Estonian Foreign Policy Yearbook: Future of Europe

Julkaistu 23.1.2006

The constitution is dead, long live the constitution.

"Annus horribilis" has become an overly used term to sum up the year 2005 of the European Union. Still, it is true that even for the EU, often described to be in a state of constant crisis management, it has been exceptionally rough going.

The constitution was put in ice after the French and Dutch referenda. The failure of two founding countries to ratify set the tone for most of the year: doomsday visions from collapse of the euro zone to illusions of a core Europe were spread out all around.

In the gloomy mood it went almost unnoticed that actually we got a series of good news towards the end of the year. Opening the enlargement negotiations with Turkey and Croatia, compromise on the big chemical legislation package, launch of the better-regulation initiative and a budget deal for years 2007-2013 all prove that Europe is alive and kicking. The election of a new chancellor in Germany also raises hopes.

Being an eternal optimist, I would like to think that 2005 opened our eyes to see the problems that had been brewing for quite some time. 2006 is the time to start fixing them.

Still, we are in a deadlock.

The four big challenges of the EU are: deteriorating public opinion, a decision-making system not planned for 25 member states, an improving but still rather hesitant role in the world and a stagnant economy.

The one common answer to first three of these problems happens to be the constitution, including more efficient, democratic and transparent policy-making, an improved decision-making system and all-new elements into the common foreign and security policy.

So, what options do we have as regards the constitution? In theory three: first, we could declare the treaty dead and start picking and choosing the "best" parts. Second, we could start changing the current text. Third, we could try to push the current text through.

Name of the game is delay

With the difficult budget negotiations concluded, the Constitution is again rising to the agenda.

Over half of the member states have now ratified the Constitution. On top of that, several member states, including Estonia and Finland, have stalled the ratification process to simply wait for the common reaction even though their national ratification processes are not going to be problematic.

Despite the steady flow of bad news coverage in the media, public opinion still seems to be greatly favourable to a Constitution. Eurobarometer 64 shows that the support in EU25 actually grew to 63% during last year, with only 21% opposing. Finns and Estonians are unfortunately to be found in the eurosceptic end, with only 49% in both countries in support.

Naturally, it has to be taken into account that these figures show only the support for the concept of the constitution, not the actual text being discussed. On the other hand, other figures in the same study indicate strong belief in the capacity of this particular text to make EU stronger, more efficient and more democratic.

The European institutions are also starting to gear up. The Commission was the first with its Plan D for democracy. While the plan was considered by some as a disappointment, it actually was a rather reasonable base for discussion. Its main message was to restore and promote public confidence in the European Union by supporting national debates and changing permanently and concretely some aspects and practices of Brussels policy-making.

The European Parliament is following suit in its January plenary. The report on the reflection period confirms the Parliament's commitment to the Constitution and its ratification by 2009.

The concrete proposal in the Parliament report, to be found also in the Plan D, is to organise European Forums between the European Parliament and the national parliaments. Goal: to debate the fundamentals of the EU. Topics include goal of the integration, Europe's role in the world, Europe's boundaries etc. The first Forum will probably be organised in May 2006.

The Council is also finally waking up, thanks to the Austrian presidency. The June European Council is going to accept a roadmap towards the constitution. Leaders like Merkel, Schüssel have found their fighting spirit, it seems.

Restore public confidence, write reports, organise forums, plan roadmaps...what does this all sound like, honestly? Middle-East peace process? The hideous truth is that nobody still quite knows what to do. That is why we are playing a delay game. The French presidential elections are the deadline. At that time the answers have to be there.

Core Europe is not on the agenda

During the constitutional impasse, Jacques Chirac, Guy Verhofstadt and several others have once again taken up the concept of a core Europe - a group of usually founding members going forward to form a federal core for the Union.

The importance of these comments, even if the speakers are influential, should not be exaggerated. Talk about a core Europe is like a nuclear weapon: it is very good in scaring those outside the imagined core to do as they are told, but no-one is actually prepared to use it.

Often the ones talking about an avant-garde like to point out two opposing camps: on the one hand the continental French-driven group driving ever-tighter political integration, and on the other hand the Anglo-Saxon camp, reinforced by new member states, driving only economic co-operation. This view is not only naive, it is plainly wrong. Political and economic integration go hand in hand. Without the Lisbon agenda and a more successful economy all our institutions are not going to help much.

Those who talk about the federalist core are often themselves the break. Especially in a post-referendum situation it is almost ridiculous to think of some avant-garde led by France. The most important psychological core in the EU is the Euro-zone, which also Estonia is going to join soon. The others include the likes of Schengen-area. In a Union of about 30 member states, we will always have some flexibility for the able and willing.

When delay is not enough

In the end of the day, we will have to choose between the three options outlined earlier on: pick&choose, change the text or continue ratification of the current text.

Personally, I am on the Merkel-line: I think that the constitution should be seen as a package. It would be legally and politically impossible to pick and choose different bits of the text.

This leaves us with two options: change or no change. No matter how much almost everybody tries to avoid the idea of opening the Pandora's Box, I am afraid we will have to.

During the constitutional crisis, it has seemed that the so-called ordinary people have a more realist take than many politicians. The already mentioned Eurobarometer 64 would seem to prove the point again: 49% are calling for a re-negotiation, whereas only 22% think we should continue the ratification process with the current text. Fortunately only 13% think the constitution should be dropped.

What does re-negotiation actually mean? If you ask me, nothing radical. Still, to make a new vote in France possible, we will have to have a bit more on social policy, globalisation, "European social model" etc included. In the meantime, we have to keep in mind that this direction does not make it any easier for United Kingdom to ratify.

It's the democracy, stupid

It is not only the content of changes that matters, but also the process of writing them. The Convention, even though it was more open and more democratic then previous methods to change treaties, was far from perfect. Any revising of the constitutional text must not be left only to the governments. It ought to be mainly the task of national and European parliamentarians, gathered together in a constitutional assembly.

A logical timetable for entering into force of the constitution would be 2009. Then any consultation of the citizens could be done together with the European Parliament election in June that year. It may be wishful thinking, but in my opinion the final text should be submitted to the verdict of all Europeans on the same day across the Union.

Before that, the general mood in Europe needs to change and that is exactly what all European institutions are trying to achieve during 2006. Seminars, campaigns and tinkering of constitutional articles are unfortunately not enough. What we really need is an economic upswing.

Alexander Stubb

The author is a Finnish MEP and a visiting professor at the College of Europe.