EU LEADERS SHIFT POWER TO CENTER

Leaders of the EU’s 27 member states have signed off on a new voting system to avert a repeat of the debacle of 2005 when voters in France and Holland scuppered plans for ratification of a new EU constitution. The latest voting system will not be implemented until 2014 and will likely not be operational until three years later, demonstrating on the one hand how long it takes to get things done in Europe and on the other the reluctance of EU leaders to rock the boat.
The decision on voting came towards the end of June when the leaders met in Brussels to agree a new Treaty. Major players like France and Germany regarded the voting issue as paramount importance and not just because of the 2005 experience. Germany felt that “upstarts” like Poland had too much clout. For example, though Poland had half the population of Germany it shared the same veto power. The new Treaty will correct that through what it terms the principle of “double majority,” whereby Germany will have twice Poland’s representation on committees. Across the EU, 55% of states, representing at least 65% of the EU population will be required to change or veto change, thus averting in decades to come a repeat of the 2005 constitution crisis. Close observers of Brussels saw the 2014 implementation date as an example of EU leaders cleverly avoiding confrontation over a measure that in the past would have been put to referendums throughout the Union.
That was one of the curious aspects of the Brussels meeting. There was no talk of a new constitution or of the use of referendums. Instead, it was the center making the decisions without having to go to the streets for approval. The 2005 experience had been a watershed for EU leaders and very quickly after it they veered away from any talk of a new constitution. While their spin doctors began using the word Treaty, planners behind the scenes quietly inserted many of the failed constitution’s elements into a Treaty document, namely the one presented to the Brussels gathering. By avoiding all talk of a constitution, EU leaders cleverly dodged the referendum bullet of 2005 and managed to keep their discussions out of the public spotlight.
They believed the 2005 experience proved that the democratic tactic of the referendum was all very fine as long as you did not have a voting system like the EU that permitted one country to stymie the voice of the majority by just saying no. The 2005 “no vote” by the French and Dutch also highlighted the fact that in other parts of the EU there was no great appetite for a new constitution and that the word constitution alone was a red flag to the Left and to Euro Skeptics. In contrast, the term Treaty implied a tinkering with the system and not a complete overhaul of the EU structure, a prospect that frightened some of the smaller nations. A Treaty could also be ratified by national leaders and subsequently parliaments.
When the 2004 constitution was drawn up it supporters believed the EU had become so unwieldy it had to be streamlined, especially at a decision making level. They argued that it had to establish a bigger political and economic imprint internationally. A new constitution would therefore create a more unified and powerful union. Critics, however, especially in Britain, saw it as a slippery slope – a United States of Europe that would lead to a diminution of national sovereignty. The British worried that too much power in Brussels could also lead to the British losing control over justice and policing.
The “no” votes by France and Holland that collapsed the proposed constitution were not entirely related to the actual constitution and, in some respects, had more to do with internal matters. The French were angry about the pitiful state of their economy and saw a “no” vote as protest against their government. The French Left convinced many people that a new constitution would lead to an influx of cheap labor from member states like Poland would lead to high unemployment among skilled French workers. The Dutch too were unhappy with their economy and feared a worker invasion. But, unlike the French, they were convinced a new constitution would lead to them being dominated by bigger players.
With all of this in the background, EU leaders over the past 2 years quietly reached agreement on new set of rules to govern the EU. One critic called it the re-wrapping of an old product under the innocuous name, Treaty.
Last month, EU leaders, including the outgoing British Prime Minister, Tony, Blair, and the new French president, Nicholas Sarkozy, reached a compromise, resulting in a Treaty that will likely come into play in June 2009. The meeting was hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel who praised her fellow leaders for signing off on, among others things, the creation of a long term EU president rather than the revolving door presidency now in place which allows each country’s leader to share it for limited periods. They also agreed on the creation of new High Representative of Foreign Affairs, a title carefully chosen to avoid any impression this would be an EU foreign minister. It was realized that the concept of a foreign minister would clash with the roles of foreign ministers of individual states.
According to insiders the new treaty will provide more robust role for the European Parliament, a body long regarded as an expensive talking shop. There will also be a trimming of the Brussels’ bureaucracy but that has been put off until 2014. The date amused some commentators who remarked that because bureaucrats will be regulating bureaucrats they will need a lot of time to do that – at least 7 years.
Overall, the Treaty signed by Merkel and the others was far cry from the promised democratic process of allowing the electorate in each state a process of ratification of change though referendum as Blair had promised while he was British prime minister. In effect, the leaders transferred power to the center and were able to rid themselves of referendums. For critics of the Treaty, it removed a layer of legitimacy from the democratic principles that underpinned the EU from its inception, namely that the voice of the people should always be the deciding factor. The New French president, Nicholas Sarkozy was happy with the outcome because he is opposed to the concept of referendums. He wants national government to be the driving force, strengthening the center so that the EU does not find itself being forced off course by new emerging states forming alliances. Sarkozy is also against further expansion and is opposed to Turkey’s application for membership. He is not alone in opposing Turkey, a sign that EU leaders are not going to listen to pleas from the Bush White House integrate Turkey into the EU. France and Germany believe the EU could not cope with a massive influx of Muslims if Turkey was granted membership. As it stands, France and Germany have large Muslim populations that are not fully assimilated into the European tradition.
The new Treaty should pave the way for tighter control over the EU but it has also signaled a major change in the dynamics of the Union. The leaders put aside the principle that change could be challenged through referendums, thereby removing power from the street. As for the word constitution it will likely be just a footnote in the EU’s history.