The year is 1787 and Charlemagne, the delegate from Rhode Island – overlooked by the history books – returns to his island state after the closure of the Philadelphia Convention, where the framers of the US Constitution have replaced the decade old Articles of Confederation (1777), subject to ratification by nine states.
Charlemagne’s paper (The Economist) does not agree with the federal vision of the Founding Fathers. On his return, he sketches a few preliminary thoughts for his coming Anti-Federalist Papers. He rejects polygamy, marrying all one’s colleagues, nationalism, European level democracy and soggy corporatist versions of Rhineland capitalism.
Luckily, the leading lights among the framers saw into the future, and Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay explained the reasons for federal government in The Federalist Papers.
If it was possible to legislate an American “demos” and a republican, federal system into being in 1787 to replace the sovereign states – without precedents – it begs the question why extending democratic governance to the European level should be insurmountable in the 21st century.
Charlemagne may be right about states being tetchy about being outvoted, but it is a false dichotomy. A federal system is based on citizens: sovereignty of the people (except in Britain).
As citizens we are outvoted daily, at local, regional and state level, although majorities rule and minorities are protected. Adding the EU level would not make much difference in our daily lives, but the advantages of a united foreign and security policy, and defence, should be obvious.
We already have EU citizenship. Only full political rights in a system of representative democracy are missing.
Silently I wonder what the WW1 and WW2 fate of Britain would have been, if the Founding Fathers had lacked continental vision, or if the former colonies had bought the anti-federalist arguments, failing to ratify the Constitution.
Charlemagne needs to take a leap of more than two centuries to catch up with Europe’s global challenges. Let us hope that the coming posts at least set out on this journey.
Source: Charlemagne’s notebook: The secret selfishness of federalists (28 December 2009)
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Read Coulisses de Bruxelles, by Jean Quatremer, and other great euroblogs listed on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu, our common “village well” for fact, opinion and gossip on European affairs.
Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Constitution. Show all posts
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Thanksgiving from EU
Thanksgiving is an opportunity to express gratitude. From the perspective of a citizen of the European Union, there are a few things I would like to thank the United States for:
• The Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ─ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…
• The wisdom to abandon the Articles of Confederation after only a decade of a confederation of states.
• The wisdom of the Philadelphia Convention on 17 September 1787 to agree on the Constitution of the United States of America.
• James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who wrote The Federalist Papers (1787-1788).
It took much more vision and courage to establish a republican, federal system of government more than 200 years ago in America, almost without models, than it would take to build a democratic federation in 21st century Europe.
Thank you USA for showing us that.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
• The Declaration of Independence 4 July 1776: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ─ That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…
• The wisdom to abandon the Articles of Confederation after only a decade of a confederation of states.
• The wisdom of the Philadelphia Convention on 17 September 1787 to agree on the Constitution of the United States of America.
• James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, who wrote The Federalist Papers (1787-1788).
It took much more vision and courage to establish a republican, federal system of government more than 200 years ago in America, almost without models, than it would take to build a democratic federation in 21st century Europe.
Thank you USA for showing us that.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. Do you find EUSSR myths fascinating? Are we EU citizens worth a better European Union? Read some or all of the 481 Euroblogs aggregated on multilingual Bloggingportal.eu. On most of the blogs you can comment and discuss our common European future.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
USA & EU: Fathers founding and confounding
Tony Barber wrote The EU, the US founding fathers and the “last word” on the FT Brussels blog (20 April 2009) as if astonished that the Treaty of Lisbon could not and should not be the last word on EU reform.
The difference between America and Europe is that the US founding fathers wrote one unworkable blueprint, the Articles of Confederation, before they agreed on a robust Constitution a decade later. Fast learners with guts.
The European member states have tinkered with reform since 1950, and have achieved volumes of rules and exceptions. They are still a long way from a union either effective or democratic, although the European Union is exceptional among treaty based international organisations.
Individual leaders of EU member states have said that the European Union should take a break from institutional reform after the Treaty of Lisbon, but I am not aware of any solemn promises binding on the EU.
Anyway, to give such assurances would be stupid, especially if the leaders have analysed the shape of world affairs.
In effect a promised moratorium would be an undertaking to let Europe continue its slide into oblivion from the world scene. Well, it would not be the first former great civilisation in world history to do so (normally unwittingly), but is that in the interest of EU citizens?
Credit to Andrew Duff for stating the obvious.
Ralf Grahn
The difference between America and Europe is that the US founding fathers wrote one unworkable blueprint, the Articles of Confederation, before they agreed on a robust Constitution a decade later. Fast learners with guts.
The European member states have tinkered with reform since 1950, and have achieved volumes of rules and exceptions. They are still a long way from a union either effective or democratic, although the European Union is exceptional among treaty based international organisations.
