Home / Press review / Archive / Magazine / Politics / The Reform Treaty / Debate

The Road to the EU Reform Treaty

The EU Reform Treaty was signed in Lisbon in mid-December. It needs to be ratified by all twenty-seven member states before it can enter force. But who will decide whether the treaty is adopted or not? The national parliaments or the people?

When the EU Reform Treaty is signed at the end of 2007 the EU will find itself in the same position as it was in 2004 with the draft constitution. While the treaty is signed, its ratification by the individual states is once again uncertain.

Yes or no? Some countries let their citizens dicid about the EU Treaty.
Photo: iStockphoto

The EU Constitution was intended to give the EU a clear legal status, to inspire popular enthusiasm for Europe and to prepare the institutions of the then fifteen member states for the impending accession of twelve new members. EU expansion went ahead, the reforms did not. The constitution failed to be adopted because of the "no" votes of the French and Dutch referendums.

A debate ensued about the future of the EU, its institutions and the idea of the constitution. Eventually the view prevailed that symbolic aspects of the constitution could be dispensed with but the reforms could not.

The Controversial Compromise

The result is the current treaty, which was supposed to retain as many reform ideas as possible from the draft constitution. However anything that smacked of a constitution for a European super-state was removed. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who led the original convention on the constitution, explained in the 30 October 2007 issue of the British newspaper The Independent, how in his view the legal experts at the European Council went about their work: "They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties."

The result is a compromise based on legal technicalities, which continues to be regarded with mistrust by former constitution sceptics. They say the text is incomprehensible and impenetrable for ordinary European citizens. Jean-Pierre Denis, for example, complained on 11 October 2007 in the French newspaper La Vie of "complication and fussy, sometimes downright twisted legal quarrying".

Doing Away with Symbolism

Even those who once supported the constitution are disappointed by the Reform Treaty. "We are on the verge of seeing a complete dilution of the European Community. Jettisoning principles and values that were hard-fought for over months, those opposed to a treaty have simply thrown it overboard," Laurent Moyse commented in the Luxumbourg newspaper La Voix du Luxembourg on 20 June 2007, shortly before agreement was reached on the Reform Treaty.

The Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore lamented on 5 July 2007 that the treaty lacked something which all Europe's citizens could identify with. "The creation of European symbols such as the blue flag, Beethoven's Ode to Joy proposed as a European national anthem, and the motto of 'United in Diversity' has now been abandoned. This leads people to believe that the European Constitution needs neither a soul nor symbols to support European identity".

The British historian Timothy Garton Ash took a more pragmatic view in the Austrian newspaper Die Presse on 13 November, saying one just had to make the best of the compromise that had now been reached: "The treaty gives us the instruments and the institutions we need. We don't need any more than that. What is now missing is the political will."

The Role of Poland

Garton Ash was alluding to the problems of ratifying the EU Treaty, a process which must be completed within two years. The example of Poland demonstrates what an important role the political will plays in each of the member states.

In June 2007 it looked as if the EU would fail to reach agreement on the treaty because Poland was insisting on re-negotiating the weighting of votes in the European Council. Only at the last minute did the Polish politicians give in. But since the government of Jarosław Kaczyński was voted out of office in October 2007 the mood in the country has changed. The new prime minister, Donald Tusk, has announced that he will work constructively with the European Union while continuing to defend Polish interests. So now there is little to stop ratification of the EU Treaty by the Polish parliament.

There have even been calls in the Polish press for Poland to play a pioneering role. "Over the past 14 months Poland has acquired a reputation for acting as a brakesman and even blocking joint EU initiatives for the sake of national interests. If we became the first to ratify the new treaty we would act as the engine that puts the treaty on a new track," Jacek Pawlicki proposed on 23 October 2007 in Gazeta Wyborcza.

Parliamentary Vote or Referendum?

But the EU treaty will not be approved by parliament alone in the EU member states. In Ireland, for example, it must be put to referendum. And there have already been calls for referendums in Britain, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Denmark as well.

Whether these referendums take place or not is decisive for whether the EU Reform Treaty is ultimately ratified, Sara Hageman wrote in July 2007 in an analysis for the European Policy Centre. If there are referendums not only in Ireland but in other states as well "it will be increasingly difficult for those governments which find themselves in a 'grey area' to avoid having one." And the outcome of such referendums, as the experience with the EU Constitution showed, is by no means certain to be positive.

How Will the British and Dutch Decide?

The debate about holding a referendum is particularly fierce in Britain, which traditionally takes a sceptical attitude to Europe. However, Prime Minister Gordon Brown opposes a referendum.

The British Observer warned on 2 September 2007 of the dangers of a British referendum. "The EU has become a lightning rod for anxiety about powerlessness and the erosion of national sovereignty. British politicians have abetted that process, tacitly allowing or flagrantly encouraging vilification of Brussels". This is not a good basis for obtaining popular approval.

By contrast Gisela Stuart, a member of parliament for the governing Labour Party, called in the Daily Telegraph on 25 September 2007 for a referendum. "Of course, referendums can be manipulated but, in the wrong hands, so too can elections. In a mature democracy like Britain's, referendums are complementary to representative democracy rather than its antithesis."

And although in 2005 the EU Constitution was rejected by a referendum, Dutch advocates of a new referendum still argue that when important decisions are to be made citizens should have a direct vote. "Ratification from the electorate can provide the legitimacy that this new treaty is still lacking. If voters are ignored, mistrust of the world of politicians only grows," the newspaper De Volkskrant argued on 25 September.

The EU: the Will of the People or a Project of the Elite?

Even in countries where the decision about whether to ratify the EU Treaty will in all likelihood be made by parliament, the media are participating in the referendum debate.

The Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter called on the EU governments on 25 August 2007 not to yield to demands for referendums to be held, pointing out that after all the earlier scepticism of the people had been sufficiently taken into account: "The new treaty already has a democratic foundation: it is largely based on the EU Constitution approved by the majority of member states. Following the rejection of the French and the Dutch in 2005, the member states revised the text."

The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, on the other hand, who is campaigning for a referendum on Europe's future, doesn't believe the EU Treaty reflects the will of the people at all. "The political union has come into being over the heads of the populations as an elite project and to this day operates with the democratic deficits that arise from the largely intergovernmental and bureaucratic character of the legislation," Habermas said in a speech printed by the German weekly Die Zeit on 29 November 2007. He added: "The political constitution was supposed to make European citizens out of the holders of burgundy-coloured passports. Instead, the slimmed down reform treaty now reaffirms the elitist character of political events that are increasingly removed from the people."

Michael Kaczmarek

Michael Kaczmarek is a political scientist and journalist. He currently lives in Madrid.
» to author index

Susana Fernández López

Susana Fernández López is a political scientist and works as a consultant for European affairs with a consulting firm in Madrid.
» to author index

Further articles on the subject » EU Constitution, » Europe
More from the press review on the subject » EU Constitution, » Europe