Speculative evaluation of the work of the Convention
MEP Esko Seppänen 5.6.2002
Against the backdrop of discussions on the future of the
EU, an EU constitution is being prepared.
The preparations are formally taking place in the Convention,
in which the governments and parliaments of Member States
and candidate countries, the European Parliament and the Commission
are represented.
The Convention is, however, non-representative, as the vast
majority of its members want the EU to become a federal state.
EU critics, sceptics and realists have established a “Forum
for Democracy” that transcends national and party boundaries.
The forum is preparing an initiative to keep the EU as a federation
of independent states and not to create a federal state as
such. Of the 105 members of the Convention only 6, and a slightly
larger number of alternate members, are participating in this
work.
There is no other opposition.
The Nice Treaty favours the big countries
Although outwardly it may look as though the Convention is
preparing a draft constitution and that its members are free
to mould it as they please, this is actually an illusion.
There are good grounds for believing that the large Member
States are concurrently carrying out their own preparations.
The Nice Treaty, at least, was prepared by the large Member
States, and it guaranteed increased powers for them. Now the
intention is for this to be institutionalised as a constitution.
The right of veto based on population numbers, provided
for at Nice, is of particular importance, because it enables
the members of three large (or if Germany is included, then
two large and one small) Member States to prevent the formulation
of any qualified majority decision whatsoever.
Given that EU decisions are rarely prepared where they are
claimed to have been prepared, it is hard to believe that
a constitutional convention could be free to propose a more
democratic distribution of power in the EU. It is inconceivable
that the large countries will give up what they gained at
Nice.
The draft constitution will be compatible with the Nice
Treaty.
Community method and intergovernmental method
The constitution under preparation concerns the EU’s jurisdiction
and its tasks.
On the one hand there is the jurisdiction of the central
power and, on the other, the jurisdiction of the Member States.
When the Member States and their democratic decision-making
bodies no longer have all the power within the Community,
a decision will have to be made on whether the distribution
of power within the Union will be developed according to the
Community method or the intergovernmental method.
The Community method means that decisions on the
future of the EU are made within the EU institutions. This
is the federal state method.
The intergovernmental method means that decisions
are ultimately made within member countries.
This, too, can be considered a federal method inasmuch as
the large countries can use their size to pressurise the small
countries, as happened at Nice.
Clearly, the EU will not develop into a federal state in
the short term through one method or the other, but through
both methods. When just one country can prevent legal amendments
to treaties, it is impossible to fully predict the outcome
of any process. It is, however, certain that a small country
will not be able to stop the large countries from doing as
they please. This was illustrated by the case of Ireland where
the other countries dismissed the “wrong” result of the Irish
national referendum.
Development towards a federal state is also taking place
via the formation of groups of states which are taking the
Union in a particular direction even though not all the countries
are involved. Proof of this is the introduction of the federal
state currency. Not all countries have the euro, and neither
are all countries part of the common monetary policy of Euroland.
There is constructive abstention whereby decisions
are made in the EU but those in disagreement do not exercise
their right of veto.
There is enhanced cooperation whereby a particular
country group creates its own insider group; i.e. a kind of
avant-garde group with its own decision-making bodies. EMU
is an example of this, and this approach to cooperation has
also infiltrated defence questions.
The Convention has its own insider group
The Convention represents the power of large countries and
their ability to dictate. Its working method is from the top
down.
Who is at the top?
Formally speaking, the Presidium is at the top, and it has
not representatives from all member countries. It holds closed
meetings which can have a major influence on policy.
On May 10, 2002, El País, the most authoritative daily Spanish
newspaper, wrote that the Presidium had, that particular week,
discussed reducing the power of the Commission and placing
Justice and Home Affairs under the authority of the Council.
The Council is composed of ministers from Member States.
The European Parliament's representatives on the Presidium
deny that such discussions took place, but the newspaper asserts
that its sources are reliable.
Subordinate to the Presidium is the Secretariat, which has
not representatives from all countries, and which is said
to be the place where the drafts of the constitution are written.
It is unclear where the actual draft constitution will ultimately
come from. It is possible that the large countries have committees
of officials who will prepare a draft among themselves and
then introduce it, in the name of their representatives, into
the Convention.
