This House believes Europe still needs a constitution

A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon[1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy.[2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy.[3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform.  

[1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7453560.stm

[2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, http://csis.org/blog/us-media-snubs-new-eu-leaders

[3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf

While comprehensive EU reform is in theory clearly desirable, in practice the EU has proven not to be ready for such a radical step. Historically, the EU has evolved by taking a series of little steps, as opposed to taking big jumps with big risks- “Europe has always moved forward one step at a time and it should continue to do so” - German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.[1] The EU is now facing a number of different crises – from the economic crisis that engulfed the Eurozone, to the social crisis that has spread throughout most of the EU members in the form of increasing opposition to migrants and a worrisome rise in nationalist and extremist parties and policies. The recent massacre in Norway (although outside the EU) is an example of this increasing extremism. Such violence “points to a dangerous undercurrent of hostility against the left’s platform, which is committed to open borders and multiculturalism.”[2] Any move to have constitutional reform will simply add to these pressures.

[1] Kovacheva, Ralitsa, ‘Is the EU ready for a new Treaty?’ euinside, 7 September 2011 http://www.euinside.eu/en/analyses/is-the-eu-ready-for-a-new-treaty

[2] RT, ‘Rise of right-wing extremism rattles Europe’, 25 July 2011, http://rt.com/politics/norway-extremism-russia-multiculturalism/

The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated. The existing treaties regulate multiple levels from the constitutional to detailed market regulations. As a result of this individuals cannot easily read and understand the treaties as a US citizen for example.[1] It is difficult to keep track of each new Treaty that amends the pre-existing treaties. The adoption of a shorter, clearer document will make the EU much more ‘user friendly.’ The EU currently suffers from the fact that many of its citizens do not know what it is or what it does; EU citizens either do not know where to look for this information or are deterred and intimidated by the size of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Having an easily digestible constitution will mean that the EU’s citizens can easily find out what the EU is and what it does.

[1] Gjørtler, Peter, ‘ Lisbon Treaty - the Reform Treaty of the European Union’, grayston & company, November 2009 http://www.graystoncompany.com/gco/articles/G&C_article_Lisbon_Treaty_PG.pdf

It is true that the founding treaties are long and, in some places, rather difficult documents. It is also true that many EU citizens know little about the EU. It is too simplistic to say that the treaties are the reason for this as the majority of the population are not interested in reading the original documents and will be happy for bureaucrats or the media to highlight relevant parts. So a concise constitution is not the solution to these problems. Whilst the treaties themselves might be intimidating, many pamphlets, books and websites exist that do a fine job in summarising and explaining these documents – one such site is Europa.eu .[1] The EU also provides many European briefing units across Europe to educate citizens about the EU. The job of providing a simplified and accessible explanation of the EU is already done well without a constitution. If there is still widespread ignorance about the EU then this is unlikely to be solved by the introduction of yet another legal document which will also

[1] Europa.eu, ‘Basic information on the European Union’ http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/index_en.htm

Since the Maastricht Treaty, the citizens of EU member states have possessed parallel citizenship of the EU. However, European citizens do not identify themselves with the EU in the way that citizens of the USA self-identify as American. An important part of the patriotism of Americans is ‘constitutional patriotism;’ pride in their constitution and civic institutions. The European Union aims to bring about ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. It should foster a shared sense of ‘European identity’ by adopting a constitution, in which every citizen of the EU can take pride.

There is no consensus for a United States of Europe. Most citizens identify themselves more with their nation-states rather than with the EU.[1] Only 28% of Belgians and 5% of Britons consider themselves equally their national identity and European.[2] It is also by no means clear that eroding national identities is a desirable phenomenon. The EU is an organisation in which twenty five nation-states cooperate with each other. Where necessary, these states pool their sovereignty in order to tackle common problems. The EU is thus an instrument used by nation-states to pursue their own interests in a world that makes it increasingly difficult for states to do this in isolation. The EU is a useful instrument of nation-states rather than a challenger to these states for the patriotism and loyalty of their citizens.

