Tomorrow’s Europe
Those taking part in the work of the European Convention knew it and said so at the time: the success of the constitutional process called for no less than three political miracles.
The first was the emergence of a consensus among the members of the Convention themselves: how could 207 people, representing over two dozen countries and scores of national political parties, succeed where the fifteen Heads of Government failed at the Nice summit? Thanks to the method adopted, the spirit in which the work was conducted and the dexterity of Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the first miracle occurred on 13 June 2003.
The second was the agreement subsequently given by the Governments to a text which took power over Europe away from them and conferred it on genuine Community authorities directly elected by the citizens of Europe – which Michel Barnier described jokingly as: ‘like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas’. It took sixteen more months, but on 29 October 2004 – a postponement of the feast meant that their respective successors would bear the consequences (the provisions on voting rights would apply in 2009, and on the new composition of the Commission in 2014) – the national leaders approved the draft Constitution.
The third miracle needed was confirmation by the citizens themselves of the approval given by their leaders. Here too, for many Convention members, it was clear from the outset that a text as revolutionary as this, instituting a new political power, by definition a ‘constitutional’ text, would have to be ratified by the people, at least in all those countries with a tradition of the referendum. This meant taking on a considerable risk: giving a ‘yes’ outcome an average probability of 60% in each of the ten countries which opted for a referendum (a reasonably optimistic hypothesis at the start), a simple calculation showed that the probability of gaining a majority of ‘yes’ votes in all ten countries was less than 1%! In addition, we know from experience, in France and elsewhere, how easily a referendum can turn into a plebiscite.
Not only did the third miracle not materialise, but the tidal surge of the French ‘no’, amplified three days later in the Netherlands, runs the risk of compromising the two previous miracles.
For the authors of the constitutional document, the setback is a bitter one. But it is in no way shameful or irremediable. It was the first meeting of Europe with its peoples. It did not work out. At least it was peaceful and democratic. How many of our nation-states were born in easy and peaceful circumstances? The French Republic needed thirteen Constitutions and experienced nearly two centuries of civil and foreign wars before achieving stability. The peaceful Switzerland of today only became the Helvetic Confederation after three centuries punctuated by bloody episodes.
Is it possible, when events are still unfolding, to analyse the significance of this failure, its consequences and the new situation in which Europe finds itself, and to hazard a first attempt to reconstruct a landscape in which the damage still has to be assessed?
The first lesson to be drawn from the experience is that the draft Constitutional Treaty signed in Rome on 29 October 2004 has had its day. Whether the ratifications go ahead or are suspended, it is not this text which will replace the Treaty of Nice: it will at least need to be supplemented and/or pruned and/or amended in some way.
The second lesson is less obvious, but just as important. The high turnout of voters, the passion of the debates and the psychological shock wave which ran through Europe when the results were announced have had an important and exceedingly fortunate outcome: the citizens have burst in on the European debate, and are now there to stay. Sweeping away, at a stroke, the profusion of ‘plans B’ that imaginative diplomats and lawyers are already nurturing: ‘Why not get the governments to agree on a minimum text, away from the gaze of the untutored rabble?’ they murmur in the corridors of power. Well, actually, no: that page has been turned. For good.
Third conclusion. Urgent action is needed to sew up the dangerous tear that 29 May wreaked in Europe’s tapestry. For, contrary to the reassuring words of the ‘pro-European’ advocates of the ‘no’ vote and in fulfilment of the hopes of the avowed anti-Europeans, not only has the referendum setback served to break Europe’s momentum, to put the gears of the Union into neutral and to give all those, especially in London, Washington and Moscow, who were uneasy at the prospect of a political Europe an occasion for jubilation, there is now a real danger that, bit by bit, Penelope’s web will be completely undone.
Indeed, since the outdated procedures of the Treaty of Nice continue to apply, ‘Brussels’ will remain for the people that shadow theatre which is all about competition and in which they have no part, while governments in difficulty will be tempted more than ever to make it their preferred scapegoat. Even before the new French Government took office, one of its leading Ministers publicly recommended setting aside the stability pact, while one of his Italian colleagues dreamed out loud of abandoning the rigours of the euro in favour of a return to the delights of the crumbling lira. At the same time, negotiations on the future budgetary framework of the Union are turning into a simple confrontation of national self-interest to the detriment of common policies and European solidarity. In this context, British ministers are not hiding the fact that they plan to take advantage of the Presidency of the Union, which falls to them from 1 July, in order to redirect European policy so that it is more in line with their traditional vision.
The European Council of 16 June will thus bear a heavy responsibility. Under the Presidency of the excellent Jean-Claude Juncker, who has had the courage to stake his job as Prime Minister on the outcome of the Luxembourg referendum on the Constitution, it will need to mount a counter-attack on three fronts.
1 – To head off nationalist temptations. An agreement on the future financing of the Union would clearly be the best signal. A strong declaration on the introduction of the new flexible stability pact (which the European Parliament will have approved by then) and on the future of the euro zone would also be welcome.
2 – To launch common policies, compatible with the Treaty of Nice, in important fields which are of concern to citizens. Trans-European transport networks will help to sustain growth and can be financed by public-private partnerships. Immigration policy is a major field in which there is clear common interest and on which decisions are now possible by qualified majority. In the same way, energy security for the next thirty years is a crucial economic issue which our countries would be mad to continue handling separately. Finally, measures to put in place diplomatic and military resources already committed, including the European Defence Agency, must be actively pursued. The important thing is to show everyone that Europe is working, and that it is tackling the major issues for which it is now indispensable.
3 – To recover control of the institutional process, before the tidal surge of the French and Dutch referendums becomes an anti-European tsunami.
The first decision to be taken together clearly concerns the continued process of ratification. Half the Member States have not yet given their verdict on the draft Constitution. And if we want to rebuild, we all need to know what everyone else is thinking. But first of all, it is for the leaders of the countries in question to say whether they want to continue the process or whether they think it preferable to suspend it.
After that, it would be possible to devise a restart procedure which is both pragmatic and democratic. A group of ‘wise men’ would be invited to conduct an inventory of the situation in Europe and an analysis of political positions in the Member States as a whole. On this basis, the European Council would convene an Inter-Parliamentary Conference bringing together delegations from all the national parliaments and from the European Parliament: it is that entity – not the governments in office alone – which would draw up the instructions for a new Convention to prepare a new draft Treaty on Europe.
In order to ensure that the process does not end in a new impasse, it should incorporate two major new elements. On the one hand, ratification of the Treaty would be put to a referendum held on the same day in all the countries. On the other hand, in this referendum, each country would have a choice between the new order and the status quo: countries which reject a political Europe would no longer be able to prevent those not content with just an economic and monetary area from going further.
Six months of work for the group of ‘wise men’, six months for the Inter-Parliamentary Conference, eighteen months for the Convention, six months for the finalisation of the texts and for the simultaneous referendum campaigns: it is still possible to have a new European Union ready for action by the next European elections in June 2009.
Alain Lamassoure, 6 June 2005.