| Home / International / International -- Opinion | Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Read |
| Nothing Comes Easy, Even True European Union |
| Adjust font size: |
By Liu Jiansheng The heads of European Union member states reached a framework consensus in principle over the draft new EU Constitution Treaty (EUCT) - drawn up to replace the existing one - at their latest summit on June 23 after a round of difficult negotiations. The member countries agreed to hold another round of inter-government talks about the details of the new treaty and will try to finalize it by the end of the year. When all member states have finished their approval processes, the new EUCT is expected to take effect in June 2009. This latest EU summit brought new hope for the regional community to leave its constitutional crisis behind for good. So far 18 EU member countries have approved the existing EUCT, which was signed in October 2004. In 2005, the European Union was thrown into a constitutional crisis after France and the Netherlands rejected the current EUCT through national referendums, dealing a serious blow to the process of European integration. Saving the EUCT became a mission of utmost urgency as the community's international status suffered heavily from the negative impact. The passage of the draft new EUCT brought hope to the resolution of EU's constitutional crisis. The main content of the draft new treaty includes: The name of the new constitution will be changed from EUCT to EU Reform Treaty and the entries concerning "supra-national institutions" such as the EU flag, anthem and motto will be struck out. The EU Council will have an executive chairman instead of the current rotating chairmanship; the positions of senior representative for foreign affairs and member of the Foreign Relations Committee will become one; there will be one EU foreign minister or "foreign affairs executive" - the title is yet to be decided, who will be in charge of EU foreign, defense and security affairs, including handling crises and foreign aid budget, plus chairing EU foreign ministers' conference. The EU Council will adopt a double "effective majority" voting system, which means a motion will be passed when it has won support from 55 percent of member states and whose combined population accounts for 65 percent of EU's total. The latest EU summit witnessed fierce conflicts among member countries over the simplification and reorientation of the EUCT that reflected the different interests of big and small members and different political expectations from the old and new Europe, especially struggles for leadership power. Differences were particularly acute over such major issues as the authority of the future EU foreign minister, the division of power for member state legislatures and the EU and the community's voting system. Poland was the first to challenge the establishment with arguments over the "balloting system". Germany opposed Poland's "square root" principle, which requires the allocation of votes according to the result in proportion to the square root of each member state's population. This proposal will give Germany nine votes as compared to six for Poland. German Chancellor Angela Merkel went so far as to threaten "a decision made without Poland", while Poland came back with a counter threat to use its veto power in inter-government talks and even made mention of the deep-rooted grudges between the two old enemies. The feud ended with a compromise among Germany, Poland and France, with Poland accepting the double "effective majority" voting system on the condition that the year of the new voting system taking effect must be pushed back till 2014 and it be given more seats in departments of the community. This compromise will result in 82 votes for Germany as compared to 38 for Poland. It has widened the gap between the numbers of votes the two countries have, effectively dashing the latter's hope for heavy-weight votes. More problems arose as the United Kingdom and the Netherlands took Germany to task. Britain insisted on its four conditions for the new EU constitution, namely (1) the EU Basic Rights Charter must not affect British laws as "provisions of superseding power"; (2) the new EU constitution must not be able to force Britain to change its foreign policy; (3) it must not be able to force Britain to change its judicial and police systems, and (4) the effective range of the "effective majority" system must not be extended. In addition to all that, Britain also maintains reservation over the limit of EU's foreign affairs authority and opposed the post of a "Foreign affairs executive". Meanwhile, France also made some waves by opposing the inclusion of "free competition" in the new EU constitution, insisting that EU's goal should be "economic prosperity and growth". It stood firm on giving the new EU constitution the control over corporate mergers, large-scale takeovers and behavior in violation of anti-trust legislation. These demands were questioned by liberal "market economies" such as Britain and the Netherlands, with the latter demanding a supervising role for member state legislatures over decisions made by the EU, while opposing the notion that the EU is above the state in all aspects. Eager to play its single-engine role in the EU, Germany was very active diplomatically during its six-month presidency of the regional community with proactive and effective steps to reactivate the process of ratifying the new EU constitution. It took the opportunity of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome to persuade member country leaders to sign the Berlin Communique, with all member states committed to completing their ratification processes before the EU parliament election in 2009. Germany also worked out a "road map" for saving the new EU constitution with a bold simplified version that enabled member countries to reach a consensus. France also peddled its own "simplified version" of the EUCT to other member states after newly-elected President Nicolas Sarkozy took office, as it enthusiastically cooperated with Germany to help end EU's constitutional crisis. Opposition to Germany's "road map" came mainly from Poland and Britain, reflecting the rivalry for "EU decision-making power" between Britain, France and Germany, while the emergence of Poland as a heavy player created an opportunity for an EU leadership power reshuffle. Warsaw's "square root" voting system mainly represents the interest of small and medium-sized EU members in Central and Eastern Europe. This situation signified the end of the German-French power play in EU. And the trading for leadership power by Germany, France and Britain for the power to check and balance the community's overall interest will become the dominant trend in decision making within EU. The European integration process has suffered a severe setback since the EU constitutional crisis erupted in 2005, with negative impacts felt almost endlessly and its internal cohesiveness waning noticeably; Western European nations have been met with social and economic crises, giving rise to trade "protectionism" and economic "patriotism" that hurt their active involvement and roles in global affairs. Leadership changes in Germany, Britain and France took their toll on the three traditional European powerhouses, with Germany losing its single-engine role. Germany and France continued to make mends with the United States without giving up their quest for equal footing as allies, promising ongoing struggles for control and counter-control. Meanwhile, Europe remains stuck in an awkward dilemma as the US-Russia dispute over the US "missile defense plan" rages on, while new conflicts have emerged between Europe and Russia, posing fresh challenges and difficulties to both sides. After two years of reflection and adjustment, EU member states finally understood the urgency of saving the EU constitution and that unity and self-improvement is the only way out. An opportunity to turn things around amid the constitutional crisis was born. It is difficult to fathom the fate of the new EU constitution, but it is safe to say the existing EUCT will be reduced to an ordinary treaty without constitutional power and EU's transformation into a "supra-national institution" will be restricted. At least Britain, the Netherlands and Poland think so. Not all obstacles in the way of European integration have been removed. The draft new treaty is the result of a compromise by all parties concerned, while the consensus reached at the latest summit over the new EUCT constitutes only a framework principle, with the details to be decided at the next round of inter-government talks. The emergence of new obstacles cannot be ruled out. In Britain, Labor Party's new leader Gordon Brown has just succeeded Tony Blair's premiership and Britain is expected to be the leading trouble maker in the next round of inter-government negotiations. The way the new EU treaty is approved will decide if it will succeed. Britain needs only a national referendum to defeat it. Whether France will successfully wrap up its ratification process remains a question as well. Without a doubt, the European Union will slow down its pace of expansion, lower its long-term goals, work harder on policy readjustment, reinforce internal cohesiveness to prevent further split and return to rational and pragmatic policies. Nothing comes easy. Looking back at the 50-year development of the EU, we see a story of steady growth punctuated by setbacks and compromises. After a hard-earned revival, the new EU constitution will no doubt provide more driving force behind the process of European integration. The author is a researcher with China Institute of International Studies. |
| Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Read |
 |
| Related Stories |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
Links |
 |
