Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

From Free net encyclopedia

Image:Consttreat.jpg

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE), commonly referred to as the European Constitution, is an international treaty intended to create a constitution for the European Union. Despite its name, it only covers the European Union, not the whole of Europe in the geographical sense. It was signed in 2004 by representatives of the member states of the Union but was subject to ratification by all member states which has to date proved impossible to obtain. Its main aims would have been to replace the overlapping set of existing treaties that comprise the Union's current constitution, to codify uniform human rights and democratic principles throughout the EU, and to streamline decision-making in what is now a 25-member organisation.

The constitutional treaty was signed by representatives of the member states on October 29, 2004, and was in the process of ratification by the member states until, in 2005, French (May 29) and Dutch (June 1) voters rejected the treaty in referenda. The failure of the constitution to win popular support in these countries caused other countries to postpone or halt their ratification procedures, and the Constitution now has a highly uncertain future. Had it been ratified, the treaty would have entered into force on November 1, 2006 but that is now impossible.

Image:€2 commemorative coin Italy 2005.jpg

Contents 1 History 1.1 Drafting 1.2 Ratification 1.3 Post-rejection 2 Debate about future possibilities for the Constitution 3 Existing, newly codified and strengthened provisions 3.1 Functioning of the Union 3.1.1 Institutional structure 3.1.2 Conferral, subsidiarity, proportionality 3.1.3 Primacy of Union law 3.1.4 Mutual values of the Union's member states 3.1.5 Aims of the Union 3.2 Scope of the Union 3.2.1 Competences 3.2.2 Flexibility clause 3.2.3 Common foreign and security policy 4 New provisions 4.1 Scope of the Union 4.1.1 Legal personality 4.1.2 New competences 4.1.3 Criminal justice proceedings 4.1.4 Solidarity clause 4.1.5 European Public Prosecutor 4.1.6 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 4.2 Simplification 4.2.1 Simplified jargon and legal instruments 4.2.2 Position of Union Minister for Foreign Affairs 4.3 Functioning of the institutions 4.3.1 Qualified majority voting 4.3.2 President of the European Council 4.3.3 President of the Council of Ministers 4.3.4 Smaller Commission 4.4 Parliamentary power and transparency 4.5 Further integration, amendment and withdrawal 4.5.1 Enhanced co-operation 4.5.2 Treaty revisions 4.5.3 Withdrawal clause 5 Points of contention 5.1 Length and complexity 5.2 Qualified majority voting 5.3 Union law and national law 5.4 Trappings of statehood 5.5 Lack of democracy 5.6 Secularism 5.7 Militarism 5.8 Economic policy 5.9 Human rights 5.10 Exclusions 6 Ratification 6.1 Ratification of the Treaty via referenda 6.2 Parliamentary approval of the Treaty 6.3 Accession countries 7 Timeline 8 External links and references

History

Image:Famconst.jpg

Main article: History of the European Constitution

Drafting

The "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" (TCE) took as its starting point the codification of the EU's two primary existing treaties, the Treaty of Rome of 1957 and the Maastricht treaty of 1992, as modified by the more recent treaties of Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2001). The current debate on the future of Europe is often said to have begun with a speech made by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in Berlin in 2000 [1], calling for a debate on the finality of European integration.

The process started following the Laeken declaration in December 2001, when the European Convention was established to produce a draft of the Constitution, headed by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. Giscard d'Estaing told the convention members that their countrymen would one day "build statues of you on horseback in the villages you all come from", a comment which provoked widespread derision, particularly when the unpopularity of the draft in Giscard's own country became clear. The draft was initially published in July 2003. After protracted negotiations during which disputes arose over the proposed framework for qualified majority voting, the final text of the proposed Constitution was settled in June 2004.

Ratification

It was initially expected that almost all member states would ratify the Constitution by a parliamentary or other high political process, which would be quite straightforward (given the support of all ruling governments). Indeed, the number of EU countries which approved the treaty by a parliamentary vote now forms a majority. However, unanimity is required before the TCE can enter into force.

The first country to attempt a test of public opinion in a popular referendum was Spain and at that stage the campaign was framed simply as one of support for the European project, without much controversy about the particular form or content of TCE. TCE was approved in the referendum vote.

