Time to convert a historic try

Valéry Giscard d’Estaing is right: the outcome has far surpassed our expectations of eighteen months ago. Let us not underestimate the challenge that has had to be met in achieving consensus among the representatives of all political parties in all of the countries involved in the process of European integration: twenty-eight nations, each attached to its identity, its language and its long-standing or newly acquired independence, with a total population exceeding 500 million. The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia brought together the representatives of 13 small states which spoke the same language, had never been separately independent and had just been transformed into a single nation of three million inhabitants following a common war of independence; the success of that Convention remains unparalleled, but the task facing the Europeans has been incomparably tougher.

Nevertheless, the final compromise was not based on the lowest common denominator but on the triumph of the founding fathers’ ideal, on the introduction of the community model across the board. The foundations have been laid for a different Europe.

The European Union is no longer a mere economic area with the corresponding political instruments but a genuine political union with a wider mission, endowed with effective and democratic institutions. The introduction of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the use of the word ‘constitution’ epitomise this transformation.

The internal powers of the Union have been clearly defined, supplemented and stabilised, and their exercise is now subject to scrutiny by the national parliaments. They are assigned powers. The most significant extension relates to the area of freedom and justice, covering asylum and immigration policies and the fight against large-scale international crime. Conversely, the state not only continues to provide identity in terms of language, education, culture, etc., but is also the main framework through which wealth is redistributed and solidarity politically pursued through personal taxation, social security and the provision of health services. This division of powers – and this needs to be stressed – was unanimously supported by the proponents of federalism and the defenders of national sovereignty and by both Left and Right. It is no longer contested, either by the British or the Danes or by the German Länder, which proved to be very jealous defenders of their own areas of competence.

The decision-making system to be used in the conduct of common policies is clearly derived from the federal model.

All European laws will henceforth be submitted for approval to a Parliament representing the people and to the Council, representing the Member States. For the first time, the President of the Commission, head of the executive branch of the Union will possess his or her own democratic legitimacy; elected by a simple majority of the European Parliament on the day after the European elections on the basis of a proposal from the European Council, this ‘Mr Europe’ or ‘Ms Europe’ will choose the team of Commissioners on the basis of proposals made by the national governments and will then ask Parliament to invest them. The Commission will thus become the political executive of the Union in the full sense of the term.

At the same time, national policies will be more effectively coordinated within the Union.

Since the Member States will retain extensive powers, particularly in the whole domain of budgetary and fiscal policy, common objectives will not be achieved solely through the due exercise of the powers of the Union, as in a federal model. We shall also need to coordinate national policies; this key dimension of the European system is alien to traditional federal systems. This coordination will be enhanced by reform of the Council of Ministers and by the creation of the office of a permanent President of the European Council, which will provide for continuity in the work of the Council, currently hampered by the half-yearly rotation of the presidency.

An important consequence for the public at large is that Europe, hitherto perceived as a faceless bureaucracy, will have a face: the faces of its own leaders who will no longer be national leaders. The President of the Commission, the President of the Council and a European Foreign Minister will be vested with authority similar to that of national leaders.

In rugby parlance, we could say that a historic try has been scored. If Europe is to win the day, however, that try needs to be converted by the governments and public opinion in the Member States.

The Convention proposes, the Council disposes. National governments must be wise enough to understand that, in a Union of 25 to 30 members, once agreement has been reached on the areas of responsibility to be assigned to the European level, the aim is no longer to find a means of preserving the right of each government to apply the brakes – the famous right of veto – but rather to enable the Union to take decisions for the good of the whole community. The draft needs further improvement in this respect.

In addition, the conflict over Iraq has paralysed the work of the Convention on foreign policy. It has also shown, however, that the main obstacle in this crucial domain today is not inadequately drafted provisions but the absence of a common political will. It is up to France and Germany to launch a vigorous joint initiative with a view to initiating a process that will culminate in a European foreign policy, just as the initiative taken by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and Helmut Schmidt on the creation of a European monetary system laid the foundations for the introduction of a common currency twenty years later.

Lastly, it is time that the people took the future of Europe into their own hands. The draft constitution gives them a real prospect of doing so. They will be able to determine the identity of ‘Mr or Ms Europe’, and they will enjoy a collective right of petition, which is unknown in France, in order to propose new European initiatives or possibly to press for the abolition of existing instruments. All those who are campaigning for a democratic Europe should pass on the initiative taken by 96 members of the Convention – almost half of its members, and including the entire French contingent – to persuade the governments of the EU Member States to put the constitution to a referendum on the same day in every country. In this way, the treaty would become a true constitution, and the Europe of the Member States would also become the People’s Europe.

The European cathedral has finally been roofed, but its construction has not yet been completed. Work continues on this building site.

Alain Lamassoure, 16 June 2003