Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1579

This will be affecting us all before too long...
***********************************
Europe’s new shape

Dec 14th 2001
From The Economist Global Agenda


At a summit in Laeken, outside of Brussels, European leaders are meeting to begin the framing of a constitution for an expanding European Union. It will be fiercely argued over

EUROPEAN UNION summits can be dismal and dispiriting affairs. Government leaders often leave them exhausted by the incessant nitpicking, horse-trading and bickering which seem to characterise EU politics. And they often seem to produce little more than communiques which are either too confusing to have much effect or too bland to matter. This year’s summit at Laeken, a suburb of Brussels, which opened on Friday December 14th, has already been overshadowed somewhat by America's war on terrorism.

And yet there is reason to believe that this summit may be different than so many in the past, and really matter. The EU is on the verge of bringing two of its most ambitious plans to fruition. First, in less than three weeks, some of the world’s oldest currencies will disappear, replaced by the euro, a new currency that will serve some 300m people in all but three of the EU’s 15 countries. Second, the momentum is now probably unstoppable towards bringing another ten countries, mostly from Central Europe, into the EU, increasing its area by a quarter and its population by a fifth, within two to three years. With so much on the EU’s agenda, this year’s summiteers cannot afford to be either too bland or too confusing. They have to accomplish something.


Aside from the obligatory discussion of anti-terrorism measures, the EU leaders' top priority will be to set the ball rolling for an extensive series of negotiations leading to a new “European constitution”, designed to overhaul its institutions and decision-making mechanisms to enable it to cope with the influx of so many new members.



Finding the right person for the job of chairing the constitutional convention may prompt a hearty row at Laeken


This process is supposed to be completed by 2004. So, first and foremost, the leaders must decide on the procedure for a constitutional convention—and on who will preside over it. It will start in March. Even about this there will be plenty of politicking.Those in favour of more and faster EU integration want it to finish about a year later and all governments to have signed a new constitutional treaty by the end of 2003. This timetable would have the advantage, from their point of view, of wrapping up the new constitution's final draft while the EU presidency is held by Italy, which by tradition favours integration. It would also prevent negotiations spilling over into the ensuing Irish presidency, which might be bad in the eyes of integrationists, who now suspect the Irish of Euroscepticism. And it would mean that the 15 countries already in the EU would stitch up a deal before newcomers arrive.

The convention's shape is clearer. Just one representative from the European Commission will attend. Another 100-odd delegates will represent national governments and parliaments, the European Parliament and countries trying to join the EU. Turkey, though it has not even begun negotiations to join, is likely to have a voice. A five-strong presidium will oversee the convention's work. Finding the right person for the job of chairing the show may prompt a hearty row at Laeken. The front-runner, despite his 75 years, is Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, a former French president.


AP


Giscard à la barre encore une fois?


But aside from procedures and personnel, the Laeken summit should see EU leaders begin to grapple with the big issues of how to reform the EU. Given the range of opinions, no one can foretell the outcome of the debate, or the constitutional convention. The ambitions of those keenest to bring European countries ever more tightly together are apparent in a “draft declaration” circulated by Guy Verhofstadt, Belgium's prime minister and the summit's host. His letter poses a series of questions. But a disgruntled Scandinavian diplomat says it is “clearly written by someone with a blueprint for a full-fledged federal state in mind”. It floats ideas for creating a “European political area”, such as directly electing the European Commission's president and giving more powers to the European Parliament and to the commission.


Mr Verhofstadt's draft is sure to be revised at Laeken and will in any event be only the first shot in a long campaign. But it shows how widely the future-of-Europe debate will range. When Europe's leaders first agreed to the idea of a constitutional convention, just four issues were mooted: the division of powers between the EU and its countries and regions; the relationship between national parliaments and the EU; the legal status of the EU's recently drafted charter of rights; and the simplification of Europe's many overlapping treaties. Restricting the debate to just four topics was seen as the work of people hostile to tighter integration, in particular Britons and Scandinavians. But, as a senior EU official points out, “Those questions are open to very broad interpretation—and anyway, once the convention gets going in March, it will basically talk about what it likes.”


Still, the big issues at stake have already become plain. The Germans were first to ask for a clearer division of powers to be laid down in a charter of competences, partly because the governments of their 16 Länder (states) feared that Brussels was eroding their powers (to bail out local industry, for instance). So Germany's ruling Social Democrats suggested that Brussels should gain some powers while Europe's nation-states should retain or win back others. The Germans want the EU to play a bigger part in foreign policy, defence and policing. But the Social Democrats' paper also floated the idea of “renationalising” agricultural and regional aid, which accounts for 80% of the EU's budget—for which Germany pays a disproportionate amount. Not surprisingly, the main beneficiaries of EU money, including Spain and France, strongly oppose such a change. The British keenly endorse the idea that powers can be repatriated from the Union.


The role of national parliaments is another big topic for debate. Britain's Tony Blair has proposed a second chamber for the European Parliament that would consist of national MPs to strengthen links between national democracies and European institutions. This idea, however, has gained little favour elsewhere. Officials at the European Commission say that it would just confuse an already complex European administration and that national views are already reflected in the Council of Ministers, which brings together ministers from the 15 national governments. Mr Verhofstadt and the German government have suggested that the council itself should become a “second chamber”, implying that its legislative discussions should be held in public.