In the United Kingdom, however, Prime Minister Tony Blair unexpectedly promised a referendum in order to undercut opposition from the Conservative Party and to avoid division amongst his own supporters. It was widely recognised that the outcome of a United Kingdom referendum was doubtful. Also, the promise of a British referendum put pressure on French President Chirac, who also then promised a referendum in France.

Post-rejection

The rejection of the constitution in the referenda in France and the Netherlands, made TCE's future and the implementation of its provisions highly uncertain, provoking a crisis of confidence in the project which has resulted, at least initially, in a degree of strategic paralysis. However, despite the enlargement of the Union to 25 states, it has continued to function without TCE, the reforms agreed in the Treaty of Nice being particularly important in this respect. A long-planned referendum in Luxembourg went ahead after the defeats in the Netherlands and France, but even there the majority in favour of TCE was unexpectedly narrow. No other country has pursued plans for a referendum, including the United Kingdom, it being considered increasingly unlikely that such referenda could secure support for TCE in the present political climate.

In France, rejection was considered a humiliation for president Jacques Chirac. The TCE was rejected both by right-wing proponents of national sovereignty, such as Charles Pasqua and Philippe de Villiers, and by the anti-globalization movement, gathered around Socialist Party MP Laurent Fabius, the Greens, the Communist Party, the Revolutionary Communist League and the Workers' Struggle party. The Socialist party split itself between Laurent Fabius and François Hollande.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair initially supported the Constitution and said he would campaign for its ratification in any British referendum. But after its rejection by the voters of France and the Netherlands, he complained in a speech in Oxford in February 2006 that "we locked ourselves in a room at the top of the tower and debated things no ordinary citizen could understand. And yet I remind you the Constitution was launched under the title of "Bringing Europe closer to its citizens"". He went on: "The evening of the French result, I remember being in Italy with friends, and someone saying, in despair at the vote: "what's wrong with them?" meaning those who voted 'no'. I said "I'm afraid the question is: "what's wrong with us?" meaning "us" the collective political leadership of Europe."

Debate about future possibilities for the Constitution

The European Constitution's rejection by France and the Netherlands sent shock waves through the European establishment since these countries had been regarded as committed members of the European project. The failure of the constitution to win popular support in those countries forced a re-examination of the constitutional question.

Four options present themselves. One is simply to do nothing for the time being in order to allow the dust to settle: this seems to be the position favoured by the United Kingdom and Germany. A second is to attempt to persuade opponents to accept TCE in its existing, or substantially in its existing form: this appeared to be the ambition of Austria during its presidency of the Union, but it was persuaded that this was unrealistic. Another is comprehensively to re-draft the Constitution so as to make it more palatable: however, there presently appears to be no desire in any country to start from scratch. Finally, French president Jacques Chirac has proposed German Chancellor Angela Merkel to "cut it piece by piece", in other words, to bring in parts only of the existing draft, so as to make the document more digestible and the process less controversial, but Merkel apparently thought it better to wait until 2007.

Existing, newly codified and strengthened provisions

Functioning of the Union

Main articles: Institutions of the European Union, European symbols

Institutional structure

Under TCE, the Council of the European Union would have been formally renamed as the 'Council of Ministers', which had already been its informal title. The "General Affairs Council" would have been formally split from the "Foreign Affairs Council", which had informally held meetings separately since June 2002.

The Constitution for Europe includes a flag, an anthem and a motto which had previously not had treaty recognition, although none of them are new.

Conferral, subsidiarity, proportionality

The "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" (TCE) would have reiterated several key principles of how the Union functions:

• the principle of conferral - that all EU competences are conferred on it voluntarily by member states;
• the principle of subsidiarity - that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective;
• the principle of proportionality - that the EU may only act to exactly the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives;
• the primacy of EU law - in areas where member states have made legally binding agreements at EU level, they may not then pass national laws incompatible with those EU laws.

The TCE would have specified that the EU is a union of member states, and that all its competences (areas of responsibility) are voluntarily conferred on it by its member states according to the principle of conferral. The EU would have no competences by right, and thus any areas of policy not explicitly specified in the Constitution would have remained the domain of the sovereign member states (notwithstanding the ‘flexibility clause' – see below). Critics, however, say that the area of competences is so large as to make the exceptions less significant than the competences.

