The constitutional draft
Analysis of the Constitution by Esko Seppänen 13.6.2003
The EU Convention on the Constitution approved a draft EU
Constitution on 13.6.2003.
It was Friday the thirteenth.
The Constitution will alter the nature of the EU, which will
become more of a federation. The old pillars will be toppled
and the EU will become militarised by erecting a new NATO
pillar within its structure.
I was one of the 207 people in the Convention who drafted
the Constitution over a period of 16 months. As a result of
our work, half a billion Europeans will become EU subjects
by dint of this Constitution, which will have primacy over
national legislation.
The atmosphere at the last meeting of the Convention was like
a party meeting of the North Korean communists. The Constitutions
Uncle Joe, Valéry Giscard dEstaing, was lauded
like the Great Leader, Kim Jong Il, or his father before him,
Kim Il Sung. All the members of the Convention knew where
and when to clap.
There was no voting in the Convention, although we had tabled
5,000 amendments to the Constitution. The Praesidium, that
is to say the Politburo, which did not have representation
from all countries, decided what the will of the Convention
was, and called it consensus. As federalists were over-represented
in the Convention, consensus meant consensus among them, but
not unanimity.
At the final meeting there were some pre-arranged speeches.
In the main only representatives of the big countries spoke.
For example, Teija Tiilikainen, representative of the Finnish
Prime Minister, did not get to speak at all. Consequently,
the Chamber did not hear that she had received instructions
from her government to express Finlands reservations
(i.e. non-acceptance) with regard to parts of the Constitution
dealing with institutions and defence.
To end the meeting the so-called Hymn to Europe was played
(which they want to make the national anthem of the federal
state). On hearing it, the loud and raucous federalists, in
ecstasy over the Constitution, stood up just as if it were
indeed a national anthem that was being played.
I sat. I was not the only one but there were only a few of
us. The EU does not have a national anthem.
The new Union
The draft Constitution consists of a preamble (which
has no legal force) and four parts: 1. the Constitution, 2.
the so-called Charter of Fundamental Rights, 3. a section
on policy, and 4. rules for entry into force.
In addition the Constitution had annexed to it a thick bundle
of protocols and declarations for approval by
an intergovernmental conference.
There was a desire to write the spirit of the draft into Article
I-1, which reads:
Reflecting the will of the citizens and States of
Europe to build a common future, this Constitution establishes
the European Union, on which the Member States confer competences
to attain objectives they have in common. The Union shall
coordinate the policies by which the Member States aim to
achieve these objectives, and shall exercise in the Community
the confidences they confer on it.
The Constitution establishes a new European Union.
The existing Union is to be discontinued by repealing the
previous Treaties. (Article IV-1).
Whether all the Member States have to agree with the establishment
of the new Union in order for it to have legal validity, is
not written into the text. This is a totally political question:
If one or more Member States have encountered difficulties
in proceeding with ratification, the matter shall be referred
to the European Council. (Article IV-6.4)
A federation or not?
The word federation, present in the first drafts,
was deleted from the Constitution.
Instead, the new Union shall exercise in the Community
way the competences conferred on it by the Member
states. (Article I-1).
The word Community refers to the federalist-style
Community method, which in practice means
the same as federal method. We also compromised
with the federalists by writing the following section into
the Constitutions preamble: (we are) convinced
that, while remaining proud of their own national identities
and history, the peoples of Europe are determined to transcend
their ancient division, and, united ever more closely, to
forge a common destiny.
The phrase united ever more closely served
to placate the federalists with respect to omitting the word
federation from the document. They were consoled
by the fact that, although the word had been left out, its
essential spirit remained.
Charter of Fundamental Rights
The EU will have its own legal personality.
Residents of the Member States will have dual nationality:
we will be both citizens of our own country and of the EU.
The Constitution sets out the rights and obligations of EU
citizens.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights is written into the
Constitution verbatim, as was drafted in 2000, with recourse
to the same Convention method as the present Constitution
(except that the representatives of the applicant countries
were not involved at that time).
Great Britain encountered national difficulties in accepting
the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In that country they do
not have their own written constitution, and, for the politicians
there, any mention of the rights and obligations of citizens
means restrictions on freedom. The Charter was approved once
Britain managed to attach to it instructions for interpretation
drawn up by civil servants, on the basis of which the fundamental
rights and obligations of citizens of the EU are not absolute.
These instructions for interpretation were written into the
preamble to Part II of the EU Constitution with the result
that in this context the Charter will be interpreted
by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due
regard for the explanations prepared at the instigation of
the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter.
This has no legal weight. It does help Blairs government,
however, to market the Constitution to its citizens. All the
stakeholders accepted the big con, aware of Blairs political
needs.
The rule on qualified majority decision
New EU laws will start being decided generally by qualified
majorities.
The right of veto will be taken away from the Member
States.
It will nevertheless be retained by the three big Member States
acting in concert. The 22 smaller countries will not be able
to vote them down if the three have different intentions and
wishes, even if all the others agree.
Some horse-trading was done. For example, Article 54.4, in
Part I of the Constitution, says this: The Council
of Ministers shall act unanimously when adopting the first
multiannual financial framework following the entry into force
of the Constitution.
