European Constitution

European Constitution in the future

by Alfred Marleku

No doubt that European Union is one of the most successful creations in the history of political institutions. The most wonderful achievement was coordination of the policies of many European countries that has helped to exceed war and to make it undesirable for countries that were swore enemies throughout the centuries. There, permanently, have been dealings in improving standards, in all areas of life of millions of people. Integration and unifications of many policies, in economical also in political sphere, has deeply changed the way Europeans see their relationships to one another, to their governments, and to the outside world. To improve furthermore integration between Member States of EU, former France president Valery Giscard d’Estaing, proposed to Europe one common constitution. Ironically, it was exactly France the first state that rejected that constitution, followed later on by Netherlands also.1 Currently, Europe is passing through a period which is called ‘time for reflection’, a period of time when Europe ought to thing how to coordinate actions in order to proceed with constitution issue in prospect.

This essay is an attempt to deal with question of European constitution in future. Firstly, we will try to identify main issues that influenced more to make citizens/voters in France and Netherlands to reject the European constitution. Secondly, we will give our ideas/suggestion what should be changed in current constitution during this – indefinite – ‘period of reflection’, in order to create the possibility that European constitution in the future to be satisfactory for all Member States of European Union.


EU Constitution is simply too long document


The constitutional document created by former France president Valery Giscard d’Estaing, in many aspects, fails to reach the objectives for which it was planned to. More exactly, the constitution suffers from three wide categories of insufficiency. First, the draft constitution is to long,2 in sense it has to much text. Consequently, it fails to be clear enough with the aim of being understandable for people. Second, the document fails to cure the ‘democratic deficit’, by which the Union has so long been characterized.3 Third, and most important, the document affect too greatly on the sovereignty of the individual Member States; by proposing types of integration that would narrow piece countries of some of their most essential functions, the treaty constitution puts the Member States in the impossible position of choosing between Europe’s integration and their own independence.3 For these – among other – reasons, two important members of European Union, France and Netherlands, voted against the European Constitution on their referendums.

European Constitution has over 300 pages. This kind of constitution can simply consider too long. It is well known that constitution is document that will be considered as body of fundamental principles and rules.4 If constitution takes that much paper to discuss, so called, fundamental values and to make clear institutional construction, it is possible that the values are not too much fundamental and the institutional structure is not clear enough.

European constitution in the future should be much shorter and much more comprehensible that current form. It is logical that in this existing structure, with this length, the majority of the European public has not read it and does not know what is in it. The creator’s of future European Constitution, maybe, should take as example US constitution because, in contrast to European Constitution, the U.S. Constitution is much shorter and it is clear enough to understand.

European leaders should remember that constitution should be written in order to serve to the people. Current constitution does not serve European citizens; it serves much more European institutions. Moreover, is very important to emphasize the fact that an effective European constitutional document in the future should not only set out the core rights of citizens, and the basic structures of government, but ought to do so in a way that is clear, concise, definitive, and accessible fore European citizens.6


The European Constitution fails to cure the ‘democratic deficit’

European constitution failed to cure the ‘democratic deficit’ from which is suffering form long time. It failed in sense of developing the legitimacy for their doings and initiatives. For an instance, The EU founding treaties have not been directly ratified by its citizens; or the fact that the European citizens are unclear how the EU reaches its decisions.7 What is more important, EU lacks European wide institutions, such as media and political parties that will really animate public debate. Remember that, when USA ratified its constitution it was intensively and cleverly debated; moreover, the ratification struggle in New York produced the Federalist Papers.8

One of the primary goals of constitutional project was to bring the Union closer to the people. The idea was to create a really pan-European politics. This meant untangling the definitions and job descriptions of the EU’s many institutions and explaining in clear terms what the main roles of the Commission, Council of Ministers, European Parliament, and other institutions are to be.8 Unfortunately, current constitution makes the Union not as much transparent and less democratic, at the same time it fails to sketch out properly the powers of EU institutions in relation to both each other and the Member States.