Individual leaders of EU member states have said that the European Union should take a break from institutional reform after the Treaty of Lisbon, but I am not aware of any solemn promises binding on the EU.
Anyway, to give such assurances would be stupid, especially if the leaders have analysed the shape of world affairs.
In effect a promised moratorium would be an undertaking to let Europe continue its slide into oblivion from the world scene. Well, it would not be the first former great civilisation in world history to do so (normally unwittingly), but is that in the interest of EU citizens?
Credit to Andrew Duff for stating the obvious.
Ralf Grahn
Sunday, 30 November 2008
Europe: Dismal trends 2025
European security and prosperity 101 or the Why’s of EU reform, courtesy of the United States of America.
This is what the European leaders have failed to grasp, to agree on or at least to communicate. It is also the reason why the anti-EU campaigners are completely wrong and why the euroscepticism or indifference of large segments of EU citizens is contributing to our declining prospects.
The US National Intelligence Council (NIC) report Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (November 2008) speaks plainly about the problems facing Europe (page 32 to 33). This is the opening paragraph on Europe:
“Europe: Losing Clout in 2025. We believe Europe by 2025 will have made slow progress toward achieving the vision of current leaders and elites: a cohesive, integrated, and influential global actor able to employ independently a full spectrum of political, economic, and military tools in support of European and Western interests and universal ideals. The European Union would need to resolve a perceived democracy gap dividing Brussels from European voters and move past the protracted debate about its institutional structures.”
***
Comment
I agree that the European Union needs to become a cohesive, integrated, and influential global actor able to employ independently a full spectrum of political, economic, and military tools in support of European and Western interests and universal ideals.
I also agree that this is the rhetorical aim of a fair number of the current European leaders and elites. But in the real world the expanded European Union has become even more unwieldy and weak where it matters.
What used to be the “French paradox” – willing the results without willing the means – has become the general state of affairs in an increasingly intergovernmentalist European Union.
The greatness of the US Constitution and the explanatory Federalist Papers lies in the (rough) correspondence between the objectives and the means.
Time and again, the national European leaders have baulked at giving the European Community (European Union) the means to enhance the security and the prosperity of European citizens.
How did our leaders respond to the European Defence Community and the European (Politcal) Community? How did their ‘vision’ manifest itself, when they received the Spinelli draft Constitution? How did they act at the European Convention and during the preceding and subsequent intergovernmental conferences?
Instead of real powers, where they count, the national political leaders have sought to preserve their own playing-grounds while tinkering with institutional EU reform. They have shown every sign of wanting to put the protracted debate about EU institutional structures behind them, if they manage to get the Lisbon Treaty into force, but the Treaty of Lisbon falls glaringly short of making the European Union a coherent world player.
The current treaties and the Lisbon Treaty are the European Articles of Confederation, not only with regard to the insufficient powers, but because of the lack of democratic legitimacy.
The problem is graver than a ‘perceived democracy gap’. The so called double legitimacy of the European Union, primarily founded on member states, but with sops to the citizens, is artificial.
Real powers require real democracy. It is as simple as that.
Naturally, we can continue to debate whether the national leaders in Europe have failed to grasp the obvious, or if their efforts to communicate their European vision have fallen flat, or if their overriding concern is to preserve their own prerogatives.
The existing EU reform treaties, the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are what the European national leaders have managed to agree on and the ‘vision’ they have communicated. These are the facts on which we as citizens can judge.
In my view, the NIC report ascribes to the current European leaders and elites a vision they simply do not have.
The fact remains: Only profound reform can arrest and reverse the decline of the European Union in world affairs.
There is no room for the unanimity rule – the liberum veto – if we EU citizens as a whole want safety and prosperity in the 21st century.
We need a European Union based on its citizens, an elected European Parliament with general powers and a politically accountable executive.
I invite the current European leaders and elites to communicate and to enact this vision.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
US National Intelligence Council (NIC):
Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (November 2008)
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
This is what the European leaders have failed to grasp, to agree on or at least to communicate. It is also the reason why the anti-EU campaigners are completely wrong and why the euroscepticism or indifference of large segments of EU citizens is contributing to our declining prospects.
The US National Intelligence Council (NIC) report Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (November 2008) speaks plainly about the problems facing Europe (page 32 to 33). This is the opening paragraph on Europe:
“Europe: Losing Clout in 2025. We believe Europe by 2025 will have made slow progress toward achieving the vision of current leaders and elites: a cohesive, integrated, and influential global actor able to employ independently a full spectrum of political, economic, and military tools in support of European and Western interests and universal ideals. The European Union would need to resolve a perceived democracy gap dividing Brussels from European voters and move past the protracted debate about its institutional structures.”
***
Comment
I agree that the European Union needs to become a cohesive, integrated, and influential global actor able to employ independently a full spectrum of political, economic, and military tools in support of European and Western interests and universal ideals.
