To act upon the ‘powerful and wide mandate of examining why Europe’s citizens feel alienated from the European Union’, the authors would rather prefer a simplification of a different kind, namely stepping back for more critical reflection about the EU’s achievements to date.

Initiatives like these are not likely to find much backing among the generally pro-integration members of the European Convention. Yet, the authors are correct in their analysis that simplification covers up underlying premises. Simplification -- getting rid of the useless and reorganising what is left -- implies a value-judgment about what is to be scratched out and what to be kept. In that light, even from an integrationist point of view, it is worthwhile keeping an eye on this. One could question whether the apparent ‘the simpler, the better’ premise for treaty texts is justified in view of the current process and previous experiences.

Heavenly Supra-Democracy

To understand the work and approach of the European Convention, it is necessary to step back in time. In their December 2001 Laeken Declaration, EU Heads of States and Government acknowledged their citizens’ desire for a ‘clear, open, effective, democratically controlled Community approach (..) that provides concrete results in terms of more jobs, better quality of life, less crime, decent education and better health’. The current Convention was set up to act upon this ‘Perfect Government’-doctrine and think about ways to renew and reform the EU to embody the traditional participation/efficiency dichotomy in a more balanced way.

And, indeed, the ‘clear, open and democratic’ now seems reflected in the actual working of the Convention. The decision-making structure is clear (after initial deliberations the Convention split up into issue-focused working groups, the final reports of which are currently being knitted together in a Draft Constitutional Treaty under discussion), open (most deliberations being accessible to the public, and citizens being given the opportunity to contribute to the drafting process through numerous online discussion forums) and democratic (citizens being represented both through members of their national parliament and their European Parliament). Overall a uniquely democratic and citizen involving process.

Never Change a Winning Dream

The reality is different. The density of deliberations and meetings, the sheer number of contributions (on the online forums) and over(t)ly single-issue focus of many of them, the lack of (up-to-date) knowledge of European affairs of many of the Convention’s members, and the tight deadline -- it all sits rather uneasily with the desire for a simple and coherent final text. As a result, the real power is concentrated in the Convention’s Praesidium and Secretariat.

This will not be surprising to EU insiders. The same occured within the Convention’s predecessor and blueprint that drafted the EU human rights catalogue. The crucial articles about its scope, for example, were drafted at the last minute by but a few experts of the Secretariat. It does leave us with the observation that the Praesidium and Secretariat are the sources to generate the wanted simpler texts.

Simple Enough?

Are European citizens then at least to expect these? Probably. The problem is that there is no per se reason to be enthusiastic about simplification of texts. Reasoning from a simplicity rationale carries the danger of leading to a logic of reinventing the wheel. Worse, it creates an unnecessary atmosphere of suspicion towards everything accomplished over 50 years of European integration. But high citizen protection can be devilishly subtle and hellishly detailed. Very recently the president of the Court of Justice explicitly pointed at this in the context of simplification (CONV 572/03).

Is this a theoretical concern only? No. The same EU human rights Charter - not yet binding, but often referred to - is a good example to illustrate the potential danger inherent in simplicity-driven revisions. The document intended to consolidate in a single text the already existing human rights of EU citizens (now to be found in disparate sources) vis-à-vis EU institutions, simplifying the language of the norms in the same go. And so it did, to the delight of many. Rights are certainly drafted in short sentences, and in clear and simple language.

However, one does not have to be a lawyer to understand that the less is written, the more will be left to the imagination (and therefore discretion) of officials (having to interpret it while) using it. And such use will not necessarily be above the current level of protection. Judges reacting to acts based on this ‘less is more’ human rights document - and wanting to make sure they provide the ‘more’ - will only be able to find interpretative guidance in the sources at the origin of the simplification. In short, the protection system would be even more complicated. Remember the clear and simple. And currently the European Convention discusses modes for making it binding…

Cherishing the Invisible

Nobody doubts that there is a need for greater simplicity of the EU’s founding texts. However, as it is a very difficult exercise to cut out dead wood resulting from overlapping and outdated regulation without harming what has been achieved thus far, it should be left to experts. All the more so since the open letter mentioned earlier was correct in analysing that simplification is not a neutral exercise. The fact that the Convention’s Secretariat recently established a group of legal service members to deal with this delicate exercise suggests attention for not throwing out the baby with the water (CONV 529/03). And rightly so. For the sake of European citizens, the ‘Europe of the citizen’ should be about bringing the citizen to the text, not about bringing the text to the citizen.