One of the characteristic of constitutions is that it establishes and defines the fundamental relationships among relevant institutions. The proper constitution must ensure equilibrium/balance of power between institutions, in sense of stopping one institution dominating the others. This notion is at the heart of the ‘checks and balances’ concept which characterizes the American constitutional system.10

In this context, the European constitution largely fails to establish such equilibrium/balance between its institutions; such ‘checks and balances’ system is extremely needed for European institutions. European constitution in the future should define properly competences between Union institution, in sense of installing this system of checking and balancing between each other. All this should be done in a way that is understandable for European citizens, because throughout its entire existence European institutions have been little recognized by ordinary Europeans. For these reasons, European experts should create one constitution that will properly modulate lack of transparency in its institution and its dubious democratic credentials.11

Another factor that would contribute positively in conception of European constitution in the future is animation of public debate. It is extremely dangerous for Europeans leaders to take any decision without legitimacy of people. It is very important for the future of Europe to create one healthy public space/sphere, because only through open debate Europe can further its integration and cohesiveness. In this context, media and telecommunication technological system plays huge role; they will enable Europe to create new, common cultural and political system.12


State Sovereignty vs. European integration

Usually constitutions are written by single, independent states. In juridical history we rarely find a case when group of sovereign states try to establish constitution to govern relations among them. Yet 25 European countries, none of which has any intention of stopping to be sovereign and independent, are attempting to establish a common constitution. In substance, they are negotiating a framework under which they will voluntarily abandon some of their autonomy in order to achieve greater things collectively.13

Here lays the most significant mistake of the European constitution. In its current form, the document asks the Member States to give up too much, and in so doing threatens their very sovereignty. Far from confining itself to the types of co-operation – economic, environmental, and public health – on which the EU has focused over the years, the constitution endeavors to bring into its embrace a broad range of highly sensitive areas of public policy.14 In this manner, constitution challenges the conceptual foundation of the European Union: the integration of sovereign states, co-operating where it benefits them, acting individually where it does not. Therefore, in principle, the document of European Constitution proposes the ‘supranationalization’ of areas of policy that simply it is very hard to supranationalized.15

The clearest example of the document’s contravention on state sovereignty takes place in the area of foreign policy. In EU constitution is said that the Union takes responsibility for the foreign and defense policies of all 25 current and future Member States.16 The constitution would permit the EU to define the strategic interests of the Member States as a whole; it would create a foreign minister for Europe and charge that individual with managing the formation and implementation of Union foreign policy,17 as well as representing the Union diplomatically.18 Here is the moment when European constitution creators face a huge problem, maybe the biggest one. This kind of co–ordination and uniformity among current EU members is very hard to be achieved; simply because they have different interests, very often extremely opposite from each other.

To illustrate properly the diversity in foreign policy of European Member States we will take one recent example, which is very simple. The debate about the war in Iraq reflected a huge discordance among Member States in foreign policy approaches. For an instance, Germany, France, and Belgium opposed the war. They demanded the permission of the United Nations (according to international law these states where right). For the same issue, other countries, such United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy, were for the Americans to go to war in Iraq without United Nations (UN) authorization/approval. On other hand, the situation of differences in attitudes in foreign policies was more delicate with States in Central and Eastern Europe. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were largely supportive of the Americans. In one aspect, these countries represent similar foreign policy as Americans do.

These differences clearly show that, actually, it is, nearly impossible to co–ordinate, better to say, to fusion foreign policy of sovereign Member States of European Union – among others – for this relevant reason: it is, nearly, impossible for states that have permanent seats on the Security Council, the United Kingdom and France, to merge from two seats into one. Hereto, up till now that is unthinkable to happen; neither the British nor the French would ever sacrifice their permanent Security Council seat for further integration among states in Europe.

To take in consideration what have been said above, it is very hard to imagine, in near future, one document that will unify important national values of Member States of EU – foreign politics for an instance – in this level what proposes current constitutional document. It is necessary that European leaders to take some pragmatic steps that can help the EU to improve its performance in many areas. Fore an instance, the first step would be improvement Europe’s overall economic performance; second step, to get better its employment record; and third one, to ease its social malaise.19 These important steps, would, for sure, strengthen European unity and one-by-one creates an environment more favorable for new European initiative for one common constitution.


Conclusion

To conclude, no doubt that European integration has been a wonderful achievement, and, of course, it is rational choice for Europeans to thing how to sustain and at the same time to strengthen cohesiveness between each other furthermore. Europe certainly needs to open itself up to the people and to clarify what its institutions are meant to do. In fact, in order to make this possible, in a proper way, Europe it might even need a constitution; but, one thing is for sure not this kind of constitution. Current constitution has many fallacies, it easily can be consider as an unfortunate document. It is too long, too unclear, too uncertain, and too inaccessible. By error it gathers to much power in the centre, in Brussels. Most horrible of all, it proposes, to Member States, to do things upon which principle is created European Union that today exist – giving up from their State sovereignty. It is important to emphasize that upon this principle – state sovereignty – was based whole European integration, at least till now.

