[Comment] There is too much hyperbole over the EU consitutional treaty
RICHARD CORBETT
06.06.2007 @ 17:36 CET
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - I am getting increasingly fed up with those who qualify the Constitutional Treaty as a "radical new departure" or a "revolutionary change" to the nature of the EU. It is not. It is a pragmatic set of adjustments in response to problems with the existing system.
The EU has enlarged from 15 to 27 members, making the decision-making in the Council more cumbersome. The pragmatic response is to enlarge the area in which decisions are taken by a majority vote.
This the treaty does, except in areas of vital national interest such as tax, foreign policy and national security.
The automatic "buggin's turn" rotation of the presidency for a short six month period is widely criticised. The pragmatic response is to allow the heads of government to choose a person to chair their meetings for a longer period. This the Constitutional Treaty does, setting that period for two and a half years.
Enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of EU legislative decisions is widely held to be a good thing. The pragmatic response is to ensure that more European legislation falls under the co-decision procedure (at present there are a large number of anomalous exceptions) and that national parliaments, too, have a chance at prior scrutiny of all Commission proposals. This, the Constitutional Treaty does.
Third countries and European public opinion alike are confused as to who represents the Union externally - the Commissioner for External Relations or the Council's High Representative for Foreign Policy. The pragmatic answer is to merge these two posts. This, the Constitutional Treaty does.
There is a legal problem in that the European institutions are not legally obliged to respect the standard of fundamental rights as applies in all the Member States. The pragmatic answer is to codify these existing rights and make it a legal obligation that the European Union respects them. This the Constitutional Treaty does.
The enlargement of the EU, taking in predominantly smaller member states, has made the old system of weighted votes by country in the Council somewhat unrepresentative. The pragmatic solution is to give each country a voting weight that corresponds to its population, whilst at the same time protecting smaller states by also requiring a majority (55%) of states to approve any measure. This, the Constitutional Treaty does.
The basic "rulebook" of the European Union is spread over several different treaties, each new one amending a previous one. It would be useful to codify them into a single text. This, the Constitutional Treaty does.
Public opinion is frequently perplexed by EU jargon, making it difficult to understand what the EU actually does. It would better to have fewer legal instruments and to call them by names that people can understand (eg directives should be called "framework laws," as this is what they are). This is what the Constitutional Treaty does.
With more and more Member States, the size of the Commission and the European Parliament have, under the current formula, both been growing and both risk becoming too big, unwieldy and costly. The pragmatic response would be to cut the size of the Commission and cap the size of the European Parliament. This the Constitutional Treaty does.
The above constitute the main innovations of the Constitutional Treaty. They are not a radical departure to the structure of the European Union which will retain the same field of competences, the same institutions, and the same legal status, being based on a treaty duly signed and ratified under international law.
The hyperbole - by both opponents and supporters of the Constitutional Treaty - should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The author is a Labour MEP