According to the TCE, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where its member states agree unanimously that actions by individual countries would be insufficient. This is the principle of subsidiarity, and is based on the legal and political principle that governmental decisions should be taken as close to the people as possible while still remaining effective. It is a main argument against claims that Europe limits national sovereignty but critics say that it is a principle to which lip service only is paid, and, in practice, the reach of the EU has been increasingly ambitious.

De jure, in all areas, the EU may only act to exactly the extent that is needed to achieve its objectives (the principle of proportionality).

Primacy of Union law

Amongst European countries, EU law has primacy over the laws of member states since 1964 in the areas where member states allow it to legislate. National law which is incompatible with an agreement already made at European level is deemed to be 'disapplied' when questions arise in courts. This controversial and fundamental principle of European Community law was first recognised in the case of Costa v ENEL in 1964, involving an Italian man refusing to pay his gas bill of 1925 Lira (€1).

Mutual values of the Union's member states

As stated in Articles I-1 and I-2, the Union is open to all European States which respect the member states' common values, namely:

• human dignity
• freedom
• democracy
• equality
• the rule of law
• respect for human rights
• minority rights

Member states also declare that the following principles prevail in their society:

• pluralism
• non-discrimination
• tolerance
• justice
• solidarity
• equality of the sexes

Some of these provisions are codified for the first time in the Constitution.

Aims of the Union

The aims of the EU, according to the "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe" (TCE), are made explicit (Article I-3):

• promotion of peace, its values and the well-being of its people
• maintenance of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted
• sustainable development based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy
• social justice and protection, equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the child
• economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among member states
• respect for linguistic and cultural diversity

In its relations with the wider world the Union's objectives are:

• to uphold and promote its values and interests
• to contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth
• solidarity and mutual respect among people
• free and fair trade
• eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child
• strict observance and development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.

Scope of the Union

Competences

The EU has six exclusive competences, which are policy areas in which member states have agreed that they should act exclusively through the EU and not legislate at a national level at all. The list remains unchanged from the previous treaties:

• customs union;
• those competition rules that govern the internal market;
• eurozone monetary policy;
• conservation of marine biological resources (the Common Fisheries Policy);
• common commercial policy;
• the conclusion of certain limited international agreements.

There are a number of shared competences. These are areas in which member states agree to act individually only where they have not already acted through the EU, or where the EU has ceased to act (though there are a few areas where member states may act both nationally and through the EU if they wish). Three new competences have been added to those in previous treaties (see below).

There are a number of areas where the EU may only take supporting, coordinating or complementary action. In these areas, member states do not confer any competences on the Union, but they agree to act through the Union in order to support their work at national level. Again, three new competences have been added to those from previous treaties (see below).

Flexibility clause

The "Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe"'s flexibility clause allows the EU to act in areas not made explicit in the Constitution, but:

• only if all member states agree;
• only with the consent of the European Parliament; and
• only where this is necessary to achieve an agreed objective under the Constitution.

This clause has been present in EU law since the original Treaty of Rome, which established the EEC in 1958.

Common foreign and security policy

The EU is charged with defining and implementing a common foreign and security policy in due time. The wording of this article is taken from the existing Treaty on European Union.

New provisions

Scope of the Union

Legal personality

The European Union for the first time has legal personality under the Constitution. This means that it is able to represent itself as a single body in certain circumstances under international law. Most significantly, it is able to sign treaties as a single body where all its member states agree.

New competences

The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCE) would have conferred upon the EU as new 'shared competences' the areas of territorial cohesion, energy, and space. These are areas where the EU may act alongside its individual member states. The EU has conferred upon it as new areas of 'supporting, coordinating or complementary action' the areas of tourism, sport, and administrative co-operation.

Criminal justice proceedings

Member States would have continued to co-operate in some areas of criminal judicial proceedings where they agree to do so, as at present. Under the TCE, seven new areas of co-operation would have been added:

• terrorism;
• trafficking in persons;
• offences against children;
• drug trafficking;
• arms trafficking;
• corruption;
• fraud.

Solidarity clause

The new solidarity clause of the TCE specifies that any member state which falls victim to a terrorist attack or other disaster will receive assistance from other member states, if it requests it. The type of assistance to be offered is not specified. Instead, the arrangements will be decided by the Council of Ministers should the situation arise.

