The idea of a clause of “rendez-vous” is supported by Spain and Poland. The idea is to delay the decision whether to adopt or not the new system of qualified majority voting. British foreign minister Jack Straw said creating useless issues was pointless and scheduling a clause of “rendez-vous” in 2009 to judge the effectiveness of the Treaty of Nice system could be a good idea. Joschka Fischer is against that idea and thinks delaying those questions would mean confessing a failure (Désaccord persistant sur la future Constitution européenne, 2003).
The reform of the Commission
The new qualified majority voting and its extended use are designed to make it easier for the Commission to reach an agreement. The reform of the Commission has the same goal. By reducing the number of commissioners to one per country (25 at start) and giving the right to vote to only 15 of them, the Commission would be more efficient. The voting commissioners would rotate through member states. The 10 remaining commissioners would be associates. In a sense of equality, the voting commissioners would come from various countries every five years.
By creating two different statuses for commissioners, such a system would erase the collegiate nature of the Commission and would diminish the legitimacy and the effectiveness of the EU as a whole. As many countries are asking for that, the Intergovernmental Conference would probably amend this proposal. The Commission should be composed of one member per member state, having the same rights and duties (Europa website).
This reform penalizes large countries as they currently have two commissioners. But smaller countries also argue that reducing the number of voting commissioners would weaken their position; Austrian Foreign Minister Benita Ferrero-Waldner said there should be one voting commissioner per country and Czech President Vaclav Klaus did not even attend the opening session of the Intergovernmental Conference on October 4 in Rome, arguing that the Constitution would lead to a “super-state” and that there was not enough allowed for a proper discussion (Reynolds, P., 2003). Still, smaller countries such as Finland continue to fight to have one voting commissioner per member state. Ireland backed calls to give a chance to future member states to send a commissioner to Brussels. Opponents like France and Germany say with 25 voting commissioners, the Commission “would be too unwieldy to work effectively” (EU starts constitution battle, BBC News website). Of course it is easier to reach an agreement at 15 than it is with 25 people – 27 someday.
Union Minister for Foreign Affairs
Article 27 of the Constitution deals with the election of the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs. He or she shall be chosen by qualified majority by the European Council, with the agreement of the President of the Commission. His or her role would be to “conduct the Union’s common foreign and security policy” (The European Convention, 2003). He or she shall contribute to the elaboration of the common foreign, security and defence policy, which he or she shall carry out. The Union Minister for Foreign Affairs would also be one of the Vice-Presidents of the Commission, the other one being the President of the European Council. This new figure takes on the role of the EU’s foreign policy representative and the one of the external affairs member of the Commission. He or she would as well chair the Foreign Affairs Council and be on the Commission (What the EU constitution says, BBC News website). Given this, the EU’s foreign policy should have greater emphasis, though still subject to a national veto, as seen before. As Laurent Zecchini said in Le Monde, this new figure cold provide the EU with the voice and the face that it misses on the international stage. Furthermore, he or she would have the power of initiative, whereas Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy representative is bound by the Council of Ministers or by the European Council. But to have legitimacy, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs will have to be backed up by a common political will. One of Mr Solana counsellor says that if two big countries have divergent positions, “the Minister could be Napoleon, he wouldn’t have much more success” (Laurent Zecchini, 2003).
As the post of Union Minister for Foreign Affairs combines two existing functions, which depend on the European Council and the Council of Ministers for the foreign policy representative and on the European Commission for the external affairs member of the Commission; it would come under those three institutions. This makes the decision process vague, and the voting system unclear. For that matter, Britain reminded that foreign policy must be decided by unanimity and that it would block attempts to remove national veto (Parker, G. and Dempsey, J., 2003).
Citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union
Article 8 of the constitution draft states that “Every national of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union”. This enables people to stand for election and vote in local and European elections no matter where they live and to get diplomatic protection from the government of their country of residence if their own is not represented. Actually it makes the EU more convenient for its citizens. It also lays emphasis on the fact that the rights of EU citizenship do not replace those of national citizenship (What the EU constitution says, BBC News website).
On www.ft.com, say citizenship makes individuals aware of their responsibilities. It encourages participation in terms of making choices and achieving aims. The article 44 of the second part of the Constitution states that “Any citizen of the Union […] has the right to petition the European Parliament”. Though the petition requires at least one million signatures from a significant number of member states, it constitutes a step in this direction. This petition can lead to a legislative proposal (Sources d’Europe, 2003). Moreover, the article on www.ft.com points out that public opinion is about to be called in many countries through a referendum. In this way, individuals would control the constitution-making process and would delegate power to institutions they have agreed to establish.
The draft includes the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union as its second part. The UK government sees the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a threat, although it has already agreed to it at Nice in 2000. It fears the European Court would use it as a legal document, which would therefore extend EU powers. But although the draft insists that it would not “extend the scope of application of Union law”, Mr Blair has obtained from the Convention that the right to go on strike – which is part of the Charter – could not be put forward in national courts. It means that to guarantee the exercise of this right, it has to be referred to European jurisdictions only, and this by or for Union employees only (Cassen, B., 2003).
The analyse of the principal amendments proposed by the Constitution has shown that there is a real debate over its adoption. Moreover, what makes its acceptation tricky is that it has to be by unanimity. We can notice that just its adoption justifies a great part of its content (cf. the voting system).
It is important that the Constitution come into force quite simultaneously with the enlargement to eastern countries, as it updates the Institutions so that the European Union does not get stuck with a paralysing voting system.
The creation of the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs will provide the European Union with what it needs to have power on the international stage: to speak as one voice – though no European Army exists. As Paul Reynolds wrote “the constitution is a balance between those who wanted more integration and those who did not” (Reynolds, P., 2003)
Adopting the Constitution and more specifically creating the European citizenship and incorporating the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union does not mean creating the United States of Europe, even if it constitutes a step in this direction, but it definitively contributes to design an ever closer Union.
Bibliography
Book:
-
The European Convention: Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Germany, 2003
Article:
-
Parker, G.: “Britain ponders using EU veto of last resort”, Financial Times, pg. 8, November 28 2003
Access date: December 1 2003
-
“Désaccord persistant sur la future Constitution européenne”, Lemonde.fr, November 29 2003
Access date: December 1 2003
-
“A simpler Europe: Constitutional treaty should not complicate decision-making”, Financial Times, pg. 20, October 20 2003
Access date: December 1 2003
-
“Europe must make haste slowly: The EU's new constitution will have to be a compromise”, Financial Times, pg. 20, September 10 2003
Access date: December 1 2003
-
E.: “Develop the European political system first”, , pg. 1,
Access date: December 1 2003
-
Cassen, B.: “Europe, une Convention pour rien”, July 2003
Access date: December 1 2003
-
Zecchini, L.: “La voix et le visage de l’Europe”, Lemonde.fr, December 1 2003
Access date: December 1 2003
Website:
Access date: November 24 2003
Access date: December 1 2003
-
“EU starts constitution battle”
-
Reynolds, P.: “EU constitution - the last lap?”
-
“What the EU constitution says”
Access date: December 1 2003
