The Convention Closes the deal

By Andrew Duff

After eighteen months solid work, the European Convention closed on Thursday 12 July. Along with the huge majority of its members, I signed the draft constitution, shook hands with our president Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and went off to lunch.

The Convention was a radical departure from the way things are normally done in Europe. It was large, pluralistic and open, combining in its working methods the best of both parliamentary and diplomatic styles. By involving the European Parliament in constitutional reform it broke a taboo. By involving national parliamentarians, the Convention helped to recruit a new generation of MPs to a better understanding of Europe. By involving representatives of candidate states, the Convention proved to be first-class training ground for the newcomers into the wiles and wherewithal of EU politics. By forcing government ministers to justify their positions in public, the Convention was refreshingly subversive.

The Convention was an historic success. The Union’s values and objectives, clearly set out, are liberal, democratic and progressive. The Constitution, which can be found in full at http://european-convention.eu.int, has clarified who does what in Europe. It strengthens the capacity of the Union to act effectively at home and abroad. It establishes a single legal personality for the EU, and creates a new post of Foreign Minister - a key reform which should allow Europe to speak with more unity and purpose in world affairs.

European citizenship takes a leap forward, protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights which, despite fierce British opposition, will be binding. The untidy jumble of instruments and decision-making procedures has been streamlined. The huge pile of former treaties and protocols is cut down by about two-thirds.

The Council will take many more decisions by qualified majority voting (QMV), and the Parliament’s legislative and budgetary powers have been multiplied. Tortuous arithmetic for establishing QMV has been changed to the simple formula of half the member states representing three-fifths of the population.

The Constitution makes it easier for a core group of member states to go forward faster in any given policy area. The eurogroup is ready and waiting to deepen economic integration. In defence, France and Germany want to lead a number of close partners towards the creation of truly integrated European armed forces.

Many bad ideas were suppressed by the Convention. The British effort to recreate a third legislative chamber made up of national MPs was roundly defeated, as was Giscard’s own plan for a People’s Congress. The UK government’s plan for a super-president of the European Council who would supervise the work of the Council and the Commission has been watered down to such an extent that one should not wait for a rush of job applications.

Of course, not everything in the Constitution is perfect. Some good in principle decisions - notably, the separation of legislative from executive functions - were not carried through to their logical conclusion. While almost everyone spoke in favour of more QMV in the Council, many member states brought their own list of exceptions and derogations. Had it not been for the UK, there would have been more QMV in foreign, fiscal and social policy.

It was my privilege to lead the group of representatives from the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR). We were about 30 strong, drawn mainly from national parliaments, but including representatives of four prime ministers. The Convention certainly succeeded in strengthening the ties that bind together our transnational political party.

The UK government, already marginalised because it invaded Iraq, made few new friends in the Convention. Its ministers, parliamentarians and officials at the Convention appeared leaderless and were not trusted. Nobody bored more for his country than Peter Hain. His catechism of ‘red lines’ drove people to the bar. The British Tories, meanwhile, joined with some Moscow trained anti-Europeans to oppose the consensus.

The British performance at the Convention has given the Constitution an unpropitious reception in Britain. Even the pro-European press in the UK seems uncertain about its significance. The BBC has not climbed out of its Westminster dugout. The Economist trashed it. The Europhobic press has gone bananas: the Daily Mail declares the constitution to be a ‘blueprint for tyranny’. This is anti-democratic and xenophobic stuff.

The outcome of the Convention will certainly be a big issue in next year’s election campaign for the European Parliament. Many want a referendum to be held at the same time. The referendum argument is superficially attractive, especially when set against Mr. Blair’s dismal cop-out on the euro. But beware. If a British referendum were to fail to endorse the new constitution the reform package would be blocked not just for Britain but for all Europe.

Were the government to accept that the UK does not have a moral or political right to block the constitutional progress for the rest of Europe, a referendum would be an option. But the risks are very great. If our partners chose to ratify the Constitution, Britain would have no choice, in the event of a No vote, but to seek a second-class membership of a Union that had been refounded on a constitutional, federal basis. Not an attractive prospect. No euro, no Constitution, no say in the great decisions which will shape our continent in the twenty-first century.