Philadelphia or Frankfurt?

Date: 08/03/03

Grandiose hopes for the convention on Europe's future may get punctured

NO MEETING of the European Union's constitutional convention in Brussels is complete without a reference to “Philadelphia”. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the convention's president, has often compared the work of the Brussels delegates to the labours of the founding fathers who wrote the American constitution. Each time the conventioneers set to work you can feel them mentally posing for their portraits, quill pens in hand. Yet Europe's history is littered with discarded constitutions and failed conventions. Perhaps Brussels 2003 will one day rank alongside Philadelphia 1787. But who is to say it will not instead end up like Frankfurt 1848, a gathering of high-minded people intent on writing a constitution for a new nation (Germany), whose efforts were swept aside by history. Bismarck, the man who succeeded in unifying Germany, made his famously brutal comment about the decisiveness of “iron and blood” in international affairs as a rebuke to the Frankfurt conventioneers who had put their faith in “fine speeches and the votes of majorities”.

As the Iraq crisis gathers pace, the whiff of blood and iron in the air is already unsettling the conventioneers in Brussels. William Abitbol, a French right-winger, told the delegates last week that their deliberations were increasingly “surreal” against unfolding international events. More senior figures in the convention - the foreign ministers of Germany and France, for instance, and Mr Giscard d'Estaing himself - made guarded references to the growing possibility that the EU's disarray over Iraq could gravely undermine the convention. Its secretariat had been planning to use the most recent session, at the end of last month, to publish some draft articles on a common EU foreign policy but decided to delay unveiling them for fear of ridicule. They now hope for a foreign-policy debate in May.

But it is not just unexpected events in the world that can derail constitutional conventions. There is also a chance that delegates will simply fail to agree - or fail to sell an agreed proposal to the public. In present circumstances, both risks are fairly high.

The Philadelphia affair was more compact: a mere 55 delegates deliberated more or less continually for four months. The 105 delegates to the Brussels convention have been meeting intermittently for over a year and still have several months to run. Indeed, the real number of participants is over 200, since alternates have virtually the same rights as full members. When Mr Giscard d'Estaing and his 12-strong presidium issued the first 16 articles of a draft constitution last month, they were deluged with over 1,000 proposed amendments from all sides; integrationist Germany has tabled almost as many amendments as the sovereignty-minded British.

Unexpected alliances are emerging. For example, the British and Germans have both objected to the idea of giving the Union “exclusive competence” (ie, sole power) over the internal market's “four freedoms”, which include human movement. They fear this might end individual countries' control over their frontiers; some of Mr Giscard d'Estaing's closest aides agree that this article will have to be changed. To take another example, the British, French and Germans have ganged up against the idea that the EU should co-ordinate all EU countries' economic policies. A fair number of delegates are demanding an explicit mention of religious values. And no fewer than 28 have objected to indulging one of Mr Giscard d'Estaing's own passions by including space exploration as an EU objective. All these complaints have been registered before Mr Giscard d'Estaing's team has even unveiled its proposals for two of the most controversial topics facing the convention: foreign policy and the distribution of power between the various bits of the EU's governing structure.

If Mr Giscard d'Estaing is to present a single constitutional proposal, as he wants to, he will have to be both ruthless and lucky. He has already shown a marvellous ability to discern consensus where others see only discord. He argues, for example, that those who object to the use of the word “federal” in the proposed constitution's first article are noisy but only a minority. Maybe. But it is a minority that includes the representatives of ten of the convention's 25 participating governments. Mr Giscard d'Estaing's real aim is to meet the most strident objections of all those governments (which must, after all, sign the document), while ignoring the cacophony of other dissenting voices.

Another giant pair of obstacles

Getting the conventioneers to agree to just one document will still be very tricky. But even if Mr Giscard d'Estaing pulls it off, another two big hurdles stand in the way. First, he must secure the agreement of all 25 governments (including those due to join next year) which will meet at a special conference to consider his work. He hopes that his convention will have built up such a head of steam, especially since so many top government figures will have taken part in its deliberations, that all those governments will approve the new treaty without trying to unpick it. Maybe. On the other hand, the range of opinions in the EU is so wide that many governments are bound to object to bits of the constitution. Will they really forgo a last chance to tweak it? To do so would need huge goodwill on all sides. But the Iraq crisis may leave a legacy of bitterness between different European leaders that could spill over into the constitutional negotiations.

Even if governments do unite around Mr Giscard d'Estaing's proposals, the final hurdle is winning popular assent. Several governments, notably the Irish and Danish ones, are obliged to hold referendums on constitutional matters. Others, notably the French, say they intend to have one too. History suggests that plans for tighter European integration stand a good chance of being rejected if people are actually asked their opinion. If several countries - or even a single big one, such as France - turn down the treaty, Mr Giscard d'Estaing's constitution could yet end up in the rubbish bin rather than the history books.

Commentary feature in which author assesses the tremendous challenges facing the European Convention.

• Primary Source