Drafting a global player

By Mark Leonard - 17 Oct 07

Unless something goes badly wrong, European Union leaders will agree a new treaty at this week's summit in Lisbon. Unlike the doomed Constitution of 2005, which aimed to supersede all earlier agreements with a grandiose state-building exercise, this will be just another amending treaty shorn of the trappings of statehood.

And yet, the euroskeptic media in Britain have whipped up an emotional debate by spreading myths: that Britain would lose its seat at the United Nations; that an EU foreign minister would take over British foreign policy; that British embassies would be replaced by EU embassies; in short, that this treaty would create a superstate. In reality, the new text will be a fairly modest affair -- far from the unrealistic aspirations of the Constitution's author, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, or the irrational fears of British europhobes. But the new treaty will make the EU work better, endowing it with greater efficiency, democracy and power in the world.

The treaty tries to streamline the EU's ramshackle institutions -- designed originally only for the six founding member states -- in order to support a political grouping of now 27 countries. The new "double-majority voting" formula gives EU decisions greater legitimacy as they'd have to be passed by a majority of states that also represent a majority of citizens. The treaty will give the EU more continuity by replacing the "rotating presidency" with a president chosen by national governments for two and a half years. It reduces the size of the European Commission to 15 from the current 27 so that it can work more effectively as the EU enlarges. And it extends qualified majority voting to new areas like energy policy and humanitarian aid. These are all rather minor changes.

The new treaty also tries to calm the fears of those who see European integration as a one-way street from which there is no escape. For the first time, there is a provision that enables member states to withdraw from the EU. More importantly, the treaty also gives national parliaments a greater say in EU policies. If one-third of national parliaments object to a Commission proposal, it will be sent back to Brussels for review (the "yellow card"). If a majority of national parliaments oppose a Commission proposal -- and national governments or members of the European Parliament agree -- then it can be struck down (the "orange card"). The treaty also extends the powers of MEPs to areas national governments used to keep to themselves, such as the Common Agricultural Policy. For all those who want to see CAP reform, this will be good news as they'll have many MEPs on their side.

The most compelling reason for supporting the reform treaty is the fact that it could help the EU become a more effective power in the world. The EU has the resources to be a real global player: It is the largest single market in the world, it is involved in over half of the world's trade, and it has over 50,000 peacekeepers deployed from Bosnia to Beirut and an even larger army of diplomats and aid workers. But despite all of this latent power, the EU punches way below its weight. When its member states disagree, as over Iraq, the EU cannot hope to be credible. But even when the governments do agree to pursue a common foreign policy, the EU's fragmented institutional machinery often prevents it from delivering in an effective and timely manner. The big problem is that EU institutions and member states often fail to coordinate their various policies and instruments -- including trade, aid, defense, policing and diplomacy -- in the pursuit of common objectives.

If you travel to countries in the European neighborhood such as Ukraine, Georgia or Egypt, you cannot help but be depressed about how the EU squanders its power. In Cairo, human-rights activists are so struck by the lack of urgency of European democracy promotion that they have called it "project 3000." The new treaty could start to turn things around by beefing up the role of the "High Representative for External Affairs" who would also become a vice president of the European Commission. This person would chair meetings of European foreign ministers and be supported by an "External Action Service," largely made up of existing Commission personnel in overseas offices with some diplomats seconded from member states. As a result, foreign governments, such as the one in Cairo, would no longer be able to play different EU institutions off against each other. They will have to negotiate with one single contact point who will have much more leeway to scrutinize their human- and political-rights records and, if necessary, adjust the terms of their access to the European market and the EU's 1 billion euro aid budget.

In many countries, though, less attention is being paid to the substance of the treaty than to what percentage of the text is similar to the Constitution. This numerical analysis is largely meaningless. The phrase "I want to kill your father," for example, contains over 85% of the words of its opposite, "I don't want to kill your father." In any case, Britain, which is most obsessed with these linguistic games, has negotiated so many "red lines," or derogations and opt-outs, that it will be signing a different text than everyone else.

Even treaty skeptics should celebrate the fact that Europe's leaders are finally closing a deal. The EU has spent more than two years in the throes of a political breakdown. The crisis was not brought about by the loss of the Constitution as such, but rather the loss of confidence that came with it. This became an excuse for inaction and navel gazing. The most dramatic signal of the EU's loss of nerve is the foot-dragging over one of its biggest policy successes: enlargement. The current debate focuses exclusively on the costs, ignoring the economic benefits, such as that the thriving export markets in Eastern Europe have helped boost the economies in the old member states. And there is very little discussion about the damage our wavering commitment to enlargement is doing to the reform momentum in Turkey and the Balkans.