European Public Prosecutor

Provision exists for the future creation of a European Public Prosecutor's Office, if all member states agree to it and if the European Parliament gives its consent.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

The TCE includes a copy of the Charter already agreed to by all EU member states. This is included in the Constitution so that EU institutions themselves are obliged to conform to the same standards of fundamental rights. At the time of the Charter's original agreement, the British Government said that it did not have binding effect. Incorporation into TCE would have put its importance beyond doubt.

Simplification

Simplified jargon and legal instruments

The Constitution makes an effort to simplify jargon and reduce the number of EU legal instruments (ways in which EU countries may act). However, it is nevertheless a long document couched in obscure and technical terms, which proved unpopular when presented (for example) to French voters in their referendum on the Constitution.

The Constitution unifies legal instrument across areas of policy (referred to as pillars of the European Union in previous treaties). Specifically:

• 'European Regulations' (of the Community pillar) and 'Decisions' (of the Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters pillar) both become referred to as European laws.
• 'European Directives' (of the Community pillar) and 'Framework Decisions' (of the PJC pillar) both become referred to as 'European framework laws'.
• 'Conventions' (of the PJC pillar) are done away with, replaced in every case by either European laws or European framework laws.
• 'Joint actions' and 'Common positions' (of what is now the Common Foreign and Security Policy Pillar) are both replaced by 'decisions'.

Position of Union Minister for Foreign Affairs

In the new TCE, the present role of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy is amalgamated with the role of the Commissioner for External Relations. This would create a new Union Minister for Foreign Affairs who is also a Vice President of the Commission. This individual would be responsible for co-ordinating foreign policy across the Union. He or she would also be able to represent the EU abroad in areas where member states agree to speak with one voice.

Functioning of the institutions

Qualified majority voting

More day-to-day decisions in the Council of Ministers would be to be taken by qualified majority voting, requiring a 55 per cent majority of member states representing a 65 per cent majority of citizens. (The 55 per cent is raised to 72 per cent when the Council would be acting on its own initiative rather than on a legislative proposal from the Commission or the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.) The unanimous agreement of all member states would only be required for decisions on more sensitive issues, such as tax, social security, foreign policy and defence.

President of the European Council

The six-month rotating Presidency of the European Council would switch to a chair chosen by the heads of government, in office for 2½ years and renewable once. The role itself would remain administrative and non-executive, but rather than the Presidency being held by a member state as at present, it would be held by an individual elected by and accountable to the Council.

President of the Council of Ministers

The six-month rotating Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which currently coincides with the Presidency of the European Council, would be changed to an eighteen-month rotating Presidency shared by a trio of member countries in an attempt to provide more continuity. The exception would be the Council's Foreign Affairs configuration, which would be chaired by the newly-created Union Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Smaller Commission

The Commission would be reduced in size from the year 2014. There would be fewer Commissioners, with member states taking it in turn to nominate Commissioners two times out of three.

Parliamentary power and transparency

• President of the Commission - the candidate for President of the European Commission would be proposed by the European Council, after consultation with MEPs, and would be elected by the European Parliament. Parliament would have the final say.
• Parliament as co-legislature - the European Parliament would acquire equal legislative power under the codecision procedure with the Council in virtually all areas of policy. Previously, it had this power in most cases but not all.
• Meeting in public - the Council of Ministers would be required to meet in public when debating all new laws. Currently, it only meets in public for texts covered under the Codecision procedure.
• Budget - the final say over the EU's annual budget would be given to the European Parliament. Agricultural spending would no longer be ring-fenced, and would be brought under the Parliament's control.
• Role of national parliaments - Member States' national parliaments would be given a new role in scrutinising proposed EU laws, and would be entitled to object if they feel a proposal oversteps the boundary of the Union's agreed areas of responsibility. If the Commission wishes to ignore such an objection, it would be forced to submit an explanation to the parliament concerned and to the Council of Ministers.
• Popular mandate - the Commission would be invited to consider any proposal "on matters where citizens consider that a legal act of the Union is required for the purpose of implementing the Constitution" which has the support of one million citizens. The mechanism by which this would be put into practice has yet to be agreed. (See Article I-46(4) for details.)

Further integration, amendment and withdrawal

Enhanced co-operation

There would be a tightening of existing rules for 'enhanced cooperation', where some member states would have chosen to act together more closely and others not. A minimum of one third of member states would now be forced to participate in any enhanced cooperation, and the agreement of the European Parliament is needed. The option for enhanced cooperation would also be widened to all areas of agreed EU policy.