[1] Manuel, Paul Christopher, and Royo, Sebastián, ‘Re-conceptualizing economic relations and political citizenship in the new Iberia of the new Europe’ Suffolk University, 4 May 2001, http://webcas.cas.suffolk.edu/royo/eu_spain_portugal.pdf

[2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010, http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Poll_reveals_European_mindset_among_Swiss.html?cid=22188596

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long treated the founding treaties as the constitutional documents of the European Union. Many commentators have noted the efforts of the ECJ to “constitutionalise” many principles – such as the direct effect and supremacy of Community law over the domestic laws of member states and the increasing protection of human rights – The ECJ is often overstepping its bounds when it comes to applying and interpreting the treaties.[1] The ECJ has often been accused of “judicial activism” in over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of courts in a democracy. By enshrining much of this creative jurisprudence in a democratically ratified constitution, the EU can assert and emphasise its status as a democratic entity, rather than an elite-driven process separate from the citizens of Europe.

[1] Roberts, Linda, ‘The CARICOM Single Market and Economy and the Caribbean Court of Justice’, Southampton Working Papers in European Law, 2007/1, http://www.eulaw.soton.ac.uk/elpub/SWPEL3_Roberts.pdf

Having a European Constitution would make very little difference to the role of the ECJ. It could still have an activist agenda in terms of interpreting the new constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the shortest in the world yet the United States Supreme Court has felt free to either stick very closely to the text or very liberally interpret it depending on the composition of the court. Accusing judges of “judicial activism” is often just cover for someone saying that they don’t like the decision.[1] The adoption of a binding constitution will therefore not increase democracy in the European Union. It will tie the hands of democratically elected governments in the member states and force them to an even greater extent to be subordinate to the judges in the ECJ.

[1] Wallace, Chris, ‘Ted Olson on Debate Over Judicial Activism and Same-Sex Marriage’, Fox News Sunday, 8 August 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage

A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon[1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy.[2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy.[3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform.  

[1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7453560.stm

[2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, http://csis.org/blog/us-media-snubs-new-eu-leaders

[3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf

While comprehensive EU reform is in theory clearly desirable, in practice the EU has proven not to be ready for such a radical step. Historically, the EU has evolved by taking a series of little steps, as opposed to taking big jumps with big risks- “Europe has always moved forward one step at a time and it should continue to do so” - German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble.[1] The EU is now facing a number of different crises – from the economic crisis that engulfed the Eurozone, to the social crisis that has spread throughout most of the EU members in the form of increasing opposition to migrants and a worrisome rise in nationalist and extremist parties and policies. The recent massacre in Norway (although outside the EU) is an example of this increasing extremism. Such violence “points to a dangerous undercurrent of hostility against the left’s platform, which is committed to open borders and multiculturalism.”[2] Any move to have constitutional reform will simply add to these pressures.

[1] Kovacheva, Ralitsa, ‘Is the EU ready for a new Treaty?’ euinside, 7 September 2011 http://www.euinside.eu/en/analyses/is-the-eu-ready-for-a-new-treaty

[2] RT, ‘Rise of right-wing extremism rattles Europe’, 25 July 2011, http://rt.com/politics/norway-extremism-russia-multiculturalism/

The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated. The existing treaties regulate multiple levels from the constitutional to detailed market regulations. As a result of this individuals cannot easily read and understand the treaties as a US citizen for example.[1] It is difficult to keep track of each new Treaty that amends the pre-existing treaties. The adoption of a shorter, clearer document will make the EU much more ‘user friendly.’ The EU currently suffers from the fact that many of its citizens do not know what it is or what it does; EU citizens either do not know where to look for this information or are deterred and intimidated by the size of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Having an easily digestible constitution will mean that the EU’s citizens can easily find out what the EU is and what it does.