In the past, widening and deepening have always gone hand-in-hand. The new treaty will put a stop to the interminable institutional debate that has been distracting EU leaders for more than two decades now. Once the treaty is wrapped up, they can return to what should be their core vocation: spreading stability and prosperity around the European continent.

This opinion piece was published by the Wall Street Journal today.

Comments for this entry are closed.

The lack of acceptance of the then European Constitution in Holland, was caused by the way it was presented to the Dutch voter.
The voter was regarded as being intellectually inadequate to understand the merits of this treaty. So the politicians instead
opted for scare tactics. Which obviously didn’t work.
There’s clearly no objection to the notion of Europe, however such a complex matter needs better explanation and a grander view of
things.

AvS

Arie van Schutterhoef | The Netherlands | 19 Oct 07, 19 Oct 07 EST

It is a mistery why new ideas about strengthening EU institutions are proliferating so slowly. Lack of political sponsors? Other reasons?

It would be interesting to know estimates of when things can actually move forward with the new EU trans-national framework.

Andy,
www.activist.org.ua/eng/

Andriy Ignatov | USA | 21 Oct 07, 21 Oct 07 EST | www

REFERENDUM NEEDED ON NOT ONLY THE SPECIOUS EU ‘REFORM TREATY’, BUT ALSO ON THE EU’S CONTROVERSIAL EXISTING & POTENTIAL NEW/AMENDED STRUCTURES, IE:

The revealingly-named ‘European’ Council on Foreign Relations ought to take a long hard look back at the troubled history of Western, Central and Eastern Europe + the usual motivations of its leaders/politicians when they’ve instigated or dragged the Continent/its countries into conflicts, and then ask:

- ‘is there evidence that these motivations are non-existent now in politicians/bureaucrats, in the 21st century?’; and also ask

- ‘are these motivations likely to have effects on future ‘foreign policy initiatives/actions’ of the EU; an EU Super State- an EU that is under the Reform Treaty?’

“POWER” and “EGO’S” only “POWER” and “EGO’S” are the real motivations behind those pushing for ‘an ever closer union’; ‘an EU foreign policy’; and the like.

Member nations of the EU and their politicians/bureaucrats would do well to recognize that the EU had evolved sufficiently by the 1980’s- let alone today in 2007- to meet its main reason for existence: preventing repeats of conflicts on the Continent, between its nations.

Refining the EU’s internal functions, whether in the areas of economic, social or legal issues, is always going to be a reasonable objective of its member nations.

But attempting to create an ‘EU straddling the World Stage as an ‘nation-state’ or quasi-nation-state legal entity will irrevocably lead to an EU which is functioning more for its own “ego”- IE for its own endeavors on the World Stage- than existing with a main priority the welfare of its member nations’ citizens, their well being, access to opportunity, etc.

Whether or not there ought to be a referendum in the UK (or any other EU member nation) on the Constitution-In-Disguise EU Reform Treaty, is not as important as UK politicians/stakeholders & their counterparts across the Continent, planning ahead- cohesively- for strategies to proceed with when a member nation holding a treaty referendum votes to reject it…

Also, the future of the EU & the roles & powers of its member nations is far more complex & profoundly more important than can be determined with just a simplistic 1-question referendum, like: ?do you accept or reject the EU ?Reform Treaty???.

The main purpose of a multi-question referendum, would be so that individual member nations’ citizens were polled, albeit in a non-binding-on-the-EU manner, regarding their views about controversial aspects of the EU & its existing as well as potential future structures & their powers/limitations, national vetoes, powers & limitations of member nations, etc.

The ?do you accept or reject the ?Reform Treaty?? referendum question, ideally, could even be put to voters several months after a multi question referendum polling voters about their views regarding the future EU, its structures, their powers & limitations, member nations powers/limitations, etc.

Citizenry in ALL EU member nations would be well served by being asking specifically- by their respective nation?s govt/interest groups/political parties- for opinions about the future powers of existing and potential new EU structures- such as the EU?s Parliament & its Commission, Council of Ministers, Court of Justice, etc.

In any EU member nation which conducts a referendum, the process ought to include the enabling of beforehand dissemination of succinct, easy to understand ?alternative future EU structures?, by the respective nation?s govt, political-parties & interest-groups.

This could be:

- an EU without its own Parliament- or at least WITHOUT AN ELECTED ONE- which could easily be accomplished by reverting the present EU Parliament back to its 1960’s-type structure in which MP?s were appointed by EU member nations.

- & an EU in which member nations’ are guaranteed- in a codified treaty- their integrity & basic nation-state decision making apparatus, & not to be penalized for opting out of things such as the Euro, foreign policy positions, using vetoes, etc.