Treaty revisions

Previously, alteration of treaties was decided by unanimous agreement of the European Council in private meeting. Proponents of the TCE claim that any amendments to the Constitutional treaty will involve, anyway, the convening of a new Convention, similar to that chaired by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in drafting the Constitution itself. This process may be bypassed if the European Parliament agrees, in which case, the final say on adopting proposals will rest with the European Council, who must agree unanimously. However, small revisions (switching from unanimity voting to qualified majority voting in specific policy areas) can be made by the European Council through the so-called 'Passerelle Clause' (Article IV-444) if every member state agrees.

Withdrawal clause

A new clause of the TCE allows for the withdrawal of any member state without renegotiation of the Constitution or violation of treaty commitments.Template:Fact Under this clause, when a country notifies the Council of its intent to withdraw, a settlement is agreed in the Council with the consent of Parliament. If negotiations are not agreed within two years, the country leaves anyway. The process described is a formalisation of the process which Greenland used to leave the EC in 1985.

Points of contention

The TCE's attempt to codify all previous treaties tremendously increased its length and complexity and roused deep suspicions of its effects among widely differing European points of view. Eurosceptics (particularly in the United Kingdom) saw it as entrenching a European superstate, whilst socialists (particularly in France) alleged that it is a sort of neoliberal Washington consensus for Europe. It was also criticised for confusing constitutional and structural questions with questions of policy which would not usually be contained in a constitutional document (although they were contained in the various treaties which preceded it). Opponents to neoliberalism maintain their initial viewpoint, in favour of European integration, but against antisocial policies (it may be compared to the November 2005 Mar del Plata Summit of the Americas and to its opposition to the Free Trade Area of the Americas). Thus, the opposition between proponents and opponents of the TCE is both a "national sovereignty vs. European integration" debate and a "neoliberal vs. social policies" debate.

Length and complexity

Critics of the Constitution point out that, compared to some existing national constitutions (such as the 4,600-word United States Constitution), the European Constitution is very long, at over 60,000 words in its English version, including declarations and protocols. It is also written in technical legal language which has proved difficult even for specialists to understand and which is highly inaccessible to the general public.

Proponents say that the document nevertheless remains considerably shorter and less complex than the existing set of treaties that it consolidates, but even the draftsmen of the Constitution have suggested that they were wrong to attempt, at the same time and in one document, both construction of a constitution and consolidation of all previous treaties, regardless of the nature of their provisions. Had they not done so, TCE could have been much shorter, simpler and easier to grasp. Defenders of the length of the document say it is not an overarching general constitution, but a development of the previous treaties. Proponents also note that the treaty isn't vastly larger than some existing national constitutions, for example the Constitution of Sweden is over 43,000 words long.

Qualified majority voting

Qualified majority voting is extended to an additional 26 decision-making areas that had previously required unanimity. Opponents of the Constitution argue that this involves a loss of sovereignty and decision-making power for individual countries. Defenders argue that these provisions only apply in the areas where Member States have agreed it should and not otherwise; that it was necessary to prevent decision-making from grinding to a halt in the enlarged Union. (In the past, there have been cases when it appeared that "veto trading" was being used tactically rather than for issues of principle.) Further, the "qualified majority voting" mechanism is structured such that a blocking minority is not difficult to achieve for matters of substance.

Union law and national law

Critics sometimes claim that it is unacceptable for the Constitution to enshrine European laws as taking precedence over national laws, because this is an erosion of national sovereignty.

Defenders say it has always been the case that EU law supersedes national law. The Constitution does not change this arrangement for either existing or future EU law. However, the question of whether the arrangement is considered acceptable in the first place is still an issue for debate.

With the widening of qualified majority voting also envisaged in the constitution, however, the issue of the primacy of EU law becomes more sensitive. This is because there is an increase in the number of areas in which laws can be passed by majority vote, and thus an increase in the number of areas where it is possible for an individual country to vote against a proposal (unsuccessfully) and subsequently find its national legislature to be bound it.

Trappings of statehood

It has been argued that the constitution introduces a number of elements that are traditionally the province of sovereign states: flag, motto, anthem. While these have no special legal status, this is something many see as a shift towards the future creation of a single European state, and the corresponding loss of national identity. Many eurosceptics oppose the constitution for this reason.

