Making the Constitution Work

Covering the Shire Counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk, including Luton, Peterborough, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.

ANDuff

Email:

Andrew

MAKING THE CONSTITUTION WORK

An article written for BBC Newsonline, June 2003

The European Convention has been a radical success. It has created a fresh, large consensus about how Europe should be run. The new constitution increases the capacity of the European Union to act effectively at home and abroad. The reformed Union will be more powerful, efficient and democratic.

The prime ministers, meeting at Thessaloniki on 20 June, accepted the Convention's main proposals as "a good basis for starting" the intergovernmental conference (IGC) that will follow in October. They allowed the Convention another three weeks to make "purely technical" changes to the existing EU Treaties to ensure that they conform with the provisions of the new draft constitution. The level of ambition in the Convention, however, will not be satisfied at making technical changes, pure or otherwise. Having taken the big decisions, and delivered up a decent project for a stronger and larger Union, the remaining days of the Convention are being devoted to breathing life into the constitutional settlement.

The most important thing to do is to extend the scope of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council in place of rigid unanimity. There has been growing support in the Convention for more QMV, coupled in most cases with parliamentary co-decision. In other words, laws should be made by a democratic majority of both the Council of Ministers, representing the states, and the European Parliament, representing the citizens.

Experience shows that QMV helps the Council reach decisions. This is not because a vote is always taken. In many cases, the mere possibility of a vote spurs ministers on to achieve a consensus. The prospect of QMV creates a positive ambience. No minister likes to have to vote down another minister. Instead, faced with the imperative of voting, ministers do their utmost to accommodate each other. Serious and reasoned objections from a minority are respected. The Council, after all, is not a one-off diplomatic negotiation but a Union institution. Everyone has to live with each other the next morning.

Often the decision reached under the 'shadow' of QMV is a decision not to proceed further with a draft proposal. QMV has not led to uncontrollable legislative activism on the behalf of the Council.

All that was true with 15 member states. Next year the Union is to have 25 members, with more foreseen. Unanimity, already rare, will be an improbable eventuality in the enlarged Council. Sometimes there will be one obstinate minister who blocks a decision on spurious grounds unconnected to the actual matter in hand. Insisting on unanimity leads unerringly to the lowest common denominator. QMV makes agreement possible at a higher level. It facilitates but does not enforce a decision. On the assumption that no one national government has a monopoly of virtue, QMV will tend to improve the quality of the policy finally agreed.

QMV is also more democratic. A majority, albeit a qualified one, carries the day. To be on the losing side and to accept the democratic decision, even in sensitive matters, is a necessary quality in a federal union. There is simply no equation that says that democracy should be applied in inverse proportion to the delicacy of the matter in hand. To refuse QMV in a problematic area is to close off chances of reconciling disagreements. The pressure of QMV promotes serious engagement between governments to settle differences.

The draft constitution contains a general provision for shifting from unanimity to QMV. This key passerelle (Article I-24) has two elements: first, the European Council can decide to pass any matter unilaterally from unanimity to QMV, and, second, it can shift 'Council laws', a special legislative procedure reserved for sensitive issues, towards the ordinary legislative procedure. However, in order to make such decisions, the European Council will have to act unanimously. In a Union of twenty-five members, therefore, the bridge towards QMV remains effectively pad-locked.

Many countries, including France and Germany, and a large majority in the Convention want more QMV in foreign and security policy. We also support proposals to increase the use of enhanced cooperation between the more integrationist member states. The draft constitution already permits the development of a vanguard in defence matters, made up of willing and capable member states. The next step would be to allow the core group to unlock the famous passerelle to QMV by QMV. Nobody should be in any doubt about the determination of the federalist governments to push forward with differentiated integration as and when they become frustrated by those of a relentlessly intergovernmentalist persuasion.

Lately, Tony Blair has been speaking encouragingly about QMV. He knows that the British cannot keep a 'national veto' to themselves. A UK veto means 24 others. He and his ministers are all too happy to brag that 'things are going our way' in Europe. In that case, Mr Blair should have the courage to put his negotiating positions to the test of a vote in the Council. Such a commitment would earn Britain many friends in Europe and empower the Union to act in a competent way.

Andrew Duff MEP leads the European Liberal Democrats in the Convention.