The concept of an EU of politically AMALGAMATED PEOPLES was never part of the agreed-to propositions that led to its formation, eventually as the European Economic COMMUNITY (EEC), in the 1950’s.

The main objectives behind the EU?s formation were so that this “association of economically & socially aligned, INDEPENDENT nations” would, by its structure, be an obstacle against repeats of the worst facets of the Continent’s history: damaging internal competition; ego-driven militarism & costly, destructive wars.

It was also to enable a concurrent, joint approach to development of member nations’ economies, their underpinning legal principles & social/health programmes.

A passively ‘outward-facing by-example’ group of economically & socially ‘aligned’ NATIONS is all that was conceived & proposed initially; worked towards over the following decades- & all that is required for these laudable, & needed, functional objectives.

This was the EU/EEC of the early 1980?s.

The primary “political base-unit” of the EU for its first 30 years was the EU ?member nation?.

Individual country?s belonging to the EU (& its precursor, the European Economic Community were- alone- the only enfranchised ?bodies? that were allowed to vote on EU legislation-like issues (laws, directives, standards, etc).

While this structure existed, it functioned however indirectly- to prohibit the establishment of an EU Super State.

The formation of an ?EU Parliament? in the early 1960’s- with its MP’s APPOINTED BY EEC MEMBER NATIONS- did not displace this sensible situation. While EU member nations remained the sole primary ?political base-units? of the EU, this arrangement functioned however indirectly- to prohibit the formation of an EU Super State.

But, in the early 1980?s when the EU Parliament structure was altered to allow for direct elections of its MP?s by member nations? citizens, it created a situation of parallel ?primary political base-unit? structures within the EU:

(1) member nations &;

(2) member nations? individual voters.

This putting the EU Parliament in a fundamental conflict of interest (competing roles) with EU member nations? governments & unavoidably opening the door to, & irrevocably encouraging the EU?s subsequent 25-year slide towards a Super State…

By its existence, an elected-by-EU-member-nation-citizenry EU Parliament is fundamentally & irreversibly in a dangerous conflict of interest (competing roles) with the other primary political unit of the EU: its member nations? governments.

More to the point, the present EU Parliament (having authorities over & effects on member nations exercised by its MP?s ?votes? who are separated-from-their-respective-member-nations?-government?s control or direction) will (through votes) make decisions on issues that- by their nature- put the EU Parliament into an oppositional relationship with EU member nations? governments? positions on issues…

The unavoidable result has for nearly 3 decades been & will continue to be the EU Parliament- & its extensions such as EU civil servants & the like- continually (bluntly, or surreptitiously or illicitly) attempting to shift the balance of power within the EU?s structures so that the EU Parliament can ?win? against member nations (or their extensions, like cabinet ministers/civil servants, etc) when ever there are differences over issues between the EU Parliament (or EU bureaucrats & the like) & member nations? governments…

WHY NOT GET RID OF THE POSITION OF EU PRESIDENT ALTOGETHER??

& in its place have the EU Commission’s EU-member-nation-appointed President- in an ex-officio capacity- carry out the EU President?s duties (chair Council of Ministers meetings, etc), along with continuing his/her already existing ones?

The new ?combined 2-presidents position? could be called a ?Secretary? or similar, in order to move away from terms associated with or with the pretensions of ?elected-by-populace? positions.

If the current 6-month long President of the EU (President of the Council of Ministers) position is increased to a 2.5 year long tenure->>> it can only be a matter of time before it’s further lengthened to 4 or 5 years, & then suggestions will be promulgated to have the position elected by an EU-wide election process… with the predictable false-logic, specious diatribes to substantiate this coming from bureaucrats/politicians emphasizing the EU ?needing to be closer to its peoples?, & ?the EU needs to be more democratic?;

...... After a few years, once this unjustifiable, dangerous, & hugely dis-empowering-to-member-nations? EU structural change has been assimilated by EU nations? peoples- ‘migrating’ the now ?elected EU President? position from the Council of Ministers to the EU Parliament (while scrapping or neutering the Council of Ministers), will be easy for the usual gang of surreptitious bureaucrats/politicians to again falsely justify- again in the name of the EU ?needing to be closer to its peoples? & ?the EU needs to be more democratic?.

Once the Council of Ministers- the only remaining venue where EU member nations have retained any legitimate ability to participate- with vetoes- in policy/law decision making- has been reduced to an irrelevance? compared to a super empowered EU Parliament? the EU would be a Super-state…

.... would leaving be an option of ?member nations???