Defenders of the Constitution argue that none of these elements are new, although their formal inclusion in a constitution is obviously new, and that many of them are also used by other international organisations. They also argue that key principles enshrined in the constitution, such as the principles of conferral and subsidiarity, reinforce the status of member states as cooperating sovereign nations.

It has likewise been argued that to call the document a 'Constitution' rather than a 'treaty' implies a change in the nature of the EU, from an association of cooperating countries to a single state or something approaching a state. In response, it has been pointed out that many international organisations, including the World Health Organisation, have constitutions, without implying that they are states. The World Health Organisation, however, is a "coordinating authority" rather than a source of higher law. From a legal point of view the European Constitution will still be a treaty between independent states.

Some people have cited that it may be more appropriate to hold Europe Day on the original Council of Europe designated May 5, as opposed to the current EU and constitution proposed May 9. May 9 is the commemoration of the end of the Second World War in Europe for much of formerly Soviet dominated eastern Europe - many of which are now EU member states. The western European equivalent, VE Day is on May 8. The choice of May 9 by the European Community in 1985 was because that was the day on which the Schuman declaration was made. Some eurosceptics have voiced that the Council of Europe day of May 5, celebrating the Council of Europe and its values of human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, would be more worth celebrating than the presentation of proposals about coal and steel by a French minister to the German government - symbolising as it does the founding of the Franco-German engine, a concept which many see as a mechanism for excluding others from EU decision making. (The symbols of the EU in the proposed constitution are listed in Article I-8 of the full document)

Lack of democracy

While the new constitution does not give any more power to the European Commission, it has been argued that by failing to reduce the Commission's powers, the constitution perpetuates the perceived democratic deficit of the European Union as a whole.

As Commissioners are nominated by member countries and elected by the European Parliament, rather than being directly elected by the people, it is argued that the Commission - essentially the executive of the Union - holds more power than it could in an optimally democratic system.

Although it remains the case that the Commission has no law-making power, and may only draft proposals for the consideration of directly elected representatives in Parliament and Council, there are several ways in which the Commission can bring pressure to bear on these two bodies nonetheless. It may, for instance, threaten to withdraw a legislative proposal (as in the debate on the Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions on 23 September 2003). It may also require the Council of Ministers to reach unanimous agreement rather than majority approval if the Commission does not approve Parliament's proposed amendments during the codecision procedure.

Some of the constitution's new articles intended to enhance democracy are said by some to be unavailing. For instance, the obligation for the Commission to consider a petition by 1 million citizens only "invites" such a petition to be "considered"; it is open to the Commission to decide how to react, including ignoring the petition if it wishes. Detractors thus argues that this new provision is pointless.

In response, it has been argued that it would not be feasible in practice for the Commission to ignore a mandate from a million citizens. Opponents argue that the Commission is not a directly elected body and therefore have no electorate which could bring such pressure to bear against the will of Commissioners, but defenders further point out that MEPs, who are directly elected, have the power to scrutinise, censure and if necessary dismiss the Commission.

Drawing on parallels with UK civil service traditions, many in the UK would like to see the power to propose legislation removed from the European Commission, and the commission turned into a less politicised body along UK civil service lines. This is an alternative to other proposals to make the commission "more democratic". The power to propose legislation would fall to the legislature, either the Council of Ministers, or the European Parliament, or both. This would remove one of the frequent charges of some quarters of the UK press - that of the commission being "faceless unelected bureaucrats".

See also democratic deficit.

Secularism

There was a debate about whether to include a reference to Christianity in the constitution. The Catholic church and even Polish president Aleksander Kwaśniewski, who himself is an atheist, advocated such a move to reflect Europe's Christian history, but France and some NGOs took a strongly secular stance. In the end, a compromise agreement included a reference in the preamble to "the cultural, religious and humanist inheritance of Europe".

Militarism

Article I-41(3) states that: "Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities". It has been argued that this will prevent all partial disarming of any of the states and require them to increase military capabilities without taking into account the geopolitical situation, or the will of the people. The creation of a European weapon office may also lead to an increase of the worldwide arms race, according to some analyses.

Others point out that the same article limits any EU joint military action to "peace-keeping, conflict prevention and strengthening international security" based on UN principles. It is only under this framework that countries agree to develop their military capabilities.

