COMMENTARY

European Union Constitution in trouble: What lessons for the Caribbean?

by Sir Ronald Sanders, a former Caribbean diplomat, now corporate executive, who publishes widely on small states in the global community

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

While organisations and individuals in the member states of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) are going through some soul searching over the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) and, in particular, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), the member states of the European Union (EU) have also been suffering anxiety over whether their proposed European Constitution will become a reality.

The deciding moment will come on May 29th when the electorate of France votes in a referendum on the Constitution which was signed by all 25 governments of the Union on October 29th last year.

Before the Constitution can be adopted, all the member states of the EU are required to ratify it either by a referendum or by vote in the national parliament. 

There is such division over the issue in some countries that many governments were forced to agree to hold a referendum even though they would have preferred the easier option of a vote in their parliaments where they command majorities.

Seven countries have so far ratified the Constitution. Of these countries only Spain held a referendum which resulted in a ‘yes’ vote last February. The other six approved the Constitution by way of a vote in their national assemblies.

Last week, the lower houses of parliament of Germany and Austria approved it almost unanimously. But, there are still sixteen countries to go.

Britain is the EU country that is most divided on closer union in Europe. Therefore, a referendum was always on the cards there, and, indeed, one is scheduled for early next year on the question: “Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?”

By contrast, France was the country that was most unlikely to want a referendum. Successive French governments have been in the forefront of the European movement, and to most observers France’s ratification of the EU Constitution was a virtual certainty.

It has turned out not to be so, and alarm bells have gone off all over Europe, particularly among those who regard a deeply integrated Europe, and one with a legal personality, to be vital to the EU’s influence in the world and its own internal strength.

A survey carried on May 6th and 7th by polling company, Ipsos SA, showed that French voters were evenly split on the issue with the “no” vote climbing.

The mood of the French voters is due in part to a reaction to rules being made by the EU from its headquarters in Brussels. French farmers are particularly discontented with the EU decision to cut subsidies to the farming community, and there are other areas of irritation.

But the European Constitution itself should be little cause for further anxiety about the powers of the EU over the citizens of its individual member states.

Basically, the Constitution consolidates existing treaties into a single text. One of its big changes is the introduction of a new system of double majority voting in the EU so that the qualified majority voting system which now exists will need support of 55% of countries that together represent 65% of the European population. This is to ensure that the EU’s agreed agenda is not delayed or derailed by a few members who, for national considerations, are not prepared to proceed.

Further change allows for each member states to have a Commissioner for the first five years, whereas at the moment the number of Commissioners is very small. Yet another change would see a President of the Union elected for a term of two and a half years renewable only once. At the moment, the Presidency rotates among the Heads of Government of the member states every six months, giving the Presidency little continuity. 

While some of these changes have a little substance, they are mostly changes of form and should certainly not be enough to warrant a rejection of the Constitution.

But, in France, the referendum has also become tied-up with local politics. There is unhappiness with President Jacques Chirac and unemployment of 10.2%. Consequently, the referendum has also become a means of letting Mr Chirac know how opponents feel.

And, since the Constitution can only be adopted if there is unanimous backing by all the member states, a “no’ vote in France will effectively kill the Treaty establishing the Constitution. 

The fact that France is one of the EU’s largest countries, and one of the Union’s original movers and shakers, a “no” vote would also place a cloud over Europe. Certainly, the EU’s authority in world affairs would be damaged, and its plans for expansion would be set back. The EU would not look quite as cohesive and robust as it did in the past.

Of course, French rejection of the European Constitution would strengthen the significant opponents of such a Constitution in the United Kingdom who have long regarded membership of the EU as diminishing Britain’s power to control its own fate.

However, those who vigorously support a strong Europe are most unlikely to sit back and wring their hands over the possibility of a failed referendum in France. They well understand that given France’s influence over the EU, its relative strength in the grouping, and the persistent advocacy of the Union by French governments, France’s rejection of the European Constitution would be disastrous for the European project.

Already Germany’s Chancellor, Gerard Schroder, has been to Paris to try to help President Chirac convince more people to vote “yes”. Undoubtedly, there will be a procession to France of other government leaders and other pro-EU personalities, in the run up to May 29th - all of them bent on swinging the pendulum of public opinion behind the Constitution.

In the interest of balancing power in the world, the Caribbean should hope that there is success in convincing the French to vote for the European Constitution. The world needs a counter to the policies of United States superiority. A weakened EU can not provide such a counter. 

At a more selfish level, it is in the Caribbean’s interest to negotiate Regional Economic Partnership Agreements determining trade, aid and investment, with a strong Europe that will collectively defend such agreements against challenges in the World Trade Organisation. The Caribbean’s negotiations are essentially with the European Commission, but it is the European Council of Ministers that sets policy. 

In pursuing the establishment of the CSME and its ancillary bodies, Caribbean Community countries should keep a watchful eye on Europe and learn from its experience. In particular, it is imperative that Governments carry their people at every step along the way by explaining fully, through the most intense public education programmes, the steps they are taking to make CARICOM a stronger entity.

(responses to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com) 

  Back...

  Most popular articles: viewed, printed and e-mailed

  Printable version