Another amendment with an institutional aspect is the reform of the European Commission. As the Commission would not have been able to work properly with ten more countries added to the current fifteen, the Convention had to find another way of voting. Consequently, from November 2009, each country would still have one Commissioner but only 15 of the 25 will have voting rights, with voting rights rotating through the member states. Thus, large countries would have only one Commissioner instead of two. In addition, the Convention proposed a new definition of qualified majority voting: all but the most sensitive EU decisions would be decided by a majority of member states representing at least three-fifths of the EU population. Smaller and medium-sized countries like Spain and Poland have protested the proposed voting system. They complained that this mechanism would move decision-making in favour of larger member states like Germany and France, since their bigger population would make their vote more powerful [www.dw-world.de; 02/10/2003]. Moreover, as only 15 commissioners would have one vote at the same time, all the countries would not be able to express their point of view, and as the president of the Council would not be elected, the voting system would loss a little of its legitimacy [WYLES, J.; 27/11-03/12/03].
The Convention’s draft induced the member states to think about what values are important in a constitution. This is a crucial question because, before becoming even larger, Europe has to know what values it wants to pass on the future Europe. The European values had already been thrown in the previous Treaties but no key values had really been sorted out yet. For example the Treaties raised values such as consistency, solidarity, cohesion, social and progress, social cohesion, the rights and interests of citizens, ever closer union, maintaining the “acquis communautaire”, principles of democracy [VIBERT, F.;1995]. The problem is that the bigger Europe gets, the more difficult it is to find values which are shared across Europe. The religion issue has already been brought up, in spite of the fact that there is no amendment on religion. The draft only says that the European inhabitants have gradually developed values underlying humanism, “drawing inspiration from the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe, the values of which, still present in its heritage, have embedded within the life of society the central role of the human person” [draft Constitution; 18/07/2003]. Whereas Ireland is presses the intergovernmental conference for God’s inclusion in the constitution, others countries like France stand up for a non-religious constitution [BANKS, M.; 20/11-26/11/03]. Pope Jean Paul 2 even asked for a reference to Christianity in a seminar organized by the Robert Schumann Foundation on the European Christian Democrats. He said that Europe has to preserve the values “which have and continue to guarantee her a providential influence in the history of civilization”, and added that “many cultural roots have helped to solidify these values, yet it is undeniable that Christianity has been the force able to promote, reconcile and consolidate them. For this reason it seems logical that the future European constitutional treaty, aimed at achieving "unity in diversity" (cf. Preamble, § 5), should make explicit mention of the Christian roots of the continent.” [www.europdebat.org; 07/11/03] [www.vatican.va]. Europe will then have to find which values it wants to convey, so that all the Europeans would recognise themselves in the new constitution, and they can share a common “line of conduct”. Concerning sensitive questions like religion, it would probably be wiser not to talk about that more than the draft did, as it could raise polemics not really useful for the future Europe, as main European values have already been determined, so religious or not everyone can share them.
As the respect for human rights is part of European values, the EU ’s Charter of Fundamental Rights is set to become part 2 of the Constitution. But the proposals also include measures to make the European charter of fundamental rights legally binding and enforceable in courts, rather than just a statement of principle. As a result, Britain which has not got national written constitution, expressed reservations about whether the proposals would be compatible with national law [GIBBS, F.; 28/05/2003].
As at present, EU citizens will have the right to move freely within the EU. They will be able to vote in, and to run as candidates for, European Parliament and local elections whichever EU state they live in. What is new is that if one million or more EU citizens, spread over an as-yet unspecified number of states, sign a petition, the Commission will be “invited to submit” a legal proposal on the petition’s subject [www.eubusiness.com; 02/12/2003]. This is a very important issue because the Commission would be to a certain extent tuned in to opinions of the European population, adding a democratic aspect to the way the institutions work.
Some disagreements between countries over specific amendments are becoming apparent. First, the argument over the members of the European Commission we already explained in the first paragraph: Many current and future member states want all twenty-five Commissioners to have a vote, on the principle of “one country one vote”. Secondly there is a debate around the voting in the Council of Ministers, the votes not only should be carried if a majority of states support a motion, but also they have to represent more than 60% of the EU ‘s population. As we already seen, Spain and Poland want to keep the system of weighted votes agreed in the 2000 Nice Treaty [BBC News; 06/10/2003]. Thirdly, the religion matter, whether the Union’s constitution should include a reference to Christianity. Fourthly the presidency issue has been discussed, and it appears that mainly smaller countries want rotation to continue, since they believe the proposal favours the biggest countries. Fifthly, we can observe different points of view across Europe concerning the defence question. As a matter of fact, the draft constitution appears to give a green light to Belgium, France, Germany and Luxembourg to go ahead with plans for a European defence union, including a mutual defence pact. The UK, the Netherlands and some of the new member states say this encroaches on Nato's role. However, if we really want an ever closer union, it also means joining our efforts in a common foreign, security and defence policies. Europe does not represent a power able to cope successfully with conflicts which have a military dimension yet, as we have seen during the Iraq war, when Europe could not even speak with one voice, with different points of view arising from every member states, the outcome was an utter cacophony, and Europe did not undertake anything. Broadly speaking, we can say that there is a division between the smaller countries which tend to be integrationists and want to give more power to the European Commission and the European Parliament and the bigger countries which are more intergovernmentalists and want to enhance the power of the Council of Ministers.
