Irish plan to pave way for constitution

Date: 17/06/04

By David Cronin and Martin Banks

THE European Union is heading towards the adoption of its first constitution as Ireland's EU presidency has issued alast-minute blueprint with which it hopes to clinch an agreement at this week's crunch summit.

On the vexed issue of voting weights in the Council of Ministers, the Irishpaper proposes what a diplomatcalled “a minimum accord, but anaccord nevertheless“.

Under the suggested double majority system, a decision is taken when supported by 55% of member states representing 65% of the EU population. Additional conditions that only a certain number of countries representing a minimum percentage of the Union's population can block a decision are introduced, which makes the newsystem more complicated than the oneoutlined in the draft constitution drawnup by the Convention on the future ofthe EU.

One of the main new elements of the proposal is a solution which would allow national veto rights to be scrapped in justice and home affairs by reassuring member states that oppose the decisions that their national interest would not be affected. If a member state had an objection to an EU law adopted by qualified majority (QMV) because it would affect its criminal justice system, an 'emergency brake' would allow its minister to refer the matter to heads of state and government.

Following a discussion, the EU leaders could then transfer the matter back to the Council of Ministers for a decision or ask the European Commission (or the group of EU governments which tabled the draft law) to submit a fresh draft.

In cases where no action is taken by the EU leaders within four months - or where the law has still not been adopted 12 months after a new draft has been tabled - a group of member states wouldbe free to implement it on theirown, leaving others to join them at alater date. However, the states inquestion would have to amount toone-third of the Union's total numberof countries.

The other sensitive topic addressed in Dublin's proposal relates to voting procedures on foreign policy decisions.

It recommends that should one EU government announce - for “vital and stated reasons of national policy” - it will oppose the approval of a decision to be taken by a weighted majority, then no vote on that dossier would be held.

The EU's foreign minister would then have to strive for a solution, liaising closely with the government in question. But if those efforts come to nought, the Council could refer the matter to heads of state and government, who would have to take a decision by unanimity.

Meanwhile, one of the European Parliament's representatives on the intergovernmental conference said he is “fed up” with the UK's “constant” demands over the constitution. German centre-right MEP Elmar Brok said that enough concessions had already been made to Britain.

The position adopted by the UK in recent months had made it “particularly difficult” to produce a workable draft constitution, he said. “It is very frustrating to keep coming up against the famous British 'red lines'.

“It seems that every time we find a compromise they come back at us with yet another demand. No one else does this, so why the British?”

However, a spokesman for UK premier Tony Blair said the British stance in the negotiations would not surprise anybody - but stressed that the 24 other countries each had their own positions.

Preview of the European Council held in Brussels on 17-18 June 2004.