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

The Debate on the EU Constitution

A new legal framework for the expanded EU is to be enacted by spring 2009. The question of whether Europeans should end up with a constitution, a treaty, or a multi-speed Europe is currently the subject of vigorous debate.

The EU now has 27 members, but is it capable of acting? What kind of legal basis does the community require to function efficiently? During its presidency of the EU, the German government hopes to pave the way for a new EU constitution.

18 countries are for, five against the draft: will there be one constitution
for all?
Photo: EU

In June 2005, following the referendum rejections of the EU draft constitution by the French and the Dutch, EU heads of government called for a pause for reflection. For leftist opponents to the constitution, the draft was too neo-liberal and unsocial, while the right feared for national identity and wanted to prevent powers being transferred from the nation state to the EU. Many voters in both countries also used the referendum as an opportunity to vote against policies of their respective governments.

The period following the double rejection of the constitution has been used by proponents, sceptics and opponents of the constitution alike to spur on the debate and, as the Financial Times of January 17, 2007 put it, has led to a "drawing up of battle lines in national capitals".

The proponents of the constitution

On the one side, 18 countries have already ratified the EU constitution. They want as much as possible of the original text to be preserved, and stressed this at a meeting of representatives from the 18 signatory states held on January 26, 2007 in Madrid.

They argue that the EU needs the institutional changes stipulated in the text to remain competitive in a globalised world. They fear that the compromise achieved so painstakingly could break down if one change after another is made.

The strategy of the European Commission

The proponents of the constitution are backed by the European Commission, which hopes an improved communication strategy will help make the "European Union" project more palatable to EU citizens. Just two months after the constitution was knocked off course by the No votes, EU Commissioner for Communications Margot Wallström presented a "plan of action" for professionalizing the EU's communication policy. This was followed by "Plan D" for more democracy, dialogue and debate in autumn 2005, and on 1 February 2006 the European Commission adopted a White Paper on a European communication policy.

Critics of the draft constitution

However, so far the new communication policy has failed to change the official stance of the two countries that rejected the current draft (France, the Netherlands) and the three that openly criticise it (Poland, the Czech Republic and Great Britain).

In a commentary for the Financial Times published on January 25, 2007 Giuliano Amato, former Italian prime minister and vice-president of the Convention on the Future of Europe, notes that France and the Netherlands can't approve the existing text because it's already been rejected by their citizens. He points out that "in France and the Netherlands preservation of the existing text would be a provocation to voters who have already said "no". It is clear that the text for the new beginning cannot be the same one. Everyone is aware of this..."

A mini-treaty without a referendum?

What this new beginning will look like in France depends on the outcome of the presidential elections in April and May 2007. Nicolas Sarkozy, the Conservative candidate, wants the third part of the draft constitution which sums up the (for the voters too liberal) principles of previous EU treaties to be struck entirely.

Sarkozy's confidant Alain Lamassoure explained the position as follows in an interview with the German daily Die Welt published on February 9, 2007: "We want a normal treaty which preserves the entire first part of the current draft constitution without any changes." Lamassoure claims this would satisfy the 18 states that have already ratified the constitution because the institutional changes would remain intact "and it would show the Dutch, the French and the British that this is no longer a constitution, but a treaty. It would modify the Treaty of Nice and could be ratified by the national governments of all countries with the exception of Ireland." There would thus be no need for referendums and no need to fear the citizens' rejection, he adds.

Among others, former British EU commissioner Neil Kinnock and Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende support this proposal. On February 6, 2007, the President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso also called on member states to avoid holding referendums on the EU constitution.

However, in Ireland and Poland these proposals met with immediate resistance. On the very same day commentator Agaton Kozinski called Barroso a "pseudo visionary"on Wprost Online: "Barroso's words betray the following attitude: like the founders of the Union, we, too, will make our vision come true without listening to the people because they don't understand our concept." The socialist presidential candidate Ségolène Royal also opposes this path of least resistance. On January 17, 2007, she announced in Luxembourg that she wants to put a new EU treaty that includes a "social section" to referendum in France.

A multi-speed Europe

An alternative could be a two- or multi-speed Europe. One prominent advocate of this idea is Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. In his manifesto "The United States of Europe", published in 2005, he proposes the creation of a federation of states modelled on the United States of America. The states of the eurozone, he suggests, could start by enhancing cooperation in the areas of monetary and financial policy, and then gradually expand this cooperation to other areas of policy. The motivation behind the book was Verhofstadt's conviction that there will be no European constitution for a long time to come. In a speech delivered before the European Parliament at the end of May 2006, Verhofstadt proposed a double strategy: the ratification process should continue, but at the same time a core group of member states should be formed to push forward European integration.

In its edition of February 1, 2006, the British weekly The Economist identifies 57 varieties of a multi-speed Europe and distinguishes between two basic types. The first would consist of an elite group of states that cooperate closely with each other, while in the second "all countries sign up to a basic set of rules (in practice, the single market). Smaller groups then volunteer to co-operate in specific areas—policing, say, or foreign policy." In this way the EU would evolve into a club "in which membership would mean different things to different people."

Events over the next six to twelve months will decide whether there will be a constitution for all or whether we will indeed have a multi-speed Europe.

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

Michael Kaczmarek

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

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