It is also possible that the draft constitution will be
prepared within pro-Europe conservative and social democratic
parties and presented to the Convention in the name of the
representatives of those parties. This would mean that the
final result of the Convention would be a compromise between
these stances, and there would be no ambiguity about the direction
of the draft constitution; i.e., the conservatives have openly
stated their aim of a federal state with its own constitution,
whereas the European social democrats are – less openly –
the most federal party group in the EU, with tight European
party discipline.
The members of the Convention look like decision makers,
but it would be far too great a risk for the large countries
to put power into the hands of such an unpredictable group.
Because of this, the constitution may well be drafted within
various interconnected insider groups, out of the public eye.
Governments, too, are preparing their own constraints for
the Convention. This is being done in a working group headed
by Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy spokesperson, who
was nominated by the governments. The item was already included
on the agenda of the Seville summit.
Speculative conjecture
The Nice Treaty ensured that large countries could keep their
power. They will not surrender it.
The members of the Convention know this.
Given that the final result of the Convention will be sent
to the intergovernmental conference, where each Member State
will have the right to veto the draft constitution, it goes
without saying that the members of the Convention are not
going to prepare something that will be immediately rejected.
Giscard’s speaks for the heavyweights
It is worth paying special attention to what Valéry Giscard
d´Estaing, the president of the Convention, has to say.
He is the spokesperson of the large countries.
From his speeches one can draw conclusions regarding what
is planned for the Convention. He represents an unspecified
body, but with his 1,000 euro per diems, he certainly doesn’t
only represent his own interests.
In Giscard’s words, the Convention shall not vote on
the final result.
In other words, whatever is prepared will be something that
will be approved by the vast majority of those on the Convention,
the unanimity of the Member States and the federalist minded
representatives of the all-European parties. If the draft
constitution turns out not to be like this it would represent
a Big Failure and a momentous defeat for the EU federalists.
Finnish Prime Minister on the losing side
It looks as though the solutions in preparation will reduce
the power of the Commission.
The proponents of the Community method are in favour of a
strong Commission, which, the Finnish Prime Minister Paavo
Lipponen says, is allegedly “in the interests of the small
Member State”. In the EU, Lipponen is one of the few who defend
the retention of power by the Commission. In this respect
he represents an important cooperation partner for the Commission,
because it is sufficient for the Commission for one country
to oppose the removal of power from the Commission and its
becoming a mere bureaucracy.
When Giscard says that, in the future, the Commission will
not vote, this might mean that there is some kind of political
institution in the pipeline, which will vote – according to
the qualified majority procedure which favours the large countries
– and which will relegate the Commission to being a subordinate
executive institution made up of civil servants. In that case,
the fact that after enlargement even small countries will
have their own Commissioner will be meaningless in terms of
power politics.
What will replace the Commission?
One can deduce from the speeches given by representatives
of some large countries that the EU’s new executive and high
political decision-making institution will be the standing
meeting of the European ministers, which would operate from
the seat of European power in Brussels.
In the same spirit it has been suggested that a legislative
system based on a two-chamber parliament be established. This
approach to legislating is unfamiliar to many, though it is
used in a number of federal states; i.e., there is a lower
chamber elected by the people and a higher chamber for regional
representatives (which, in the EU, would be made up of representatives
from national parliaments).
The Commission, which has two representatives in the Presidium
of the Convention, will no doubt have to start fighting to
retain its power. Its allies of those who are in power seem
to be Benefinlux (i.e. the Benelux countries and Lipponen’s
Finland) - and then of course the less powerful majority of
the members of the convention.
The fact that Belgium wants to turn the Commission into
the EU’s parliamentary government does not accurately represent
the power relations within the EU, because it would represent
too great a risk to the power of larger countries.
More common foreign and security policy in the pipeline
It may be that the entire Presidium, which also contains
representatives from the Commission and from small countries,
will not ultimately write the draft constitution.
Instead, it may be written by a group whose most visible
representative is Giscard d’Estaing.
Giscard, as the chairman of the Convention, is pushing for
the Convention to produce a proposal on common foreign and
security policy, so that the EU “will speak with a single
voice to the outside world.”
From the point of view of an non-aligned small country this
would mean the disappearance of the last important mark of
independence and, potentially, forced membership of NATO.
