and puts the case for an EU-18 coalition of the willing
That not all has gone according to plan is perhaps the least that can be said of the EU’s treaty to establish a constitution for Europe. Of the 25 member states that signed the treaty in Rome in late October 2004, 18 have ratified it, two via a referendum, in two others it was rejected by popular vote and another seven have not yet ratified it and indeed are still to initiate ratification procedures.
For the treaty to enter into force, all 27 members have to honour their commitment and ratify it. But as French and Dutch citizens have voted against it their voices cannot be ignored – all the more so as it is hardly imaginable that an identical text could be submitted to a second referendum in either country. It therefore seems obvious that the treaty cannot enter into force in its current form and that the “yes” countries cannot push ahead with it unchanged because unanimity is required.
At the same time 18 countries have ratified the treaty. Luxembourgish voters, for instance, approved it by a 56.5% majority immediately after the Dutch and French no votes. So it is equally clear that these voices representing a two thirds majority of member states and a majority of European citizens must be heard as well. The treaty cannot simply be abandoned.
The impasse that has become familiar to us all is that it is impossible to press ahead with the treaty unchanged, and equally impossible to start from scratch. The voices of the “yes” and “no” countries cannot be ignored, yet still we have to try and bring them together if we are to overcome the serious crisis that Europe has been plunged into. We need a positive outcome, and we need it in a short period of time if the European Union is to deliver on its citizens’ expectations.
Europe faces many complex challenges in a globalised world. In areas as diverse as employment and social inclusion, environmental protection and climate change, health, external and internal security, the fight against illegal migration and poverty in the third world, European citizens are demanding policies that will address these challenges effectively. It’s also obvious that member states cannot solve these problems at a purely national level. Only through coordinated and effective EU action on the basis of common policies can these challenges be addressed. We need a “Europe of results” to convince our citizens of the EU’s value, but to achieve these results Europe’s decision-making capacity has both to be strengthened and democratised.
In today’s enlarged Union, though, taking unanimous decisions and implementing new policies has become increasingly difficult. Decision-making procedures are too numerous and difficult to understand, and accountability is insufficient. For the European Union to play its role fully, decision-making needs to be simplified and made more transparent and democratic. This doesn’t necessarily mean that enlarging competences should be the aim at any cost. In fact, the constitutional treaty gives a better definition as to which competences should be shared between the EU and its member states, and how. It also reinforces the subsidiarity principle by giving a stronger say to national parliaments. So the objective is not automatically “more Europe” but rather a “better Europe” capable of acting effectively and more democratically in areas where European action has a clear added value.
For all these reasons, the institutional reforms that are contained in the constitutional treaty are still urgently needed. For Europe to fulfil its role as a major global actor, its scope cannot be reduced to that of being no more than a large common market. It needs at the same time to be economic, political and social.
It needs to be economic to fully realise the potential of the common market and to adapt its economic governance to the challenges of globalisation – research, technological development and knowledge have to be at the heart of the European economy.
It also needs to be political and to speak with one voice on matters of foreign policy. Europe can play a more important international role through its contribution to solving major conflicts and to shaping a more peaceful and balanced world order.
And then Europe needs to be social, and to promote social cohesion while fighting poverty and unemployment. Many of its citizens are committed to a European social model, and we have to preserve that by reforming it, and through innovative policies adapting it to globalisation’s new environment. Finally, Europe has decided to be at the forefront of combating climate change. This constitutes an enormous challenge, but one which also offers great opportunities for developing new technologies and a more qualitative type of economic growth.
A Europe of this nature is only possible through a strengthening of the EU’s institutions and a deepening of its policies. That, after all, was the aim and the substance of the treaty that was signed by all the member states of the European Union in Rome. So we need a renewed consensus on a Union that works for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy that also aims at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment. This Europe must also be able to offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal borders. It must be a Europe that promotes economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among member states and its citizens. And it’s no exaggeration to say that a large majority of member states and their citizens have already expressed that this is their wish by voting for the treaty.
This view was shared by the member states that met in Madrid in late January of this year. Launched by Spain and Luxembourg, all the “yes countries” were invited, and was also supported by at least four more countries committed to the constitutional treaty even though they have not yet ratified it. And although it may well be impossible to press ahead with the treaty without any changes to the text, the Madrid meeting made it clear that there is consensus among these member states as to what kind of Europe they want. And what they want has so far best been expressed by the substance and balance of the treaty and its text.
These “yes” countries want a political Europe that can play a key role in this globalised world and base its action on the values and principles that inspire the European integration process. They also want a more effective, more transparent and more democratic Europe that is at the service of its citizens, just as was set out in the constitutional treaty.
The solution to the impasse over Europe’s constitutional treaty certainly does not lie in the direction of diminishing its scope, and thus perhaps making it just an “ordinary” treaty. Minimalist solutions respond to neither the expectations of the citizens nor to the requirements of a rapidly changing world. The answer is more likely to be found with its simplification, taking out those elements that are not absolutely necessary, and also enriching it in such areas as climate change. The EU’s German Presidency, which I know shares the ambitious view of what the treaty should contain, is still working hard on finding a way out of the deadlock at this summer’s European Council. Those countries that are “Friends of the Constitution” have also been making clear that the initiative they launched in Madrid aims at giving their support to the German Presidency.
But if not all the EU’s members were ready to take this ambitious path, some sort of flexible solutions may need to be marked out that have already been a feature of European compromise in years past. But those member states that are willing to move forward should not be prevented from doing so. By all means let us try to preserve the solidarity of all 27 member states, as differentiation should not mean division but rather progress at variable speeds.