Back New EU constitution: More sceptics than supporters?
C. Gopinath
The proposed constitution for the EU that is to come into effect in 2006 (if all 25 nations approve it) is causing quite a stir. It was drafted by a committee consisting of representatives of national parliaments and governments and headed by the ardent Europhile and French statesman, Giscard D'Estaing. To assuage fears that the constitution will give the EU more powers than intended, it enshrines two important principles: the principle of subsidiarity is to ensure that a decision is taken at an appropriate level in the EU and the Union will exercise powers only to add value to what is taken by a member state; and the principle of proportionality, that the action taken by the Union should not exceed the objectives set for the treaty.
Depending on the national constitutions, the EU constitution will be approved either by parliamentary approval or a popular referendum. Three of the newest countries in the group, Hungary, Lithuania and Slovenia, have already approved the constitution through their parliaments. Spain, always solidly pro-European, recently approved it with a 77 per cent referendum. The biggest fear of the drafters of the constitution is voter apathy. Not being aware of what the constitution is and what it stands for can lead people to ignore it or to take a position based on some politician's sound bite. Hence, the effort to educate and spread the word as widely as possible that includes cute and tiny books.
For it to become valid, the constitution needs to be approved by all the countries otherwise the drafters will have to go back to the starting point and start the process all over again. The disturbing fact is that according to recent polls, there are more sceptics than supporters for the new constitution. A major purpose of the constitution is to take another step towards a common European identity but ironically each nation will see whether it will protect their unique status or needs before approving it. And that is how the politicians are also selling it to their people.
The UK, traditionally home of the `eurosceptics' and which hasn't joined the common currency area, is most concerned about the constitution. The UK has always felt closer to the US than the rest of Europe and constantly plays devil's advocate, and according to some Europeans, the spoilsport.
Even economically, UK is paying a price for its scepticism. Ford Motors and Toyota are said to have reduced production in the UK and moved them elsewhere in Europe in order to save on the costs of currency transactions.
Part of the reasons for the fears created is the very use of the term `constitution.' Countries that are unified political entities have a constitution. Regional trading groups have treaties, not constitutions.
Thus, those who are opposed to it are doing so partly for the reason that they do not want to dissolve their national political identities and have what they fear will be a supra government. To assuage the fear that this will not eliminate national identities but while trying to build a European identity, some of the advocates stress that this is not a `Constitution' in the usual sense of the term. They instead use the term `constitution treaty' to stress that it puts together all the treaties that have been signed over the years by the many countries, and a bit more.
Another factor muddying the debate about the constitution (but which is not a part of the constitution) is the `stability and growth pact' among the EU countries. The EU places strict restrictions on its member states on how they manage their economic fundamentals: national debt (less than 60 per cent of GDP), budget deficit (less than 3 per cent of GDP), and inflation (less than 2.5 per cent).
France and Germany, the bulwarks of the EU have themselves not been able to meet those standards and on 20 March 2005 managed to use their influence to loosen the strict rules.
Historically speaking, a political union was a main objective when the initial moves were made for what has now turned out to be the EU. The economic demands on Germany such as reparation payments after the First World War (really just a European War) created the roots for the disaffection which led to the Second World War. Moreover, France argued that shared control over the coal and steel resources in the region (which had become the `weapons of war') would lead to regional prosperity, bring the countries together economically and politically, and eliminate future wars. Hence the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (a forerunner of the EU) comprising Belgium, West Germany, Luxemburg, France, Italy and the Netherlands. Even the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 talked about an economic and political union.
In many small ways, the EU is a mix of unity and diversity that continues to thrive in the midst of all the treaties heading towards commonality and standardisation. In the economic area, rivalries continue. The newer countries have adopted low rates of flat taxes making it attractive for companies to shift production from elsewhere in the EU. Alarmed, Germany has now announced lower tax rates. And on the cultural front, while the French will hug you and kiss you on both cheeks as a greeting, the Germans will stand a couple of feet away and extend their hand. Vive le difference!
When the Maastricht Treaty came into force, many wondered if we are seeing the beginning of a `Fortress Europe,' that the countries in Western Europe are coming together and will lock everyone else out. But since then, the EU has expanded, admitting more to the `club'. What is more, a group of countries with a history of violent attempts at settling conflicts is now able to share common dreams and to settle differences even while keeping each's national interests paramount. For the rest of the world that is frequently pulled apart with separatist intentions, the EU is a valuable learning process of the alternative. The one lesson the EU can offer us is the ability to resolve differences through negotiations and compromises rather than picking up guns and walking into the streets.
(The author is a professor of international business and strategic management at Suffolk University, Boston, US. His Internet address is cgopinat@suffolk.edu)
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line