[1] Gjørtler, Peter, ‘ Lisbon Treaty - the Reform Treaty of the European Union’, grayston & company, November 2009 http://www.graystoncompany.com/gco/articles/G&C_article_Lisbon_Treaty_PG.pdf

It is true that the founding treaties are long and, in some places, rather difficult documents. It is also true that many EU citizens know little about the EU. It is too simplistic to say that the treaties are the reason for this as the majority of the population are not interested in reading the original documents and will be happy for bureaucrats or the media to highlight relevant parts. So a concise constitution is not the solution to these problems. Whilst the treaties themselves might be intimidating, many pamphlets, books and websites exist that do a fine job in summarising and explaining these documents – one such site is Europa.eu .[1] The EU also provides many European briefing units across Europe to educate citizens about the EU. The job of providing a simplified and accessible explanation of the EU is already done well without a constitution. If there is still widespread ignorance about the EU then this is unlikely to be solved by the introduction of yet another legal document which will also

[1] Europa.eu, ‘Basic information on the European Union’ http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic-information/index_en.htm

Since the Maastricht Treaty, the citizens of EU member states have possessed parallel citizenship of the EU. However, European citizens do not identify themselves with the EU in the way that citizens of the USA self-identify as American. An important part of the patriotism of Americans is ‘constitutional patriotism;’ pride in their constitution and civic institutions. The European Union aims to bring about ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. It should foster a shared sense of ‘European identity’ by adopting a constitution, in which every citizen of the EU can take pride.

There is no consensus for a United States of Europe. Most citizens identify themselves more with their nation-states rather than with the EU.[1] Only 28% of Belgians and 5% of Britons consider themselves equally their national identity and European.[2] It is also by no means clear that eroding national identities is a desirable phenomenon. The EU is an organisation in which twenty five nation-states cooperate with each other. Where necessary, these states pool their sovereignty in order to tackle common problems. The EU is thus an instrument used by nation-states to pursue their own interests in a world that makes it increasingly difficult for states to do this in isolation. The EU is a useful instrument of nation-states rather than a challenger to these states for the patriotism and loyalty of their citizens.

[1] Manuel, Paul Christopher, and Royo, Sebastián, ‘Re-conceptualizing economic relations and political citizenship in the new Iberia of the new Europe’ Suffolk University, 4 May 2001, http://webcas.cas.suffolk.edu/royo/eu_spain_portugal.pdf

[2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010, http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Poll_reveals_European_mindset_among_Swiss.html?cid=22188596

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long treated the founding treaties as the constitutional documents of the European Union. Many commentators have noted the efforts of the ECJ to “constitutionalise” many principles – such as the direct effect and supremacy of Community law over the domestic laws of member states and the increasing protection of human rights – The ECJ is often overstepping its bounds when it comes to applying and interpreting the treaties.[1] The ECJ has often been accused of “judicial activism” in over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of courts in a democracy. By enshrining much of this creative jurisprudence in a democratically ratified constitution, the EU can assert and emphasise its status as a democratic entity, rather than an elite-driven process separate from the citizens of Europe.

[1] Roberts, Linda, ‘The CARICOM Single Market and Economy and the Caribbean Court of Justice’, Southampton Working Papers in European Law, 2007/1, http://www.eulaw.soton.ac.uk/elpub/SWPEL3_Roberts.pdf

Having a European Constitution would make very little difference to the role of the ECJ. It could still have an activist agenda in terms of interpreting the new constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the shortest in the world yet the United States Supreme Court has felt free to either stick very closely to the text or very liberally interpret it depending on the composition of the court. Accusing judges of “judicial activism” is often just cover for someone saying that they don’t like the decision.[1] The adoption of a binding constitution will therefore not increase democracy in the European Union. It will tie the hands of democratically elected governments in the member states and force them to an even greater extent to be subordinate to the judges in the ECJ.

