• 2toner1-2
  • 05 02 2016 429716a-cig-clearchoice-banner-902x177
  • ces_web_banner_toner_news_902x1776
  • clover-depot-intl-us-ca-email-signature-05-10-2017-902x1772
  • cartridgewebsite-com-big-banner-02-09-07-2016
  • ncc-banner-902-x-177-june-2017
  • 4toner4
  • banner-01-26-17b
  • Print
  • mse-big-banner-new-03-17-2016-416716a-tonernews-web-banner-mse-212


 user 2005-03-19 at 9:43:00 am Views: 69
  • #10937
    EU constitution hurdles
    The European Union is on the verge of launching an
    unprecedented exercise in public consultation.

    At stake is the approval of its first constitution by all 25 member states.
    About 10 countries will hold referendums, with the first one in Spain on Sunday.

    Most Spaniards are expected to say “Yes”.

    But no one knows what will happen if, over the next year or so, one or more
    countries actually reject the EU constitution.

    The problem is that, according to polls, only 11% of EU citizens have
    actually read the “mother of all EU treaties” or have any idea what it is all

    First of all it is supposed to simplify all the previous five treaties – but
    in the English version it still runs to a massive 474 pages.

    It streamlines the way decisions are taken – and who does what – in an EU
    that now includes 25 countries, rather than the original six. And it gives the
    enlarged EU a higher profile in the world, with its own president and foreign

    The constitution also includes a charter of fundamental rights for EU
    citizens, such as non-discrimination and the right to strike.

    It does away with national vetoes in some key areas such as police and
    judicial co-operation, but it does not bring much change in other sensitive
    areas, especially taxation, foreign and defence policy – where national
    governments keep their veto rights.

    So overall, what is really in it for the man and woman in the European street
    - all 450 million of them?

    Fundamental change

    The Vice-President of the European Commission, Margot Wallstroem, is in
    charge of selling the blueprint to the European public.

    “I think one of the more important changes is that it establishes the rights
    that you have as a citizen of the EU, the fundamental rights that are very, very
    important,” she says.

    “So I think that from a symbolic point of view, it’s a fundamental change and
    it establishes the common values for the EU. From a policy content point of
    view, the changes are minor, they are really not very important.

    “But it establishes also the way we should take decisions in the future. With
    25 member states in an enlarged EU, how can we be effective, how can we be more
    open and democratic in the future?”

    Referendums are democratic, but notoriously blunt instruments. It is
    practically impossible to say a simple “Yes” or “No” to complex documents such
    as an EU treaty.

    Kirsty Hughes, an expert on EU matters, thinks that most people will not
    actually vote on the precise contents of the European constitution.

    “I think on the whole we can expect that the vote will be on
    Europe,” she says.

    “It may tend to be more a vote on whether people are in general happy with
    the EU today rather than the specifics of the constitution. But I think that
    will vary from country to country.

    “In some countries, for instance we saw it with Ireland [a neutral country]
    when they voted first “No”, then “Yes” to the EU’s Nice Treaty, they were very
    bothered with the defence provisions of the treaty.”


    For the moment, polls show that the most likely country to reject the
    constitution is the UK.

    Other countries where the result is in doubt are Denmark – which in 1992
    rejected the Maastricht treaty by a margin of about 2% – and two of the more
    eurosceptic new member states: the Czech Republic and Poland.

    Hostility against the European constitution is also growing in two of the
    EU’s founding members – France and the Netherlands.

    “In the UK it would likely be a general negative reaction to the EU as a
    whole, it wouldn’t be to specific provisions in the constitution,” says Kirsty

    You cannot design a Plan B
    beforehand, but you have to look at the reasons why there is a ‘No’ in one
    member state and then it’s for the [EU] Council to decide what to do next

    “It would reflect the growing scepticism in the UK.

    “I think in countries like Poland and the Czech Republic it’s perhaps more to
    do with the fact that they’re newcomers to the EU, they’ve only signed up to one
    treaty and at least some parts of those countries’ publics and politicians ask,
    ‘Why should we have to change already?’”

    In the Netherlands, there is public concern over immigration and the
    integration of the Muslim community.

    Similar fears are reflected in France, where many oppose their government’s
    support of Turkey’s eventual admission into the EU.

    There is also rising social discontent, both over the French government’s
    changes to the 35-hour week and to a proposed European directive that would open
    up public services to eastern European companies employing cheaper labour.

    The French only narrowly approved the Maastricht Treaty (by a 2% margin in
    1992), so what if they reject the constitution?

    Uncharted waters

    Kirsty Hughes says working out how to resolve such a scenario will not be
    easy – especially when the constitution is meant to appeal to the public.

    “There’s never been a situation where the EU has negotiated a treaty and not
    managed to push it through,” she says.

    “Will there be a core Europe of a group of countries going ahead?… The EU
    will still be there, the single market will carry on functioning, but there will
    be a hiatus for one or two years, with big, big political discussions about what
    are the options now.”

    So does the EU have a Plan B?

    Margot Wallstroem says not.

    “But of course this is a question that many people ask, what would happen?
    The only thing we can do is to explain what happens procedurally if there is a
    ‘No’ in one member state,” she says.

    “Then of course the European Council would have to look at the reasons why
    there is a ‘No’. It might be because in one small member state actually the
    voter turnout was so low that it might be worth investing in having another
    debate and maybe even a new referendum. While if in a big member state there is
    a clear ‘No’ on a substantive issue, that changes the whole debate.”

    Integration hurdles

    In the past, both Ireland and Denmark held two successive referendums to
    ratify a particular EU treaty. Both passed only after changes to the text of the
    treaty, answering specific concerns. That will be much harder to do in the
    constitution, which sets out the fundamental rules of the game.

    But for the first time, it allows a country to leave the EU if it so wishes,
    or indeed be excluded from the bloc if it fails to respect its basic values.

    Margot Wallstroem says she does not anticipate either of these provisions
    being used.

    “Today, it’s such an integrated co-operation between the member states in the
    EU that I can hardly imagine how this would actually happen that a member state,
    and a big member state at that, would say, ‘Now we leave this co-operation’.”

    UK worry

    Difficult to imagine, but not impossible. The UK, already outside the
    mainstream of European integration – the euro and the Schengen border-free zone
    - may be the last to hold a referendum.

    If, as many think, it ends up rejecting the constitution, after all the other
    24 EU members say ‘Yes’, Kirsty Hughes can only see one possible scenario.

    “I think it’s going to be very problematic. I haven’t talked to anybody who
    thinks you can ask the British public to vote twice,” she says.

    “I think that would cause uproar in the British media. But that means you’re
    going to face a very serious political crisis. You’ll have a lot of people in
    the UK, maybe the Conservatives, saying legally we can stay in, legally they
    can’t throw us out. But the political pressure will be to renegotiate, to have
    some sort of special partnership, for Britain to be like a big Norway.

    “And that’s going to be a big crisis in Britain as much as in Brussels.”

    The disadvantage of being like Norway is that a country would have to pay a
    hefty contribution and follow most of the EU’s rules in order to keep up
    economic and trade links with the bloc, while not actually taking part in
    decision-making. Whether any of the EU members will want to go that far, is a
    question no one can answer now.