Is a European Constitution Possible - Coursework Example

The main objective of constituting the European Union was to establish a system of mutual cooperation and coordination to oversee the economic and political collaboration amongst the Member States. The European Union derives its authority from the various treaties and this engenders mutual cooperation. The EU was formed to promote peace and to integrate the nations of Europe after World War II. As such the EU portrays the present state of the integration process of Europe and its economic prosperity. This process of integration commenced from a gradual growth that mainly dealt with the economic sectors to a common foreign policy that included police and judicial cooperation. This integration has encompassed Central Europe and Eastern Europe where the erstwhile communist countries have joined the Union in order to reap the benefits of such membership (Archick, 2005). The Union depicts the extraordinary association of several sovereign nations and this association is a result of the various treaties that have a binding effect on the Member States. The Union’s dual supranational and intergovernmental character is represented through common institutions. The decision – making procedure varies in different situations. For instance, the decision – making procedure in respect of issues pertaining to trade and social policies is realized through a complex system of majority voting. Decisions in the area of foreign relations and security policies are finalized by means of a process of consensus of the different Member States. It has been argued that these decision making procedures are slow and vexatious. Further these common agencies are complex and incomprehensible to the citizens (Archick, 2005). In March 2002, the Convention on the Future of Europe was institutionalized with the intention of addressing several contentious issues and in order to bring about the distribution of power between the various institutions of the European Union and the Member States. The Convention made an attempt to draft the constitution of the Union by merging and streamlining the four treaties into one constitutional treaty (Archick, 2005). Moreover, the Convention decided to draw up proposals to initiate and organise institutional reforms. It had submitted the Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe in July 2003. In the same year the leaders of the European Union convened the Inter governmental Conference or IGC, which dealt with the feasibility of drafting the constitutional treaty. Most of the recommendations of the Convention were acceded to in the IGC. However, the leaders of the European Union were unwilling to accept the reforms in the voting rules. The extant voting system had tended to favour the small and medium sized Member States. If the reforms had been implemented then the larger states would have been benefited. This resulted in the abstention of Poland and Spain from according assent to the reforms (Archick, 2005). However, all this changed with the election of a new government, in the year 2004, in Spain that decided to support these reforms, unlike its predecessor. At this crucial juncture Poland was the only Member State that was not willing to support these reforms. Consequently, Poland adopted a more flexible attitude and conveyed its acceptance. Thus, in June 2004, the constitution was finalised and all Member States affixed their signature to it on the 29th of October 2004 (Archick, 2005). The constitutional treaty is rendered enforceable only if all the Member States ratify it. In general, such ratification is obtained either through parliamentary approval or by means of public referendums. Of the twenty – five Member States only twelve had accorded ratification. In the public referenda conducted in France and the Netherlands the voters disagreed with this constitution and rejected it. The main cause for this rejection in these two countries was based on the general argument that this constitution would encourage liberal economic trends, which would be detrimental to their national interests. The French voters were of the opinion that this constitution would curtail French influence in the European Union. The Dutch voters objected to this constitution on the grounds that it would mainly benefit the already large and strong nations of the Union, which would become stronger and more influential on the adoption of this constitution (Archick, 2005). Thus the possibility of implementing this constitution was rendered uncertain. Supporters of the constitution had proposed the conduct of another referendum in the countries where it had been rejected. At this juncture the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, stated that it was futile to conduct any such poll in the United Kingdom. Accordingly, he deferred this referendum sine die. The result was that the European Union leaders expressed their inability to implement the constitution. Therefore, the initial implementation date of November 2006 was rescinded and no new date was settled upon. Proponents of the constitution are of the opinion that the new target date could be sometime in the middle of the year 2007 after France’s general elections had been completed (Archick, 2005). The Authorities of the European Union admitted that the latter could exist even in the absence of a constitution and that it would continue to grow and develop due to the rules and provisions inherent in the Nice Treaty of 2000. A few critics are of the opinion that some of the provisions of the European Union constitution can be enforced by bringing about agreement amongst the European Union leaders. Some other critics have suggested that the constitutional treaty should be made acceptable to all the Member States by initiating discussions and negotiations. However, this could be difficult to realize because the draft is swarmed by compromises and opposition to the draft is being received from several contrasting directions. Opposition to the constitution can be construed to imply an opposition to the enlargement of the European Union (Humbled EU Leaders Scrap Constitution Deadline, 2005). The European Union is becoming larger and the number of Member States in on the increase. In order to maintain efficiency, it has to reinforce its structures. Treaties of the EU have been modified four times in order to ensure efficiency. The last of these reforms was the Nice Treaty that transpired in the year 2000. This treaty had equipped the European Union to deal with increase in its size. In that year most of European Union leaders had conceded that a demand existed for a strong, efficient and respected constitution. The result was the formation of the project to engender a constitution treaty (Schweppe, 2007). Poland expressed dissatisfaction with the reforms to the voting procedure that had been adopted from the Nice Treaty. Its grievance was that these reforms would benefit the larger nations to the detriment of the smaller nations. A majority under the Nice Treaty could be achieved only if two hundred and fifty – eight votes out of three hundred and forty – five votes had been polled, which constitutes seventy – five percent. Poland had just twenty – seven votes out of a possible three hundred and forty – five, which amounts to approximately eight percent (Schweppe, 2007). Under the new treaty this figure is bound to increase and the implication is that fifty – five percent of the Member States would represent sixty – five percent of the total EU population. Poland has around eight percent of EU citizens. Accordingly, its share of voters is less than eight percent. The situation remains unchanged under both the Nice Treaty as well as the Constitutional Treaty (Schweppe, 2007). However, it would be much simpler to attain the majority