Economic policy

Some commentators, especially within France, have expressed a fear that the proposed Constitution may force upon European countries a Neo-Liberal economic framework which will threaten the European social model. The principles of the "free movement of capital" (both inside the EU and with third countries), and of "free and undistorted competition", are stated several times, and it has been argued that they cover all areas, from health care to energy to transport. However, there are also concerns among commentators in Britain as well as Central and Eastern European countries that it enshrines too many socialist principles, such as the rights of workers' unions, and the right to strike.

The European Central Bank remains independent of any democratic institution, and its only purpose is to fight inflation. This contrasts with other organisations, such as the Federal Reserve, which also has the goal of fighting unemployment.

It has also been argued that existing national Constitutions do not fix economic policies inside the Constitution itself: It is more common for elected governments to retain the power to decide on economic policy.

Human rights

Some opponents argue that since some fundamental human rights are not explicitly enumerated by the Constitution's Charter of Fundamental Rights, they are not recognized by the charter.

In response, defenders point out that the charter does not affect the laws of EU member states, since all member states are already signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Instead, the charter applies only to the EU institutions themselves. The EU's accession to the Convention is intended to solve the question of clash between two human rights bills, so that in actual fact the Constitution's charter would be construed in exactly the same way as the existing and binding Convention. There would thus be no change in legal position. [2]

Exclusions

In regions such as Catalonia, opposition to the Constitution exists on the basis of language exclusion. The Constitution does not recognize Catalan as a European language. The region, culture and language were long been suppressed in Spain, especially under Francisco Franco and there is a strong sense of Catalan nationalism.

Ratification

Image:EU Constitution Ratification Map.png

The constitutional treaty was signed in a ceremony at Rome on October 29, 2004. Before it enters into force, however, it must also be ratified by each member state. Ratification takes different forms in each country, depending on its traditions, constitutional arrangements, and political processes. In several member states, the head of state is also required to approve the treaty once it has been approved by parliament or referendum. The German and Belgian Heads of States are yet to approve the Treaty thus completing ratification in their respective states..

Lithuania, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, Austria, Germany, Latvia, Cyprus, Malta and Belgium have already completed parliamentary ratification of the treaty. In addition, the European Parliament has also approved the treaty in a symbolic vote.

Ten of the 25 member states have announced their intention to hold a referendum on the subject. In some cases, the result will be legally binding; in others it will be consultative (as was the case in the Netherlands). Four referenda have now taken place, resulting in Spain and Luxembourg ratifying the constitution, with the constitution being rejected in both France and the Netherlands. While the referendum in the Netherlands was consultative only, the Dutch government has pledged that it will not ratify.

Since the French vote, some EU countries have confirmed their intention to abandon or postpone referenda on ratification, including the United Kingdom, where Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said there is "no point" in planning a referendum following the decisions in France and the Netherlands [3]. Other countries have continued with ratification procedures, including Luxembourg, which approved the treaty in a referendum on 10 July 2005 [4].

Ratification of the Treaty via referenda

Member State	Date	Result: % thus voting (of % turnout)	Details
Template:ESP	20 February, 2005	Template:Yes check: 76.7% (of 42.3%)	Consultative referendum
Template:FRA	29 May, 2005	Template:No mark: 54.7% (of 69.3%)	Referendum
Template:NLD	1 June, 2005	Template:No mark: 61.6% (of 62.8%)	Consultative referendum
Template:CZE	Cancelled	Parliamentary ratification instead	Referendum proposed
Template:LUX	10 July, 2005	Template:Yes check: 56.5% (of 87.77%)	Consultative referendum
Template:IRL	Date not yet set		Referendum
Template:DNK	Postponed indefinitely		Referendum
Template:POL	Postponed indefinitely		Referendum
Template:PRT	Postponed indefinitely		Referendum
Template:UK	Postponed indefinitely		Referendum