The commander of the Finnish defence forces Juhani Kaskeala
says: “At this rate it looks to be that a common EU defence
can only be a reality if all Member States become members
of NATO.” There is a pressure to join the Nato club against
the will of the peoples of the non-aligned countries.
If the Convention is able to reach any conclusions, one
of the most likely is that foreign policy will be communauterised.
The process is, however, complicated. Not a single one of
the large countries that want to speak on behalf of the EU
as a whole seems ready to relinquish control of its own foreign
policy. Instead, these large countries want to coordinate
EU foreign policy amongst themselves, without the smaller
countries.
The draft constitution of the Convention is unlikely to
be able to specify clear lists of tasks for the central power,
or to categorise the tasks that will remain under the jurisdiction
of Member States. The EU will still be governed by diversity
for a long time to come, and this Convention is unlikely to
convert it into the United States of Europe just yet.
The Commission´s Christmas list
On May 22, the Commission presented its views on the kind
of final result that it hoped from the Convention. It was
the Commission’s Christmas list.
The Commission represents the spirit of the Community in
the EU and, with that, the Community’s federal line. It wants
to turn the EU into a world power, which – according to Tony
Blair – would be a superpower but not a superstate. Being
a world power comes with “responsibilities” that it needs
to be able to fulfil, above all in the area of foreign and
security policy. And for that, the Commission wants more resources
in the form of money and foreign representation.
The Commission wants the EU to speak with one voice
in global political matters. This is also the stance of the
large Member States. The Commission considers that this “one
voice” should be the Commission’s voice. The Member States,
on the other hand, have, in the Council, appointed their own
spokesperson (Javier Solana) as the high representative for
foreign policy. He represents the governments, and the Commission
wants to combine his post with the office of commissioner
for foreign affairs. The Commission knows that the Council
will not agree to that, but will rather work to strengthen
the structures of the Council.
The demand that the right of veto be removed in foreign,
security and defence policy issues may be supported by the
Council, as it knows that it uses that very power itself.
The Community method
According to the Commission, the Community method involves
1) the exclusive right to initiate legislation, 2) codecision
procedure for all legislation, 3) qualified majority decisions
in all matters and 4) monitoring and interpretation powers
for the European Court of Justice. The Member States’ right
of veto in legislation and important decisions is in complete
contradiction with the Community method, and people want it
removed from all decision making.
The Commission wants its own position strengthened. If it
obtained extra powers they would come from the Council and
from national parliaments.
Community decision-making would be represented by the aim
outlined at the Tampere Summit for a “European” area of freedom,
security and justice. The Commission wants common laws (that
would be set by the Community method: by qualified majority
without the Member States’ right of veto). When the Commission
talks about “a more direct and open link between European
citizens and the Community budget” it wants to fund its activity
by means of Euro taxes that increase its independence; up
until now the EU has not had the right to tax, rather it is
dependant on remittances from the Member States.
The alternative to the Commission’s Community power is the
intergovernmental method.
It is becoming clear from the Convention that this method,
too, is being used to turn the EU into a federal state. The
aim is, after enlargement, to make a global and political
super state controlled by the large Member States, and not
to compromise when using powers: the Convention could turn
into the kind of proposal that guarantees the large countries
the additional powers that they bestowed upon themselves at
Nice.
National Referendum?
It is possible that a national referendum will be the desired
way to decide on the EU constitution during the final stages.
The possibilities are as follows: 1) EU-wide national referendum
and 2) national referendum in each Member State.
Federalists want a single vote because this would favour
the countries with large populations. Eurosceptics, however,
want a national referendum separately in each country as this
enables small countries to mobilise the people to defend their
interests by opposing a draft constitution approved by the
elite.
The goal has nevertheless been set
Federalists have set the goal for the kind of federalisation
in the EU that, in all its forms, enshrines the power of the
large countries.
This prospect also involves the militarisation of the EU.
In the short term this will take place in cooperation with
NATO. If the EU were to become a European super state at some
later stage, the Americans would then have to be driven out
of Europe. Europe and America nonetheless share a common concern
of ensuring the sufficiency and availability of the world's
raw materials. This is the military fate that binds them together.
|