|
The article seeks to locate the principal cause of Europe’s prevailing ratification crisis in the inappropriate title arrived at in the European Convention, Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. This over-ambitious styling led the media to characterise the text as simply an ‘EU Constitution’. Yet, the text was not a Constitution as we traditionally understand the term, i.e. the founding document of a State: scholars are agreed that the EU is not, and will not become upon ratification, a State.
In terms of substance, whilst the text certainly strengthened some emerging constitutional aspects, it was not a major departure from the status quo like the Single European Act and Treaty on European Union had been; and it remained technically a treaty like all its predecessors. Arguably, therefore, it did not require referenda to ratify. However, confusion over the scale and importance of what was proposed, stemming from ambiguity in the title, pushed politicians down this unfortunate path.
The article identifies a high level of consensus among commentators as to the true nature of the text: most are happy designating it a treaty (noun) with constitutional (adjective) aspects. The early proposed title Constitutional Treaty for Europe was arguably, therefore, the correct one; but it is now too late to choose this option, as the terms Constitution and Constitutional Treaty have already been muddled in debate. A more distinctive change is required. One idea could be to follow the principle employed elsewhere in the text of codifying the generally accepted but presently unwritten legal concepts of the European Court of Justice, as was done for example for ‘primacy’ and ‘direct effect’. The Court has characterised the EU treaties as a ‘constitutional charter’ for over twenty years now, and on this basis a modified title could read Treaty Establishing a Constitutional Charter for Europe. Importantly, the term ‘charter’ is recognised in international law to be of the order of a treaty between States.
The critical failing first time round was the mixing of concepts in the title, which misled and confused the public as to the location of Statehood and sovereignty, and secured a negative reception. It is therefore the title, not the substance of the document, that politicians should presently be seeking to correct.
|