After the collapse of two Member States, France and Netherlands, to say ‘Yes’ to the constitution, Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain, suggested a period of time when Europeans would think how to proceed with constitutional issue in the future; he called this period ‘time for reflection’. State Representatives of the European Union should now require a rewrite/change the constitution, in light of their principles and their common interests toward Europe also. With out a doubt, the European Union is passing crucial moments in its history. It depends on how Europe’s leaders will formulate/construct the EU constitution now, which will influence European future in, at least, forty or fifty other years.

--------------------------------------
Notes;

1. To date, the Constitution has been ratified by 15 of the 25 member states, which include Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. On the other hand, it can’t come into force unless it is ratified by all 25. (Pavel Telička, “A future for an EU constitution?” http://www.cbw.cz/phprs/2006062604.html, last time visited: 17/07/2006).

2. Jonathan S. Kallmer, “The Draft European Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 284, Issue: 1656, Contemporary Review Company, 2004, p. 1+

3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

6. Jonathan S. Kallmer, “The Draft European Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 284, Issue: 1656, Contemporary Review Company, 2004, p. 1+

7. Rod Hague and Martin Harrop, Comparative Government and Politics, Palgrave, Great Britain, 2001, p. 51-53

8. Carl J. Fridrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy: Theory and Practice in Europe and America, Ginn, Boston, 1950, pp. 189-200


9. Andrew Borowiec, “EU Expansion Sows Doubts about the Future: Rift between Rich and Poor Nations Widens”, World and I, Volume: 19, Issue: 10, News World Communications, 2004

10. Carl J. Fridrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy: Theory and Practice in Europe and America, Ginn, Boston, 1950, pp. 185-186

11. David Pryce-Jones, “European Union-a Disaster in the Making”, Commentary, Volume: 103, Issue: 6, American Jewish Committee, 1997, p. 32+

12. Obrad Savic, “Media and Normative Concept of Europe”, from READER, Media and Normative Concept of Europe: On the Road to European Membership, Prishtina, Kosova, 2006

13. Pascal Fontaine, Europe in 12 lessons, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Belgium, 2004, pp. 21-23

14. Jonathan S. Kallmer, “The Draft European Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 284, Issue: 1656, Contemporary Review Company, 2004, p. 1+

15. Jonathan S. Kallmer, “The Draft European Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 284, Issue: 1656, Contemporary Review Company, 2004, p. 1+

16. Peter C. Hylarides, “Europe and the New Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 285, Issue: 1666, Contemporary Review Company, November 2004, p. 269+

17. In addition, the draft constitution would provide one common defense policy, integrating and harmonizing the military capabilities of the Member States and providing for concerted action in the case of conflict. Also, the draft constitution would create a Union armaments agency tasked with harmonizing operational requirements, strengthening the defense sector’s industrial and technological base, and coordinating procurement practices.

18. Peter C. Hylarides, “Europe and the New Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 285, Issue: 1666, Contemporary Review Company, November 2004, p. 269+

19. Laurent Cohen-Tanugi, “The End of Europe?” From: Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005

Bibliography

B o r o w i e c, A n d r e w. “EU Expansion Sows Doubts about the Future: Rift between Rich and Poor Nations Widens”, World and I, Volume: 19, Issue: 10, News World Communications, 2004

C o h e n – T a n u g i, L a u r e n t. “The End of Europe?” From: Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005

F o n t a I n e, P a s c a l. Europe in 12 lessons, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Belgium, 2004

F r i d r i c h, C a r l J. Constitutional Government and Democracy: Theory and Practice in Europe and America, Ginn, Boston, 1950

H a g u e, R o d & M a r t i n H a r r o p. Comparative Government and Politics, Palgrave, Great Britain, 2001

H y l a r I d e s, P e t e r C. “Europe and the New Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 285, Issue: 1666, Contemporary Review Company, November 2004

K a l l m e r, J o n a t h a n S. “The Draft European Constitution”, Contemporary Review, Volume: 284, Issue: 1656, Contemporary Review Company, 2004

P r y c e – J o n e s, D a v i d. “European Union-a Disaster in the Making”, Commentary, Volume: 103, Issue: 6, American Jewish Committee, 1997

S a v i c, O b r a d. “Media and Normative Concept of Europe”, from READER, Media and Normative Concept of Europe: On the Road to European Membership, Prishtina, Kosova, 2006

T e l I č k a, P a v e l. “A future for an EU constitution?” http://www.cbw.cz/phprs/2006062604.html, last time visited: 17/07/2006