European officials set forth a European Constitution without consulting the rest of the E.U. citizenry. Here, some citizens respond with an alternative proposal.
RISQ Presents: The People's Constitution for the European Union (PCEU), an initiative of Murien and Oscar ten Houten, in co-operation with RISQ Associate John Morijn.
Author: Oscar ten Houten
As of next year, the former Iron Curtain will be but an internal border of the European Union. At last, Europe will be united as a continent, FROM Cyprus to the Arctic Circle and FROM the Atlantic Ocean to the gates of St.Petersburg. It will be a symbolic unification of East and West. Still, there are some hurdles to take and problems to solve, for how can a Union of 25 member states be governed in a transparent, effective, and democratic fashion?
The initiative to lay a Constitution at the basis of the European Union would seem, therefore, to offer a perfect opportunity to solve such problems, provided that member states would SHOW that they were serious about the unification of Europe. A historic opportunity, most people agree.
Regretfully, though, those interested in 'Europe', make up a very small minority. Generally, citizens do not really care about Europe. Hardly anyone knows how the Union works, who is in charge, what the difference is between the Council and the Commission or, for that matter, what the European Parliament does.
There is a huge gap between citizens and the European Union - and neither politicians nor the media have done much to close it. Few citizens realise that about sixty percent of so-called 'national legislation' originates, directly or indirectly, FROM Brussels - and even those who do tend to shrug their shoulders.
It is unlikely that the Constitution proposed by Giscard D'Estaing is capable of changing this reality. Granted, the shift of power FROM national parliaments to Brussels is a trend confirmed by Giscard's Constitution. However, his proposal does not make clear enough how this power ought to be divided and how administrators are to be democratically controlled.
Heads of State, HAVING a mandate in their own country to preside over the executive branch, would still remain part of the European legislature, as members of the Council in Brussels. Behind closed doors, they would still be able to make decisions affecting almost 500 million Europeans, while the body meant to represent all these people, the European Parliament, would continue to play only a minor role. True, the Parliament would get some more power, but not enough to turn it INTO what it should be in a democratic society--that is, the most important legislative body. Also the European president heading the Council, would not be elected by the people but would, instead, be appointed by the Council. As for the Commission's position as executive: this would not be decided upon until 2009, at best.
All in all, then, the proposed European Constitution continues to uphold the structure of today's Europe. Here and there, things would be reconstructed or extended but, overall, it pretty much remains the same building. Thus, we would end up with a European Council, a Council of Ministers, a Minister for Foreign Affairs, a vice-president of the Commission, a General Affairs Council but also a Commission whose President also attends Council meetings-- and somewhere in between all that a European Parliament with some decision-making power, albeit mostly in a 'supportive', 'co-ordinating' and 'advisory' role. In short, citizens' interest in Europe will most probably not increase over the next few years, whereas more and more decisions will be made by this redesigned bureaucratic whirlpool residing in Brussels.
The Convention's proposal has failed to present a clear European Union to the citizens. It's true that its first article states that the Constitution is inspired by the 'will of the citizens', but even if that were really the case, it clearly has not been written for those very citizens. It is a boring and much too voluminous piece that fails to choose between a Europe as a loose treaty organisation and an integrated European Union. Least of all, does it project a vision of a democratic Europe. It is clearly a compromise between national states; a text in which things are left in the middle as if no agreement could be reached.
Of course, it is a very delicate exercise to balance different national interests, in ORDER to find a compromise. The point is, however, that a Constitution should not be drafted in this way. It should be addressed to the citizens of Europe, and set out FROM the general interest. Therefore, it would be nothing short of just, if the citizens of a Union that aspires to be democratic were to be involved in the creation of their Constitution and the determination of their own political destiny !
If only to SHOW that it is possible to draft a Constitution that is better written and more to the point, we drafted an alternative crafting it the way we, as citizens, would want it to be. Our draft describes the foundations of the EU and the rights and freedoms of the citizens, on the one hand and, on the other, outlines a transparent, democratic Union, in which every constitutional body has its own DISTINCT role and competence. Parliament and Senate representing, respectively, the people and the member states, together form the legislature, while the executive power will be vested in a European Government, consisting of a core cabinet and the heads of member states.
The “People's Constitution for the European Union” is a concise, readable and lasting Constitution that could form a firm legal foundation for a Europe that is more responsive to its citizens. With the PCEU, we hope to inspire people to take part more actively in a discussion about how they, as citizens, would like Europe to become.
Translation FROM the original Dutch version in co-operation with RISQ Associate John Morijn.
My Headlines | Newsfeeds in your mailbox!
Full Draft Text
