European Union's Proposed Constitution

▪ 2006

      The ratification process for the Constitution of Europe stalled in 2005. The constitution was established through a European Union treaty signed in Rome in 2004 and was intended to make a community originally designed for six founding members in the 1950s more workable with a membership of 25 disparate countries. Governments that were faced with selling the document to a heavily skeptical electorate, such as that in the U.K., claimed that the treaty did not amount to a large extension of the EU's powers and was little more than a “tidying-up exercise.” Meanwhile, many pro-integration political leaders in France and Germany billed it as a significant move toward the full “political union” to which they had always aspired. The document, which would supersede all previous community treaties (except the so-called Euratom Treaty, which established the European Atomic Energy Community), contained several significant—and highly controversial—changes to the structure and functioning of the 25-member European Union.

● The constitution changed the way that EU members voted on European issues so that majority voting—where no one country could block a decision—would become the norm. A qualified majority would consist of “at least 55% of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65% of the population of the Union.” The national veto would disappear in 39 policy areas, including sensitive matters such as justice and home affairs.

● In an effort to achieve better management of EU business and improve continuity in policy making, the document called for the creation of the post of EU president, who would be voted in by the heads of governments for a period of up to five years. The president replaced the system of rotating presidencies, under which member states took turns chairing EU meetings and coordinating business for six-month terms.

● An EU foreign minister would be chosen by national governments for up to five years. The foreign minister would have his or her own supporting diplomatic service, the European External Action Service, and would represent the EU's interests in foreign affairs—for example, in official dealings with the UN.

● A formal Charter of Fundamental Rights was incorporated into the constitution and given legal force. It stated: “Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.”

● The constitution confirmed that EU law had “primacy” over national law and gave the EU the power to sign international treaties on behalf of its member countries.

● It created the post of European public prosecutor and devised common policies on foreign affairs and defense matters, though national vetoes would remain in these areas.

      To come into force the new constitutional treaty had to be ratified by all 25 member states either through referenda or by votes in the national parliaments. Its rejection in France and The Netherlands therefore meant that it had to be abandoned for the foreseeable future, though proponents insisted that the constitution was not dead. Until agreement on a new set of rules was reached—and no alternative had been announced as of year's end—the EU would have to work under the existing treaty rules. Many of the failed constitution's advocates argued that this situation would mean ineffectual decision making and would leave the EU less effective than it should be in international affairs.

Toby Helm

* * *