What is more, we can easily observe the fears among the member states regarding what would be the outcome of the Constitution in the enlarged Europe. Eurosceptics fear that too much power is being handed to Europe, and that the right of individual countries to block some decisions is being taken away. Moreover, the role of the President and foreign ministers could become too powerful, conflicting with national governments. The Constitution also aims at making the functioning of the European institutions more transparent and understandable. The popular initiatives (EU citizens can petition the European Parliament) are a big democratic progress, with the fact that citizens ‘s questions would get replies from institutions in their own language.
While the nation states think about how they can modify the amendments they wish in e fair and reasonable way, it has been said in many newspapers that France and Germany (but also other big countries) were using their political weight to defend their national interest. Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, the Italian President of the Council of Ministers, gave a letter on Nov, 22nd 2003 to the other five founder states in which he reminded them that the Constitution project is supposed to be a clever balance between the different requirements of all the member states, whether they are big or small [FERENCZI, T.; 27/11/2003]. Non-governmental groups and civil society say that whereas the Convention was quite transparent, the IGC is little by little reverting back to the habit of trading national interest instead of promoting citizens’ rights. They highlighted the points that now the constitution is being negotiated behind close doors, and that member states have not got clear intentions concerning environmental issues and women’s rights. Therefore it is now generally recognised the draft constitution proposed by the Convention represents a huge progress, trying to be fair to all European countries and proposing a good compromise. Nevertheless, the draft is now in the member states’ hands and the risk is that they would be tempted to make their national interests prevail against the European interests. The draft replaces the EU ’s series of key treaties passed over the last half a century, adding important points like the attribution of legal personality to the Union and some institutional reforms to make the enlarged Europe a quick decision making edifice. The draft made considerable effort to turn Europe in a more democratic one, however there is still a lot to do to make Europe more transparent and easily understandable by the public. V. Giscard d’Estaing ‘s idea of teaching the constitution in schools may be a good idea to urge Europeans be part of the “Europeanization process”.
To conclude, we can say that the draft constitution raised debates across Europe. Concerning cultural matters, the main point of argument is religion, and the UK red line issue concerning the European Prosecutor. The major political proposals also brought up controversies, especially the amendment proposing the jobs of President of the European Council for a term of two-and-a-half years and the “foreign minister”, and the proposal of change in voting system in the European Commission. Broadly speaking, small countries fear that the negotiation might lead to amendments to the advantage of big countries, because they keep trying to make their national interests prevail. For instance it is very likely that the President would come from a founder state, the new qualified majority voting will favour the biggest countries etc. It is undeniable that thanks to the constitution the new Europe will be more democratic, however it would have been a big step forward if European peoples could have elected their European President, or at least have been consulted on controversial European issues. Some countries will hold referendums on whether to ratify the draft constitution. If any country votes No, there may be a delay until a solution is found.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
JOPP, M. (1994), The strategic Implications of European Integration, London: Brassey’s
VIBERT, F. (1995), Europe: A constitution for the Millennium, Aldershot: Dartmouth
Journal articles:
BANKS, M. (2003) « Verhofstadt : « EU needs credible foreign policy » » in European Voice 20-26 Nov 2003.
BANKS, M. (2003) « IGC is ignoring rights of citizens, says NGO group » in European Voice 27 Nov-3 Dec 2003.
BANKS, M. (2003) « Irish set to keep faith over God’s inclusion in the EU constitution » in European Voice 20-26 Nov 2003.
DE BRESSON AND CHATELOT AND PLITCHA, (2003) « Les nouveaux adhérents de l’ Est demandent surtout à la future Union de leur permettre d’exister » in Le Monde, Oct 24 2003.
GARIN, M. (2003) « La crise pourrait empêcher un accord sur la Constitution » in Le Monde, Nov 26 2003.
GIBB, F. (2003) « Fierce opposition to public prosecutor » in The Times, May 28 2003.
WYLES, J. (2003) « Why mounting a strong defence of the Convention is a tough call » in European Voice 27 Nov-3 Dec 2003.
Articles on websites :
BBC News « What the EU constitution says », June, 14 2003.
« Elected EU president « not realistic » », May, 16 2003.
« Excerpts: Europe's draft constitution », June, 13 2003.
« UK 'could veto EU constitution' », Nov, 25 2003.
« Q&A: EU constitution conference », Oct, 6 2003.
www.dw-world.de « Scröder, Aznar fail to agree on EU Constitution », Oct 10 2003.
www.info-europe.org « Constitution européenne : Jean Paul II lance un nouvel appel pour une référence chrétienne dans le texte » Nov, 7 2003. (www.vatican.va)
www.eubusiness.com « Main points of draft EU constitution », Oct 2 2003.