This paragraph won Spain over with regard to accepting the
Constitution. It made it able to put the screws on other countries
financially when long-term decisions were to be made on agricultural
and cohesion aid after 2010 for the benefit of certain old
Member States (Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland).
The Conventions Praesidium also bought and sold other
Articles based on the needs of the big countries.
More competences for a new Union
The new Unions and the European Parliaments power
of decision will increase when the Member States hand over
to the Union new exclusive competences and more shared
competences. The number of these will double, and in the
future the supranational European Parliament will be able
to block the common will of the Member States on more and
more issues.
When qualified majority decisions are also extended to implementing
the area of freedom, security and justice (Article
1-41), this will involve the transferral of new legal competences
to the Union. They even want to harmonise criminal law. That
way nations will lose their historical and traditional forms
of administering justice and the general acceptability of
their laws. National laws represent a nations shared
memory about what is right and what is wrong.
The supreme powers of interpretation in matters relating to
competence will go to the EU Court of Justice. This
will be the EU institution that will be able to interpret
the Constitution in the spirit of a Constitution and
law which, adopted by the Unions Institutions
in exercising competences conferred on it, shall have primacy
over the law of the Member States. (Article 1-10.1).
Coup on the part of the big counties
The European Council, which is a meeting of heads of
state, will be an EU institution. It will have no legislative
powers, but it will have a permanent chairman, who is to be
called President.
The Council of Ministers will continue to have a rotating
presidency and the presidential term is to be lengthened to
at least a year. Except where the Constitution provides
otherwise, decisions of the Council of Ministers shall be
taken by qualified majority. (Article 1-22).
The EU will not have any special council responsible for regulating
or adjusting laws similar to an Upper Chamber (Council of
the States and Regions), but its embryo has been created:
there is to be a Legislative and General Affairs Council,
which, in its role of legislator, will be open to public scrutiny.
The EU will have its own Minister for Foreign Affairs,
who is to conduct the common foreign and security policy and
act as President of the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers.
He will also be a Vice-President of the Commission. Such a
solution is pretty tasteless in parliamentary terms. It would
seem that a civil servant is heading a council of ministers:
someone lower down the scale is managing those above.
There will be a ceiling of 732 Members of the European
Parliament. The number of Finnish Members will decline
at first to 14 and later increase when the new Member States
join. The fewer Members there are, the more limited democracy
is. Democracy is also diversity, difference and variety, but
in the European Parliament the differences crumble under the
supranational power of the big countries.
The Commission will have two levels of Commissioner:
voting European Commissioners and Commissioners. The
Commission is to retain its right of initiative with regard
to legislation, but, as it will only have 15 voting European
Commissioners, not all countries will be able to influence
the content of initiatives as a result. There is a danger
that the Commissioners will not rotate evenly: each
successive College shall be composed as to reflect satisfactorily
the demographic and geographical range of all the Member States
of the Union. (Article I-25.3)
The European Commissioners are to be elected from a group
of three candidates put forward by every Member State for
their European commitment (Article I-26.2). That
means that all the Commissioners will be like-minded and comparable
to the Communist Party Politburo in the old Soviet Union.
The Member States are likely to tear up the Convention package
particularly regarding the Institutions and the new division
of power.
The militarisation of the EU
The EU armed forces will become NATO-compatible under the
Constitution. The EU is not to have a defence facility independent
of NATO.
And how could it, when in the Iraq war, of the big countries,
Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Poland agreed to Americas
illegal invasion, and after the war Germany too is falling
once more in line with the USA?
EU to have its own President
Against all this it has to be understood that the EU will
be getting a President, who will at his or her level
ensure the external representation of the Union on issues
concerning its common foreign and security policy.
If there were not to be a President, who in practice will
only be an EU Summit Chairman, foreign policy would also be
made the competence of the Commission. That would have increased
the federalist nature of the EU even further.
The establishment of the office of President will mean the
Union will have a number of hubs, as not all power will be
concentrated in the Commission. It is a good thing for a community
of half a billion people to have centres of power other than
the supranational Commission (where not all Member States
have their own voting Commissioner). That would become a politburo
very quickly indeed.
Foreign affairs to remain the competence of the Member States
The Constitution distinguishes between foreign and security
policy (Article I-39, and security and defence policy
(Article I-40).
Defence policy is different from defence. Most EU countries
operate their regional defence through NATO. It has been written
into the Constitution that EU defence policy should not be
in conflict with NATO.
The Constitution defines common defence policy as
(that
which) will lead to a common defence (Article I-15.2),
and common security and defence policy as (that which)
will lead to a common defence, when the European Council,
acting unanimously, so decides.
The Treaty of Amsterdam has been amended in this regard such
that the Constitution uses the word when in place
of the word if.
Common foreign and security policy (CFSP)
Article 15 of Part I of the Constitution states that:
1. The Unions competence in matters of a common
foreign and security policy shall cover all areas of foreign
policy and all questions relating to the Unions security,
including the progressive framing of a common defence policy,
which might lead to a common defence.
