• Tools:
• Save |
• Print |
• E-mail |
• Most Popular |

Q&A: Why the EU treaty arguments?

By CNN European Political Editor Robin Oakley

Adjust font size:

BRUSSELS, Belgium (CNN) -- Why is the EU arguing, yet again, over its constitution?

Because the institutions of the EU, largely designed for the original membership of six nations, are creaking now there are 27 members.

Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, complains it can take six years to get an agreed policy implemented in the EU. In an age of alarm about terrorism it took at least three years for the EU countries to set up a common arrest warrant.

Many members argue they need more decisions taken by majority voting rather than by the traditional unanimity and most agree that with 27 members the European Commission is too unwieldy.

There is confusion about who speaks for the EU to the outside world. Is it the current holder of the six-monthly rotating EU presidency, currently German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is it the EU's so-called "High Representative" for Foreign Affairs Javier Solana, who is mandated by the Council of Ministers of the 27 EU states? Or is it the EU's External Affairs Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who has charge of the EU funding abroad and runs its diplomatic service?

What went wrong with the last constitution, agreed by the leaders in 2003?

The people of France and the Netherlands voted down that constitution in 2005 when their governments staged referendums. There are arguments as to whether that was because of the constitution itself, the unpopularity of the governments putting the question to voters or whether it was a backlash against Europe's leaders over the rapid process of EU enlargement and the agreement to negotiate Turkish membership.

In fact 18 nations in the EU endorsed that constitution, two of them by referendums and the other 16 by Parliamentary ratification. Many of those governments, the "maximalists" and those who want more European integration, want to retain as much as possible of the 2003 agreement. Most leaders, including the new French President Nicolas Sarkozy, want a minimalist agreement that they can have endorsed by the Parliaments rather than have to stage more referendums.

So has a lot changed in the draft now being championed by Angela Merkel?

That will depend on what the leaders finally settle on in Brussels, if they do manage to reach an agreement. Suspicious minimalists say it is really just a re-branding of the 2003 constitution with less pretentious language. Merkel and her allies like Sarkozy have stopped calling it a "constitution" and refer to it as a mere "treaty amendment." She has taken out language implying EU statehood, such as references to the EU flag and the "Ode to Joy" anthem , though nobody believes those will disappear in practice. Argument is continuing about such issues as the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the enshrinement of the EU as a "legal entity" able to sign treaties.

Why are the British among the major critics of the treaty in the run-up to the summit and what are their objections?

The Dutch and the Czech Republic have some reservations. But the largest stumbling blocks are provided by the Poles and the British.

Tony Blair, who is at his last summit and who is prepared to accept an extension of majority voting in some areas, has set out red lines beyond which he will not go in accepting a deal. He won't accept a treaty which allows the Charter of Fundamental Rights for EU citizens to change UK law in any way (for example weakening British labor laws by enshrining the legal right to strike).

He will not agree to any definition of an EU Foreign Minister's role which "displaces the role of British foreign policy." He will not agree to the extension of majority voting which would force Britain to cede control over its common law, police and judicial system.

And he says: "We will not agree to anything that moves to qualified majority voting something that can have a big say in our tax and benefits system." Blair says he is not prepared to deal on those questions, he must be given arrangements which ensure all his reservations are met.

What then are Poland's objections and why is there such bitterness involved?

The position is complicated by past history between Poland and its big neighbor Germany. President Lech Kaczynski and his identical twin brother Jaroslaw Kacznski, the prime minister, have been stern critics of Germany, notably over the deal between Germany and Russia for a gas pipeline by-passing Poland through the Baltic sea. Essentially they oppose anything which they see as extending Germany's power in the EU.

Under a previous voting system agreed in 2000 Poland had 27 votes to Germany's 29 in matters decided by majority votes. But under the new constitutional plan there would be a "double majority" system -- items would become EU law if backed by 55 per cent of the 27 EU states, providing they represented 65 per cent of the EU population.

Poland's leaders, in a country with less than half the German population of 80 million, say that that favors the bigger countries, Germany in particular. Not only that. Lech Kaczynski has upset and infuriated EU leaders by saying in a radio interview that if Nazi Germany hadn't invaded Poland it would now be a country of 66 million.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, has said that it is 'absurd' to base current decisions on the tragic circumstances of World War II. Jean-Claude Juncker, the Luxembourg Prime Minister, has complained that Poland is "obsessed" with Germany and Alfred Gusenbauer, the Austrian Chancellor, has accused the Polish leaders of being motivated by a desire to prevent Merkel having a successful summit outcome.

But with 25 countries basically agreed on wanting to forge ahead with a new treaty aren't Poland and Britain in a weak position?

Not as weak as it looks. A new treaty outline (with the fine details to be settled by an intergovernmental conference in time for the 2009 European Parliament elections) requires the unanimous consent of all the 27 EU partners. Blair is hinting that if all his "red lines" are not met then Britain would be forced to hold a referendum on any treaty deal . And the other leaders know that British voters would probably reject the deal, taking them back to the drawing board again. But Barroso, a Blair ally on many issues, is insisting that you cannot have "an a la carte Europe of exceptions and exemptions."

(He has also hinted that if Poland continues to be an awkward partner in the EU it can expect to do less well next time it comes to the allocation of EU funds.)

How big a blow would it be for the EU if the leaders don't do a deal at this summit?

Minimalists argue that it would not be massive. The EU economies are doing better than they have done for years. The EU has recently reached a major agreement on tackling climate change. But others say that the EU has suffered from a collective loss of confidence since the 2005 referendums and that that would be intensified.

The prospect of another round of discussions on constitutions and institutions would bore the pants off European electors, leave the EU with an incoherent voice in the world and divert its leaders from effective collective action on big worldwide problems like the Middle East peace process, the Doha trade round, energy security and counter-terrorism.

In addition there is the fear that the EU would have proved itself unable to function effectively as an organization of 27 countries and that it would split into a two-tier organization with those who find it easier to agree common policies pushing ahead on their own. Failure to agree would too deal a heavy blow to the prospects of further EU enlargement.

Get up-to-the minute news from CNN CNN.com gives you the latest stories and video from the around the world, with in-depth coverage of U.S. news, politics, entertainment, health, crime, tech and more.

---

• Kercher killer's sentence reduced on appeal
• Beating Simon Cowell at his own game
• Poll: Tiger Woods' popularity falls
• Pakistan court orders ears, noses hacked off
• Clashes kill 73 Saudi security force members

• Irish PM to quit over payments scandal
• NATO chief: Afghan troop increase likely
• Militants hunted as calm retuns to Basra
• Pressure on Bush to skip Olympics
• BA sending misplaced T5 baggage to Milan

• Recruiting suicide bombers (2:50)
• London was lucky (2:36)
• Cars in London rigged as bombs (3:48)
• Second explosives-packed car foun (2:32)
• Soviet culture returns (3:47)