Parliamentary approval of the Treaty

Parliament	Date	Result	Signature of head of state
Template:LTU	11 November, 2004	Template:Yes check. 84 to 4 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:HUN	20 December, 2004	Template:Yes check. 322 to 12 in favour	Template:Yes check
Image:European flag.svg European Parliament	12 January, 2005	Template:Yes check. 500 to 137 in favour	n/a
Template:SVN	1 February, 2005	Template:Yes check. 79 to 4 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:ITA	6 April, 2005	Template:Yes check. Lower house: 436 to 28 in favour. Template:Yes check. Upper house: 217 to 16 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:GRC	19 April, 2005	Template:Yes check. 268 to 17 in favour.	Template:Yes check
Template:SVK	11 May, 2005	Template:Yes check. 116 to 27 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:ESP	18 May, 2005	Template:Yes check. Lower house: 319 to 19 in favour. Template:Yes check. Upper house: 225 to 6 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:AUT	25 May, 2005	Template:Yes check. Lower house: 182 to 1 in favour. Template:Yes check. Upper house: 59 to 3 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:DEU	27 May, 2005	Template:Yes check. Lower house: 569 to 23 in favour. Template:Yes check. Upper house: 66 to 3 in favour.	Pending
Template:LVA	2 June, 2005	Template:Yes check. 71 to 5 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:CYP	30 June, 2005	Template:Yes check. 30 to 19 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:MLT	6 July, 2005	Template:Yes check. 65 to 0 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:LUX	25 October, 2005	Template:Yes check. 57 to 1 in favour	Template:Yes check
Template:BEL	8 February 2006	Template:Yes check. Lower house: 118 to 18 in favour. Template:Yes check. Upper house: 54 to 9 in favour. Template:Yes check. Brussels Regional Parliament: 69 to 10 in favour. Template:Yes check. German Community Parliament: 21 to 2 in favor. Template:Yes check. Walloon Regional Parliament: ?? to ?? in favour. Template:Yes check. French Community Parliament: ?? to ?? in favour. Template:Yes check. Flemish Regional Parliament: 84 to 29 in favour. (All regional governments also approved the treaty fullfiling the requierments of the Belgian ratification procedure.)	Pending
Template:EST	(Expected) 9 May 2006
Template:FIN	(Expected) June or September 2006
Template:SWE	Postponed indefinitely
Template:CZE	Postponed indefinitely

Accession countries

The two countries due to join the European Union in 2007, Bulgaria and Romania, have already accepted the constitutional treaty by ratifying their accession treaty.

Parliament	Date	Result		Signature of head of state
Template:BUL	11 May, 2005	Template:Yes check. 231 to 1 in favour.		Template:Yes check
Template:ROM	17 May, 2005	Template:Yes check. 434 to 0 in favour.		Template:Yes check

Timeline

Development of the Treaties into EU Constitution Template:EU-timeline

External links and references

Template:Wikisource

• A Constitution for Europe — EU's official Constitution site, including full text in the official languages.
• Reader-friendly edition of the EU Constitution — Highlights and commentary (PDFs).
• European constitution - full text at Titiland Law
• Good overview of Constitution from Chatham House
• History of the Constitution — Academic site linking to many documents concerning the preparation, negotiation and ratification stages of the Constitution and previous treaties.

• News coverage:
  • BBC: Questions and answers about the Constitution
  • BBC: Quick guide to the Constitution
  • BBC: Progress of ratification

• Campaigning and advocacy sites:
  • European Yes Campaign
  • European No Campaign
  • our-constitution.org - grassroots campaign to include the people in the process of constitution building in Europe

• Discussion sites:
  • talkeuro - an open annotatable European Constitution in English and French

• Everyone's a Citizen Baby, writing A People’s EU Constitution – http://everyones-a-citizen-baby.org

• Monitoring reports:
  • These reports evaluate the fairness of the referendums in Spain, France and the Netherlands using internationally recognized standards (p.4 250 KB pdf 20p.) for a referendum.ca:Tractat pel qual s'establix una Constitució per a Europa

cs:Smlouva o Ústavě pro Evropu da:EU's forfatningstraktat de:Vertrag über eine Verfassung für Europa eo:Eŭropa Konstitucio es:Tratado por el que se establece una Constitución para Europa fr:Traité de Rome de 2004 is:Samningur um stjórnarskrá fyrir Evrópu it:Costituzione Europea ja:欧州憲法 ko:유럽 헌법 nl:Verdrag tot vaststelling van een Grondwet voor Europa no:Traktaten om en forfatning for Europa pl:Konstytucja dla Europy pt:Constituição Europeia ro:Constituţia europeană sk:Zmluva o Ústave pre Európu sv:Europeiska konstitutionen zh:欧盟宪法