2. Member States shall actively and unreservedly support the
Unions common foreign and security policy in a spirit
of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the
acts adopted by the Union in this area. They shall refrain
from action contrary to the Unions interests or likely
to impair its effectiveness.
Decisions are to be made unanimously, except if it is decided
unanimously that a decision should be made by qualified majority
(Article I-39). There are also other exceptions to unanimity
(Article III-196.2). They lead one to suggest that foreign
policy will not be implemented in the EU on the principle
of unanimity but frequently by qualified majority.
Structured cooperation
Article 40 in Part I on implementing the common security and
defence policy is one of the Constitutions most important
sections from Finlands point of view. It demonstrates
that the EU is becoming militarised.
So-called structured cooperation (Article 40.6) is cited as
a new form of cooperation.
6. Those Member States whose military capabilities
fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments
to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding
missions shall establish structured cooperation within the
Union framework. Such cooperation shall be governed by the
provisions of Article III-208.
The Article referred to goes on to say this:
1. Those Member States whose military capabilities
fulfil higher criteria and wish to enter in more binding commitments
in this matter with a view to the most demanding tasks, hereby
establish structured cooperation between themselves within
the meaning of [Article I-40(6)]. The military capability
criteria and commitments which those Member States have defined
are set out in that Protocol.
2. If a Member State wishes to participate in such cooperation
at a later stage, and thus subscribe to the obligations it
imposes, it shall inform the European Council of its intention.
The Council shall deliberate at the request of the Member
State in question but only the representatives of the Member
States taking part in structured cooperation shall participate
in the vote.
This is a matter of what has been hitherto termed flexibility.
Flexibility has commonly meant that not all Member States
need to participate in everything. Examples are EMU and Schengen.
A certain number of Member States cooperate on the basis of
these agreements in the name of the EU as a whole. In the
Constitution flexibility is also being extended to military
action, which until now has been outside the scope of the
EU Treaties.
The same thing is termed closer cooperation in the
Constitution. Different and looser criteria are being determined
for closer military cooperation than for closer cooperation
in other areas.
The wording of the Constitution means that some Member States
(e.g. Germany, France, Belgium and Luxembourg) can establish
mutually viable military structures outside the EU Institutions.
The same Article in the Constitution (Part III: 208.4) states
they may be allowed to act in the name of the Union as a whole:
4. The Council may ask the Member States participating
in such cooperation to carry out at Union level a task referred
to in [Article III-205]
The group of countries engaged in closer military cooperation
may establish its own decision-making bodies and storm troops
in order to carry out tasks written into the EU Constitution
that may be implemented in the name of the Union as a whole.
These are (Article III-205.1): joint disarmament
operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice
and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping
tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including
peacemaking and post-conflict stabilisation.
The Finnish translation says peacemaking, which
could also be interpreted as war. EU common defence
could also mean invasion, which would be carried out by troops
based on structured cooperation operating in close cooperation.
Declaration annexed to the Constitution
Structured cooperation still does not make the EU a military
alliance. It is more a matter of the implementation of crisis
management tasks. That is different from regional (NATO) defence.
There is another Article (Article I-40.7 which would make
the EU a military alliance:
7. Until such time as the European Council has acted
in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article, closer cooperation
shall be established, in the Union framework, as regards mutual
defence. Under this cooperation, if one of the Member States
participating in such cooperation is the victim of armed aggression
on its territory, the other participating States shall give
it aid and assistance by all the means in their power, military
or other, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations
Charter. In the execution of closer cooperation on mutual
defence, the participating Member States shall work in close
cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The
detailed arrangements for participation in this cooperation
and its operation, and the relevant decision-making procedures,
are set out in Article III-209.
Article 209 referred to reads:
1. The closer cooperation on mutual defence provided
for in [Article I-40(7)] shall be open to all Member States
of the Union. A list of participating Member States shall
be set out in a Declaration annexed to the Constitution. If
a Member State wishes to take part in such cooperation at
a later stage, and thus subscribe to the obligations it imposes,
it shall inform the European Council of its intention and
subscribe to the Declaration annexed to the Constitution.
When the Constitution was being drafted this was expressed
referring to such closer cooperation enabling those
wishing to do so to repeat the commitment already
entered into under Article V of the Brussels Treaty in the
Union framework.
Article V is the clause referring to the collective defence
of the WEU, in which security guarantees also become automatically
redeemable on the part of the USA. For that reason the USA
will probably demand that all these countries join NATO.
Article III 209.4 refers to NATO-compatibility:
4. These provisions shall not affect the rights and
obligations resulting, for those concerned, from the North
Atlantic Treaty.
The non-aligned nations path to NATO
Whether or not it signs the declaration referred to in Article
III-209 is entirely a matter for Finland, or any other militarily
non-aligned nation, to decide.
If that country signs, it will become a militarily aligned
state.
If it does not sign, it will remain non-aligned.
This applies to the EUs six non-aligned and neutral
countries (Sweden, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta).
The alternative whereby non-aligned countries could align
themselves just with the EU on the basis of the common defence
option does not exist. The EUs common defence, which
also means attack, is not NATO-independent it is NATO-compatible.
|