Transatlantic Politics

There is a spectrum haunting Europe: the EU Constitution. Despite all appearances, it's not quite dead. Au contraire. After two identity changes, some face lifts and a heavy dose of make-up, the "undead" Constitution  was first re-baptised as the "Reform Treaty" and now lives on as the "Lisbon Treaty". The final deal was struck on Friday in Lisbon, Portugal, where all the EU member states agreed that the new Treaty would be ratified by parliamentary procedures. No more referendums (except for Ireland and possibly the UK if Gordon Brown caves in to the Tories).  The EU learned its lesson the first time after France & the Netherlands rejected the Constitution.  Democracy is a bitch and it is better to keep the role of deciding the new shape of the European Union out of the hands of the voters. 

Why the dull name "Lisbon Treaty" instead of "EU Constitution" or even the "Reform Treaty"? First, the name will simply join the list of the other confusing names of EU institutions and projects: The "European Council", which is the main decision maker in the EU and features a gathering of the heads of all member states.  This is not to be mixed up with the "Council of Europe", which is a UN-like, human rights watchdog that includes "democratic", non-EU countries, such as Russia.  Confusing?  All the better!  The populace of the EU isn't supposed to be able to tell the difference between the myriad of EU institutions!

The EU knows better than most that a lack of understanding leads to a lack of accountability. This is part of the reason why the EU Constitution has been renamed the "Lisbon Treaty", a name that is easily confusable with the unrelated "Lisbon Agenda".  What is the "Lisbon Agenda" you ask?  Well, it is another "bold" project of the EU adopted in 2000 and aimed to "make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world".  Funny - perhaps.  Ambiguous - absolutely. Confusing - most definitely.

In fact, the name "Lisbon Treaty" is designed to suggest that the new document is part of a series of Treaties all signed in nice touristy locations that have come to define the competences of the EU institutions: the "Rome Treaty", the "Maastricht Treaty", the "Amsterdam Treaty" and the "Nice Treaty". In no way is it designed to remind the populace of the failed EU Constitution (even though that is what it is). 

In order to achieve the EU Constitution's goals without the Constitution's language, the document itself has been made almost unreadable.  Here is an excerpt of the  "Lisbon Treaty", to be enacted on January 1st 2009: 

4) Article 2, renumbered 3, shall be replaced by the following: Article 3

1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.

But what are its values?  Well, in order to understand that, you would have to refer to at least three other tomes of previous drafts and treaties to go with (including the EU Constitution).  In fact, each term has been so longly debated and negotiated that some sentences don't make a lot of sense anymore.. 

The Union shall establish an internal market. It shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.

I'm not an economist, but who would prefer "balanced" economic growth to "economic growth", "highly competitive social market economy" to "highly competitive market economy", who would aim for "full employment", "social progress" and a "high level of protection"? Bingo! The French.

It's not a joke, it's a reality. All this gibberish is Mr. Nicolas Sarkozy's work of art. Oh la la, quelle economie, quel protectionisme! But since Germany isn't too keen on free market economics either and while Gordon Brown was busy bargaining Great Britain's opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which is to become legally binding in all EU member states except UK and Poland) nobody really fought against Sarko..

On the Eastern front, a humble going-along attitude was prevailing, with two notable exceptions: Poland and Bulgaria. The Poles fought and finally got their veto mechanism called the "Ioannina Clause", while the EU freshman Bulgaria, a member only since January 1st, 2007, obtained the right to use the spelling "evro" instead of "euro".

But overall, the "Lisbon Treaty" enforces many of the ideas set out in the EU Constitution, even if under less sensitive terms. There will be a President of the EU, elected for 2 1/2 years by the European Council, there will be a Foreign Minister of the EU, called "High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy". The EU gets more powers especially in the field of justice, home affairs, counter terrorism and foreign affairs. The EU Parliament becomes equally powerful with the European Council, it will have co-decision powers in virtually all areas. Biggest loser of the Treaty: the EU Commission, the technical, "executive" branch of the EU which has the power of legislative initiative. So far, every member state was represented in the Commission. But the "Lisbon Treaty" provides the number of EU commissioners to reflect only two thirds of the member states, invoking the "efficiency" criteria. Nevertheless, the number of Commission bureaucrats stays the same. Also the number of directorates and units. The ones who lose the most are the small countries, especially the new members from the former Communist block. One EU official I talked to told me following:

The Commission works in most areas with ridiculously thin resources. So whatever the initiative, you can usually trace it down to one or two desk officers who are doing the real work. These people, with no ill will, just as a resource constraint consequence, may very well work and prepare a proposal without full awareness of the implications that that proposal will have in every member state. I think the fact that around the College table and in the final stage of preparation, at the cabinet level, there is somebody who is looking from a national perspective, is healthy for the system. This is the only way  the Commission as an institution can take its decisions fully aware of the impact they will have everywhere in the Union.

I think it’s a big shame especially for the small member states. The four big ones can be comfortable. They know that the machinery is such that it will always act taking into account their concerns and preoccupations, even if they’re out for some years. But the small member states made a fundamental mistake in accepting it.

Ultimately, one might argue that it doesn't really matter what this Treaty is all about, since in 6 or 7 years there will probably be another one, just as incomprehensible and contradictory. Somewhere between The United States of Europe and a community of free nations, somewhere between a super-state with super-bureaucracy and the advantages of the common market, at some point some member states might consider an exit from the EU. And let the French be the last to shut the lights off. 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!