of fifty – five percent of states and sixty – five percent of citizens under the new treaty, whereas the existing system requires a majority of seventy – five percent of votes. Apart from this, there is a remarkable difference under Nice Treaty in as much as that small nation’s votes are given a lot of importance. The new system reverses this situation. For instance, Cyprus has four votes that translate to one percent or an eight of the Polish votes. Cyprus has a mere 0.16 percent of the EU population. Poland has 50 times more citizens than Cyprus. Under the new system Poland will benefited more than Cyprus. Critics argue that the new system does not take into consideration that the small countries are not being favoured (Schweppe, 2007). There are other points that give scope for criticism with regard to the constitution treaty such as the fact that there is no mention or reference to God in the preamble to the constitution. The EU ensured that there was fifty years of peace, stability and prosperity in Western Europe. Reforming the EU is necessary because in the absence of such a measure the European Union may not be able to ensure the promised economic prosperity and political domination in this era of rapid globalisation (Schweppe, 2007). The German Chancellor had taken great pains and this resulted in the revival of the constitution treaty and due to this act, the treaty had become an issue to be discussed throughout Europe. In the public referendum seventy percent of Dutch people had rejected the constitution treaty but after the German presidential intervention to restructure the treaty there was a vast transformation amongst the people of Netherland. The present situation is that forty – seven percent of the Dutch people support the treaty (Schweppe, 2007). The Polish president appointed an expert team comprising of two veteran experts to examine the treaty from a Polish perspective, in order to suitably advice the government. Poland’s stance on the treaty was of political nature. The relevant decision has to be taken by the president. Poland is in favour of maintaining the status quo ante in respect of the voting procedure, however this insistence of Poland was not heeded (European Constitution All Over Again, 2007). The Nice Treaty, which encouraged enlargement of EU, did not allow Turkey and Ukraine to become members. However the constitution treaty has accepted them. Under the constitution treaty the EU will bestow greater solidarity on the Union. This will facilitate Member States to help each other in times of turmoil and terrorist threats. The constitution treaty strengthens the European Commission, European Parliament and the European Court of Justice in situations requiring the combating of crime and in ensuring the cooperation of judicial institutions (European Constitution All Over Again, 2007). Social policy was not given a prominent place in the European Institutions. Member States have to adopt social policy in order to meet the requirements of the doctrine of subsidiarity. While Member States are accountable for their social security systems and the protection of their citizens, the 1957 Treaty bestowed important social duties on the European Economic Community or the EEC. The Treaty conferred these abilities by enforcing the freedom of movement for workers inside the Community. To implement this principle in a strict manner the EU enacted several binding laws. The first and foremost duty of the EU is to protect the social rights of migrant workers and the EU has established the European Social Fund or ESF to improve the available opportunities in the labour market (Bräuninger, 2005). The Single European Act 1986 had further enlarged the scope of social policy. Some of the efforts to strengthen the economic integration resulted in criticism against the Community’s policy of social dimension. Proponents of the social dimension had concentrated on a powerful political union that would stimulate the integration of the economy according to a political perspective. The other aspect was the requirement of the trade unions that the Community had to support high national social standards. These two areas of interest have occupied a significant position in the expansion of the EU’s social policy. The EC, in order to meet this goal, had endorsed the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers in the year 1989. The Social Charter was a political proclamation and the UK had raised objections to accept the Charter. The introduction of the SEA had enabled the Commission to prescribe the minimum requirements for the protection of working conditions (Bräuninger, 2005). The Social Policy Agreement was ratified by 11 Member States in 1991, which resulted in the Social Charter. The UK abstained from signing the agreement. This agreement reinforces the Community’s implementation of the social policy and enabled the EU to take major decisions and to undertake stringent means to improve employment opportunities introduce better working conditions, ameliorate the living standards of workers and to accord equal treatment to men and women. Thus the Maastricht Treaty brought about a firm establishment of the rights of workers, in addition to the doctrine of subsidiarity (Bräuninger, 2005). The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), commonly referred to as the European Constitution, was an international treaty intended to create a new constitution for the European Union. It was signed in 2004 by representatives of the member states of the Union but was subject to ratification by all member states, two of which subsequently rejected it in referenda. Its main aims were to replace the overlapping set of existing treaties (see Treaties of the European Union) that comprise the Unions current constitution, to codify uniform human rights throughout the EU and to streamline decision-making in what is now a 27-member organisation. The Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe or the TCE was rejected by Holland and France in the year 2005. If it had been ratified it would have been implemented from the 1st of November, 2006. Several countries had joined the EU and the present status of this Constitution is that Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and Spain have ratified it. The referenda conducted in Spain and Luxembourg showed that such a constitution was welcomed by most of the people. Moreover, countries like Finland, Germany and Slovakia had made all the necessary preparations for its ratification. It has to be realized that a lot of hectic activity is taking place to infuse life into its implementation. Germany has made elaborate and detailed plans to bring about its ratification by the year 2009. In this effort it has acquired the support of seventeen other Member States out of the existing twenty – seven Member States. France also seems to be headed towards ratification, irrespective of which party comes to power in the elections (Mulvey, 2007). References Archick, K. ( 2005, December 27). The European Union’s Constitution. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/61531.pdf Bräuninger, D. (2005, January 14). EU social policy must not unhinge locational competition. Retrieved March 17, 2007, from http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000183438.PDF European Constitution All Over Again. (2007, February 1). Polish News Bulletin, English, Copyright © PNB Company Ltd. 2007 . Humbled EU Leaders Scrap Constitution Deadline. (2005, June 17). Financial Times . Mulvey, S. (2007, February 27). The European Constitution returns. Retrieved March 18, 2007, from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6400525.stm Schweppe, R. (2007, March 1). Why Do We Need European Constitution? Polish News Bulletin, English, Copyright © PNB Company Ltd. 2007 . Read More