New-look constitution is the biggest diplomatic challenge facing the EU

AFTER the euphoria of the Eurofest and Berlin declaration to celebrate the EU’s 50th anniversary at the weekend, it’s back to real politics for member states and their political leaders.

They need to come up with a new-look constitution that covers how the EU is managed and what it can do as soon as possible, but above all will be ratified by all member states. The first time they tried to answer criticism that the union was not democratic was by setting up a convention of three government and opposition politicians from every national government to draw up the new treaty in the full light of day.

Every country fought for what they wanted included or omitted and the result covered most of what was needed to allow the union to operate in the modern world. The leaders promised it would end the succession of treaties from the EU for 20 years at least. But the French and Dutch scuppered that one and despite 17 of the 27 countries having voted to accept the constitution, it is back in the melting pot. It looks, however, like attempts to deliver democratic accountability through a multi-national convention made up of elected representatives has been declared a failure.

So instead they will re-model the constitution as a treaty of sorts this year. So far this formula has produced with a minimum of fuss the Berlin Declaration that resulted in little more than mild grumbling from EU leaders in Berlin. This formula has been accused of lacking democratic accountability — but so was the convention.

One French socialist argued that those in power should not be allowed to construct the rules that would perhaps keep them in power. He believed the constitution should be drawn up by people — but they must not be elected otherwise they have been granted a measure of power. Like many who do not simply like the constitution or the EU, he refuses to acknowledge representative democracy as democracy. Then the Polish president insisted the whole voting arrangements must be changed to give his country more clout.

In the end it is difficult to fault the German presidency for concluding that the only way to continue is through the expediency of dealing with a number of professional civil servants who are in touch with their government’s policies.

They want to avoid the ailment that plaques the EU — where politicians co-operate behind the scenes but play to domestic politics in the open.

There is a danger that in the end a new treaty would deal with just the emergency issues forcing the union to devise new ways of coping with the pressure of globalisation and the increasing demands of national governments. The Portuguese hope that when they take over the presidency in June they will have an agenda with a very long list of what everyone agrees must remain in the constitution and a short list of what must be adjusted.

Then what must surely be one of the biggest diplomatic challenges faced by the EU will begin and will be followed by the biggest political challenge of getting it agreed by citizens either in referenda or in parliament in time for the June 2009 elections.