I also agree that this is the rhetorical aim of a fair number of the current European leaders and elites. But in the real world the expanded European Union has become even more unwieldy and weak where it matters.
What used to be the “French paradox” – willing the results without willing the means – has become the general state of affairs in an increasingly intergovernmentalist European Union.
The greatness of the US Constitution and the explanatory Federalist Papers lies in the (rough) correspondence between the objectives and the means.
Time and again, the national European leaders have baulked at giving the European Community (European Union) the means to enhance the security and the prosperity of European citizens.
How did our leaders respond to the European Defence Community and the European (Politcal) Community? How did their ‘vision’ manifest itself, when they received the Spinelli draft Constitution? How did they act at the European Convention and during the preceding and subsequent intergovernmental conferences?
Instead of real powers, where they count, the national political leaders have sought to preserve their own playing-grounds while tinkering with institutional EU reform. They have shown every sign of wanting to put the protracted debate about EU institutional structures behind them, if they manage to get the Lisbon Treaty into force, but the Treaty of Lisbon falls glaringly short of making the European Union a coherent world player.
The current treaties and the Lisbon Treaty are the European Articles of Confederation, not only with regard to the insufficient powers, but because of the lack of democratic legitimacy.
The problem is graver than a ‘perceived democracy gap’. The so called double legitimacy of the European Union, primarily founded on member states, but with sops to the citizens, is artificial.
Real powers require real democracy. It is as simple as that.
Naturally, we can continue to debate whether the national leaders in Europe have failed to grasp the obvious, or if their efforts to communicate their European vision have fallen flat, or if their overriding concern is to preserve their own prerogatives.
The existing EU reform treaties, the Constitutional Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty are what the European national leaders have managed to agree on and the ‘vision’ they have communicated. These are the facts on which we as citizens can judge.
In my view, the NIC report ascribes to the current European leaders and elites a vision they simply do not have.
The fact remains: Only profound reform can arrest and reverse the decline of the European Union in world affairs.
There is no room for the unanimity rule – the liberum veto – if we EU citizens as a whole want safety and prosperity in the 21st century.
We need a European Union based on its citizens, an elected European Parliament with general powers and a politically accountable executive.
I invite the current European leaders and elites to communicate and to enact this vision.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
US National Intelligence Council (NIC):
Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World (November 2008)
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
Friday, 4 July 2008
Government and consent
The Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, is still an evocative document:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The first attempt to institute this government between the thirteen states on a surer footing was the Articles of Confederation, 9 July 1778, but showing even more structural weaknesses than the present day European Union.
The Americans were quicker on the uptake than the Europeans, so on 17 September 1787 the Philadelphia Convention agreed upon the Constitution of the United States of America:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
***
Yes, with distractions like the War of Independence, it took the Americans about a decade to lay the democratic and federal foundations for the rise to economic and military world power.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Congratulations.
What has Europe to celebrate this 4 July 2008?
Ralf Grahn
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The first attempt to institute this government between the thirteen states on a surer footing was the Articles of Confederation, 9 July 1778, but showing even more structural weaknesses than the present day European Union.
The Americans were quicker on the uptake than the Europeans, so on 17 September 1787 the Philadelphia Convention agreed upon the Constitution of the United States of America:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
***
Yes, with distractions like the War of Independence, it took the Americans about a decade to lay the democratic and federal foundations for the rise to economic and military world power.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Congratulations.
What has Europe to celebrate this 4 July 2008?
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 23 June 2008
EU democracy and US Bill of Rights
James Madison penned the Bill of Rights, approved by the First United States Congress in 1791. When proposed, the first ten amendments (additions) to the US Constitution aimed to secure the ratification of the Constitution, still a bone of contention between Federalists and anti-Federalists.
The birth and life of the US Constitution is a recommended reading subject for anyone interested in a Europe able to protect its citizens in a changing world.
A glimpse at the ‘United States Bill of Rights’ development is offered by the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
***
My present fascination with the subject stems from another ratification process, the one concerning the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Built on the sand of unanimous ratification, I had long ago labelled the passage of the Lisbon Treaty (and future treaties on the same premises) a ‘mission impossible’. Today we know for sure that the number of ratifications will fall short of 27. What we don’t know is, by how much.
It would be surprising if the Irish changed their minds within six months or a year, if asked the same question again.
***
Despite the unanimous agreement between member states’ governments and the crushing voting records of most ratifying national parliaments, something is rotten in the state of the union, despite the legally binding ratifications.
Popular opinion is headed in a negative direction, fluctuating between cynicism and outright hostility. Pro-European intellectuals, free to speak their mind, are disillusioned to the core.
Hard of hearing, the European Council has only procrastinated and indicated a re-run in Ireland.
This is deliberately avoiding the root causes.