[1] Wallace, Chris, ‘Ted Olson on Debate Over Judicial Activism and Same-Sex Marriage’, Fox News Sunday, 8 August 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debate-over-judicial-activism-and-same-sex-marriage

We already have such constitutional documents – the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty and most importantly the Lisbon treaty from very recently (2009). The powers of, and relationships between the different institutional actors are clearly defined in the existing treaties. Just because the EU has expanded to incorporate new member states does not mean it needs a constitution. The Treaty of Nice was meant to have made the necessary amendments to facilitate enlargement. If it has failed, then we can simply amend the existing treaties again.

Constitutional ‘documents’ is exactly the problem. The EU is a very large (as of January 2007, 27 member states) international organisation with a considerable number of competencies and several important institutions. It is important to have one, clear document that precisely defines the different powers of, and relationships between the 27 member states, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Courts of Justice. But also the relationships between states that may have opted out of some parts of the EU; between those who are in Schengen and those who opted out, between those in the Eurozone and those outside. Complicated federal polities such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland have constitutions which define the limits of central power and the areas in which the states have autonomy; the EU should in this respect be no different.

The European Union should be wary of adopting a European Constitution as many states may not be able to abide by its terms. The reason why Greece is in so much financial trouble is its unwillingness to abide by the European Growth and Stability Pact, however others, Germany and France had already broken the pact.[1] Such a failure to abide by the rules with a constitution, something which is meant to be at the heart of the state, would greatly damage European credibility and would practically rule out the possibility of more comprehensive change in the future.
Accession countries have shown little interest in the Constitutional Treaty overall, given a series of other more immediate concerns. Therefore a constitution is unneeded in order for the EU to develop, enlarge or prosper. It can only lose if it created a constitution which turned out a disaster.

[1] Aznar, José María, ‘Europe must reset the clock on stability and growth’, FT.com, 16 May 2010, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e07c4f0-6115-11df-9bf0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1a1I5v8kb

A failure of not having a ratified EU constitution will actually represent a more significant blow to the EU’s image abroad and at home. Talk about the decline of the EU is not helping the European economy, or the way in which the EU is perceived. The failure to reform could potentially lead to an actual collapse of the EU as we know it, which would have disastrous effects for the region as well as the world.
The failure of the Constitutional Treaty would also result in powerful disillusionment in the countries that have recently entered the EU or are applying to enter. This could significantly slow down further enlargements and put their domestic reform agendas at risk.

A European constitution is a first step on a slippery slope towards a United States of Europe. Such a European superstate is widely opposed by citizens of all EU members, not least because it would be undemocratic, unaccountable and remote. Many EU citizens already believe this is the case. In Britain polls regularly show that far from wanting deeper integration the country is in favour of leaving the EU.[1]  As has already been shown members do not consider themselves ‘European’ nearly as much as they do their own national identity. [2]

[1] The Democracy Movement Surrey, ‘The EU - Superstate or Free Trade Partner? We Can Leave.’ 2007 http://www.democracymovementsurrey.co.uk/canweleave.html

[2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010, http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Poll_reveals_European_mindset_among_Swiss.html?cid=22188596

Any constitution need not be a step towards a European superstate or even a federal European state. It may simply be rationalising current treaties and making the EU more accessible with little in the way of real changes to the location of power. None the less such a change would not be all bad as Paavo Lipponen, Prime Minister of Finland argues “The EU ought to develop into a great power in order that it may function as a fully fledged actor in the world.”[1] The EU as a great power would be more effective in solving conflict and promoting development in other parts of the world, particularly in Africa, parts of Asia and even Latin America as well as providing economic benefits for its own members.

[1] Free Europe, ‘Building the EU SuperState: what leading EU politicians say about it’, 26 September 2005, http://www.free-europe.org/english/2005/09/building-the-eu-superstate-what-leading-eu-politicians-say-about-it/