Convention’s draft treaty must be respected

Date: 26/06/03

By Stanley Crossick

THE European Council at Thessaloniki welcomed the draft constitutional treaty presented by the Chairman of the Convention, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and confirmed that "the Convention has proven its usefulness as a forum of democratic dialogue".

However, the EU leaders decided that the text is only "a good basis for starting the intergovernmental conference".

It is most unfortunate that the conclusions of the European Council do not state in unmistakable terms that the draft constitutional treaty is a coherent text, which should be respected as an overall package and the intergovernmental conference (IGC), limited to legal and technical revision.

Following the acclamation of a consensus for the text on 13 June, some EU countries have already stated their intention to re-open various issues, notwithstanding the active role member states played in the Convention and the difficulty in building a consensus. The final text is a fair expression of a balance between "federalists" and sceptics.

Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio both heralded the Convention as "a success" and placed an "essential reserve" on reforming the voting in the Council of Ministers. Similar views have been expressed on behalf of other member states.

Put another way, there is wide agreement that it is a good text but several states want just "a couple of changes". If the draft treaty is re-opened, the consensus will quickly unravel and there would be a clear danger of regression and another Nice.

This would make a mockery of the painstaking work carried out by a democratically representative Convention unanimously established by the member states and could seriously damage the Union in the opinion of the public.

The summit further decided that: "The general secretariat of the Council will provide the secretariat support for the Conference." Following the positive experience of the Convention, it seems more appropriate that an inter-institutional secretariat be set up to support the IGC, including officials from the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament.

"The European Parliament will be closely associated and involved in the work of the Conference" but will have no direct participation. This is a step backwards compared with the procedure for the 2000 IGC that prepared the treaty of Nice.

The Parliament was then granted two observers, and an exchange of views with the president of the European Parliament preceded the IGC meetings. Following the Convention, one representative of the European Parliament should participate in the conference, as is the case for the Commission.

Moreover, three observers from the Parliament should follow the preparatory work of the conference, but not take part in meetings, so as to reflect the main political families.

The Thessaloniki summit also missed the opportunity to provide for a higher degree of transparency in the work of this IGC and to involve national parliaments.

Despite the fact that until now there has been only a debate in public - essentially among the political elite - and not the "public debate" envisaged by the 2001 Laeken Declaration, which launched the Convention, the successful exercise in participatory democracy of the Convention must be respected.

The reforms agreed by the forum have failed to match the critical internal and external challenges faced by the Union, but this failure is not primarily institutional and reflects the lack of political will by the member states.

The latter have the ultimate say on the constitutional treaty, but it should be borne in mind that the citizens of Europe directly elected more than two-thirds of the members of the Convention.

Unfortunately, it was decided at Thessaloniki that "the presentation of the draft constitutional treaty marks the completion of the Convention's tasks as set out at Laeken and, accordingly, the end of its work".

However, even if the formal process will be over, members of the Convention are presumably free to continue meeting if they feel that this would be appropriate to preserve the spirit of the Convention and to support, from the outside, the work of the IGC.

The added value of the Convention in terms of transparency and open debate should not be wasted. Members of the Convention, and in particular the representatives of national parliaments and of the European Parliament, can still perform a useful role as a sounding board for officials involved in negotiations and as an interface between intergovernmental bargaining and the public at large.

Finally, members of the Convention would be in the best position to warn against any further dilution of the delicate compromise achieved by the forum. To this end, they should be regularly briefed by representatives of the presidency and the Commission on the IGC agenda and discussions.

Those members of the Convention who are willing to continue meeting in public should publish a common statement declaring their determination to be a critical eye on the work of the IGC, while clearly accepting that they would not play any formal role.

Alternatively, the constituent units of the Convention might take advantage of the last plenary meetings in July to appoint a limited number of selected representatives to form a smaller body - around 20 people - mandated to follow the IGC on behalf of the Convention itself.

The package is the best possible, given the present state of political will of the member states. In particular, it is a single text without options. Despite the Iraq debacle for Europe and the clear desire of its citizens that the Union speak with a common voice on matters of security, the treaty does not satisfactorily create a structure for a common foreign, security and defence policy.

Before member state governments retreat behind the familiar closed doors of an IGC, their leaders need reminding that they are answerable to their citizens. It is incumbent upon them, in the name of democracy, to respect the wishes of the Convention. It is to be hoped that civil society leaders will constantly and vociferously remind them of this.

Stanley Crossick is the director and founding chairman of the European Policy Centre, Brussels.

EU leaders have agreed that the European Convention's draft constitutional treaty can form the basis of a debate at an intergovernmental conference on the future of the European Union.