EU ‘HIGH-LEVEL REPRESENTATIVE’ (FOREIGN MINISTER POSITION): A TIME-DELAYED SURRENDER OF MEMBER NATIONS’ INTEGRITY!!
This position is not needed for the EU or its member nations to govern themselves; work-together; or to implement existing or new laws, standards or policies-> as related to member nations’ or internal EU issues.

EU member nations losing their ability to opt out of EU foreign policy positions/actions- as the creation of an EU Foreign Minister type position would- eventually- mandate, will serve to destroy the check & balance system that member nations can & do play against each other, under the present EU model.

Aligning member nations’ foreign policies ought to be possible.

But forced-aligning/participation of member nations? is not required by an EU that is not a Super State, or has zero pretensions to become one.

Sufficient structures exist world-wide (Nato, UN, etc) to enable the effective aligning of EU member nations? foreign & related types of policies- without forcing all member nations to adopt & provide their resources for the same positions, always.

MEMBERSHIP OF NATO OUGHT TO BE COMPULSORY FOR EU MEMBERSHIP:

The ‘new’ ?European Union Military Staff? (EUMS) structure ought to be:

- answerable to Nato;

- under the command-of Nato;

- unable to make decisions without them being, legally, Nato’s;

- & unable to carry out actions without them being, legally, Nato actions.

EU MONETARY POLICIES:

Mandatory adoption of a single currency, & with it: monetary policy- by all EU member nations is counter to basic business principles-> due to the unavoidable variability’s & differences between the conditions within & state of member nations’ economies.

An EU without pretensions of becoming a fully amalgamated super-state would have no use & no need for un-opt-out-able policies/laws ‘forcing’ all of its member nations- or new ones- to adopt a single currency, monetary policy, etc.

Shifting the power balance in the EU Parliament?s favour is unequivocally represented, in time-bomb-like fashion- by the much debated for suitability-for-a-referendum, mis-named EU Reform Treaty.

GET RID OF (OR DOWN-SIZE/RESTRUCTURE) THE EU PARLIAMENT:

If member nations don?t like the EU heading in the Super State direction, there are constructive alternatives to leaving.

Moving to get rid of the very structure that most threatens to facilitate the creation of an EU Super State and to dis-empower member nations- the ?elected? EU Parliament- is one of them…

Another is reverting the EU Parliament?s structure to its 1960’s- 1980’s model so that EU MP?s weren?t elected, & were instead APPOINTED BY THEIR MEMBER NATIONS? GOVERNMENTS.

If this occurred, ALL EU member nations? ought to be allocated EQUAL NUMBERS of EU MP?s- perhaps (8) or (9) or at the most (10)... How can a ?Parliament? of nearly 1000 (over 700) MP?s- like the present EU one- conduct legitimate, coherent discourse & dialogue regarding anything- let alone issues affecting MP?s respective nations? govt/citizenry?

EU member nations approving the (‘super-state facilitation’) EU Reform Treaty, will, without directly articulating it to their respective citizenry, begin a process with objectives of the EU functionally ceasing to be a European “community” of “equal nations” & becoming an amalgamated unitary state…

Concerned politicians & other stakeholders that object to this transpiring, ought to work together to provide the electorate in their own + all EU member nations with easy-to-understand proposed alternative EU structures that retain the principles of ‘community’ & member nations ‘national-integrity’->>> & that remove the obvious conflicts of interest represented by the existence of an elected EU parliament functioning alongside member nations’ national parliaments…

The world as a whole needs an EU of ‘independent’, but willingly-aligned-for-good-purposes nations-> but not an ego-motivated ‘Super-State’, in which many of the EU’s member nations are effectively rendered to fodder for the international ego-driven agenda’s of a minority, & forced to participate in & contribute to purposes/projects that their peoples may be adverse to.

While it is crucial-to-democracy that ALL EU member nations conduct referendums on the enormously far-reaching mis-named Reform Treaty, such referendums should also be asking member nations’ citizens more than a simple “do you accept or reject the Reform Treaty?”.

Reform Treaty referendums should be asking additional questions re voters? views on specific- existing or potential new- central EU structures, in the context of “what is the preferred future EU Model?”....

________________
Roderick V. Louis,
(near) Vancouver, BC, Canada,
01 604-977-5059,
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Roderick V. Louis | (near) Vancouver, BC, Canada, | 22 Oct 07, 22 Oct 07 EST

Congratulations to establishing a clear European voice in the world. beeing involved myself in global matters, especially Mideast, I appreciate this priject very much! Blogged here about it:

http://voyager.zaadz.com/blog/2007/10/a_clear_european_voice_is_missing_in_the_world

Very best, still from Belin,

Albert Klamt

Albert Klamt | Berlin | 22 Oct 07, 22 Oct 07 EST | www

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.