A charter of rights has already been drafted, but at the EU's summit a year ago in Nice, Britain stopped it having legal force. The British dislike the charter for going beyond the European Convention on Human Rights, which already has legal force in all EU countries, by adding new “social” rights. Expect the British, now in a minority of one, eventually to give way.


Simplifying the treaties is another item on the menu. European law has been made by a series of treaties signed by each of the countries in the EU. Minimalists say there should be a single, consolidated text. Maximalists want a whole new European constitution to be written. Several other issues, beyond the original big four, will also be discussed. Among these are:


Majority voting. Many people argue that a bigger EU will be unable to function if countries can keep their veto in a wide range of issues. Romano Prodi, the commission's president, thinks any new constitutional arrangements that fail to endorse a big increase in majority voting will be inadequate.


A European president. Mr Verhofstadt wants the commission's president to be directly elected, to strengthen its democratic legitimacy—and its power. Germany and the Benelux countries probably agree. France and Britain are against. Mr Prodi, who wants more integration in most areas, thinks the proposal premature. Others think the commission's president should be elected by the European Parliament.


Foreign policy and judicial affairs. At present, it is mainly governments that run the EU's fledgling foreign policy; the commission has little say. Integrationists want to end this distinction and make the EU's high representative for foreign policy (at present, Javier Solana) the commission's vice-president. And foreign-policy decisions, they say, should be taken by majority vote. Germany would probably favour this idea; Britain and France would oppose it. But the British agree with the Germans that the commission should have more of a say in Europe-wide justice and home affairs, including asylum and immigration.


Direct taxation. Integrationists want to move away from the present system under which individual countries pay for most of the EU's budget. They argue that a direct EU tax, probably a share of sales taxes, would make the Union's finances more open; sotto voce, they note that in the long run that might increase its revenues.

In any event, the convention will not produce a single blueprint for the 15 governments to “take or leave” but a batch of “options”. Moreover, a “firebreak” of a few months will allow time for reflection between the end of the convention and a summit conference where governments will be expected to nail down a final EU constitution.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

OK, this article is a 'prediction' piece. There was no discussion of an EU Constitution, or an expansion of the EUs powers. The outcome of the summit was that it was decided that two much red tape lied in Brussels and that the instituions had to be reformed.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

sp00ky is the euro-perv here, I guess that he will post in this later.

I like a free trade block and I see that for it to work that we need standardisation and some common legislation, but I don't want any more than that. I didn't particularly want the European Convention on Human Rights, although I am not that fussed about it.

Sp00ky made a comment about the inclusion of more countries, that euro-sceptics (like me) want more members because it holds up any move towards federalism (although some europhiles would say that there is no move towards that).

I am loathe to tie, any more than the distribution of our trade dictates, the British economy to some European currencies who have made no moves to alter the fact that their state pension obligations, in the forseeable future, will exceed their GDP. I am not keen to be paying for that. If I was happy that the all of the eurozone economies were sound in the long-term then I would be far less unhappy about joining them in happt monetary union.

EDIT: I see that the euro-perv has already posted.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

there are no moves to federalism. the eurosceptics are no different tot he NWO freaks. The really funny thing is that they say it will be a 'centralised federalist superstate'. errr hello? contradiction in terms. federalism and centralisation are distinctly opposite concepts. Federalism is abiout decentralised power not centralised power. Of course the sceptics never answer to this little point when its mentioned. I wonder why?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: ........
Posts: 15288

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky
a 'centralised federalist superstate'.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalie
Isn't that the way the States is run?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spooky
there are no moves to federalism

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2001
Location: Baton Rouge
Posts: 1579

Actually, federalism refers to a system in which there are multiple levels of governance, each with its own are of authority. It's a federation of multiple entities that agree to yeild certain powers to a centralized government, while retaining other powers for themselves. The American system is federalist. The EU is already federalist, with various European members states having ceded certain economic authority to its centralized (federal) government.

Centralized federal superstate is in no way contradictory. Centralized refers to significant authority resting with the federal government. Federal refers to multiple levels of government each with its own authority. Superstate means it's real big and powerful, like the USA, or like the USSR was, or like Britain was in the 19th Century.

So, to quote Spooky, "errr hello?" Would you try to know a little bit about something before you declare it a "contradiction of terms." Otherwise you just sound real dumb, and I have to lose some respect for your opinion. Oh, and Smug Git, you're really wrong, too. That whole nonsense about "federalism I meant that there would be more central control..." is pretty dumb too (what you described is centralization. That's why you kept having to type the word "central") .

One of you is ignorant saying wrong thing, the other is correcting ignorance with more ignorance. Are you both from the UK? Is there a correlation there?

Leakynips.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35917

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenleakynipples
So, to quote Spooky, "errr hello?" Would you try to know a little bit about something before you declare it a "contradiction of terms." Otherwise you just sound real dumb, and I have to lose some respect for your opinion. Oh, and Smug Git, you're really wrong, too. That whole nonsense about "federalism I meant that there would be more central control..." is pretty dumb too (what you described is centralization. That's why you kept having to type the word "central") .

One of you is ignorant saying wrong thing, the other is correcting ignorance with more ignorance. Are you both from the UK? Is there a correlation there?

Leakynips.

---

Last edited by Smug Git on 12-17-2001 at 02:50 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 7236

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smug Git
As far as sp00ky goes, he derives similar pleasure from reading and thinking through tedious european policy dictates in the same way that most people obtain pleasure from more normal reading matter (like pornography, say) and accusing him of ignorance in this matter is somewhat risible.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged