Charlemagne: A constitutional revival

Despite its re-emergence, the draft constitution has remarkably few friends

IN THEIR preamble to the draft European Union, the members of the convention that wrote it modestly included a vote of thanks to themselves. When European governments failed to agree on the document last December, it looked as if the conventioneers might not get their footnote in history after all. But now that the constitutional talks are on again, some feel that the real vote of thanks should go to the al-Qaeda terrorists who attacked Madrid.

The reasoning goes like this. The Spanish and Polish governments blocked agreement in December. But the bombs and their aftermath tipped the results of the Spanish election, and the new Socialist government immediately said it wanted a quick deal on the constitution. The Poles, fearing isolation, then shifted their position, saying they could accept some variant of the “double-majority” voting system that they had previously rejected. And, after Madrid, EU leaders are more determined than ever to demonstrate unity. Announcing that his colleagues will try to agree on the constitution by June 17th, Bertie Ahern, the Irish prime minister, who is chairing the negotiations, noted the “changed atmosphere and a new willingness to compromise.”

But before the idea that al-Qaeda acted as midwife to the European constitution gains too much traction, it should be pointed out that it is a myth. Long before the bombs went off, the Spaniards and Poles had let it be known that they were ready to compromise. Rhetoric about the need for all good Europeans to pull together has undoubtedly increased since the attacks. But all that really happened is that the odds of a successful conclusion to the negotiations shifted from, say, a 70% to a 90% probability.

A few things could still go wrong. Agreeing the details of the EU's voting arrangements will require tricky compromises on majorities and voting thresholds. The demand by small countries that they should all retain a member of the European Commission must be reconciled with the insistence of France and Germany that, in an enlarged EU, the commission's size should be limited. And there are Britain's famous “red lines”, where Tony Blair has insisted on retaining the national veto. These include tax, social security, foreign policy and criminal justice.

But even the British prime minister has now said that he is keen to get a deal. Some of his officials are less enchanted by the revival of constitutional talks. One grumbles that it has become “politically correct for all European leaders to insist that they want this constitution. But not many of them are really that keen.” This is a slight exaggeration: a few people passionately want the constitution. The European institutions in Brussels do, since they like more power. Federalists are keen, even though the text of what is strictly a constitutional treaty, not a constitution, falls short of their full agenda. It does deliver longstanding federalist goals, such as a legally binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, more integration on policies ranging from criminal justice to defence, and more powers for the European Parliament.

Among EU member countries, instinctive federalists such as Belgium and Luxembourg naturally like the new constitution. Germany too is pushing hard, because it knows that, by ending the system in which Germany had no more votes than France, Britain and Italy, in favour of a new population-based system, the constitution will increase German power. It would also make a symbolic point, marking the end of the period in which a tacit goal of the EU was the containment of Germany.

An unloved document

Yet there is a much longer list of countries that are indifferent or uneasy about the constitution - but do not want to incur the odium that would go with blocking it. Although Mr Blair is putting a brave face on things, agreement to an EU constitution will present him with a big political headache, as he struggles to fend off calls for a referendum. The French also have worries about demands for a referendum - and they harbour residual anxieties about an increase in German power. The Spaniards and the Poles may have decided to be “good Europeans”, but they know that the new deal will involve a loss of national clout. Now that Italy's chance of presiding over the deal on the constitution has gone (though it may still be formally signed in Rome), Silvio Berlusconi's government seems to have relapsed into indifference.

None of the ten new member states that are joining the EU on May 1st shows any great enthusiasm for the document - which is hardly surprising since Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the convention's chairman, did his utmost to minimise their influence. Even the traditionally federalist Dutch are in a grumpy mood, partly because of the decision by France and Germany to ride roughshod over the euro's stability-pact rules on budget deficits. Frits Bolkestein, the Dutch commissioner, asked recently, “what is the value of an EU constitution if international treaties are broken as soon as they no longer serve the interests of one of the large member states?”

Dutch disgruntlement matters, because the Netherlands is one of the seven or eight EU countries that will hold a referendum on the constitution. If just one country fails to ratify the document then, legally speaking, it dies - though, as with the Maastricht and Nice treaties, a second vote could revive it again. Given the shrinking popularity of the EU everywhere, there is surely a good chance of a rejection somewhere. Gisela Stuart, a member of the steering presidium that ran the constitutional convention, recalls that Mr Giscard d'Estaing once urged his colleagues on with the words “this is what you have to do if you want the people to build statues of you on horseback back in the villages you all come from.” But last weekend, the people of the Auvergne in France refused to re-elect Mr Giscard d'Estaing to the presidency of their region. Peasants can be such ungrateful brutes sometimes.

Commentary feature. Despite its re-emergence, the draft constitution has remarkably few friends.

• Primary Source