Even if the substance of the Lisbon Treaty could be salvaged, by most member states, the holes below the water-line put the whole European project at risk.
The European ‘Bill of Rights’ is radical democratic reform to re-establish the necessary ties between the governing and the governed.
There is time enough to devise the essentials of democratic EU reform and to make the European elections 2009 a turning-point in setting the course for the European Union.
Where is Europe’s James Madison?
Ralf Grahn
The birth and life of the US Constitution is a recommended reading subject for anyone interested in a Europe able to protect its citizens in a changing world.
A glimpse at the ‘United States Bill of Rights’ development is offered by the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
***
My present fascination with the subject stems from another ratification process, the one concerning the EU Treaty of Lisbon.
Built on the sand of unanimous ratification, I had long ago labelled the passage of the Lisbon Treaty (and future treaties on the same premises) a ‘mission impossible’. Today we know for sure that the number of ratifications will fall short of 27. What we don’t know is, by how much.
It would be surprising if the Irish changed their minds within six months or a year, if asked the same question again.
***
Despite the unanimous agreement between member states’ governments and the crushing voting records of most ratifying national parliaments, something is rotten in the state of the union, despite the legally binding ratifications.
Popular opinion is headed in a negative direction, fluctuating between cynicism and outright hostility. Pro-European intellectuals, free to speak their mind, are disillusioned to the core.
Hard of hearing, the European Council has only procrastinated and indicated a re-run in Ireland.
This is deliberately avoiding the root causes.
Even if the substance of the Lisbon Treaty could be salvaged, by most member states, the holes below the water-line put the whole European project at risk.
The European ‘Bill of Rights’ is radical democratic reform to re-establish the necessary ties between the governing and the governed.
There is time enough to devise the essentials of democratic EU reform and to make the European elections 2009 a turning-point in setting the course for the European Union.
Where is Europe’s James Madison?
Ralf Grahn
Saturday, 21 June 2008
Lisbon Treaty and democratic reform
Even if the EU Treaty of Lisbon is an improvement on the current Treaty of Nice for anyone who cares about a European Union working better, we can ask if ‘getting around’ the Irish rejection is the right remedy.
The referendum outcome may be both deplorable and unwise, but the Irish voters should be treated as adults. They live with their decision, until they are ready to make a new one, without being force-fed.
At this moment I think that it is improbable that the voters in Ireland would endorse any conceivable add-ons in the form of declarations. The attitudes might even harden, resulting in embarrassment for the government, the European Council and the European Union in general.
Failing that, an amicable solution may be found. Ireland, perhaps the Czech Republic and some others, might be persuaded to let the willing states proceed on the basis of substance of the Lisbon Treaty. But can we bet on such an outcome, and could it be done without an amending treaty? In the end, the countries wanting to move ahead could establish a new union, if they have to and if they have the will.
***
The parliamentary ratifications show a strong voting record in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. In my view, representative democracy is clearly superior to plebiscites in scrutinising and approving international treaties, including the EU ones.
At the same time, the anti-EU sentiments are gathering force because of the methods used and contemplated to enact EU treaty reform.
Strong as the sentiments are, the motives behind them are misguided. The main idea seems to be to wreck the process and to debilitate the European Union.
A feeble European Union is less able to enhance the security and prosperity of EU citizens. It is an illusion to imagine that global challenges and European level questions could effectively be handled by re-exporting them to the national governments and parliaments.
Therefore, it lies in our collective interest that the substance of the Treaty of Lisbon, with its modest reforms, is allowed to enter into force.
***
But the handling of the ratification processes is damaging for the relationship between the national leaders, the European Council and the European Union on the one hand and large swathes of EU citizens on the other hand.
This does not augur well for the future of the European project. Legitimacy is a core problem, and it is not being addressed adequately within the present parameters.
***
During the ratification process of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights was introduced and put in place as soon as the new union commenced work.
Europe needs something of the kind.
Democratic accountability in EU affairs can not be achieved by the present dual character of the European Union, and the national level is not an effective answer.
Therefore, the substance of the Lisbon Treaty as an initial foundation, needs the additional change of the European Union into a democratic polity.
The European “Bill of Rights” would be this qualitative jump, as a solemn undertaking by the member states.
They need to understand that all EU affairs have to emanate from the EU’s citizens, to be exercised by their elected representatives and with a politically responsible government.
This is the crucial reform principle to prepare during the coming months, jointly with the efforts to bring the Lisbon Treaty reforms into force.
The democratic principle is not only a groundbreaking novelty. It goes against the intergovernmentalist credo of a number of member states.
Therefore, putting it into practice would require some member states to embrace democracy as the only viable option for the 21st century, knowing that they would have to leave a number of recalcitrant members behind.
In other words, two major shifts are needed: The full adoption of the principle of EU level representative democracy and the sacrifice of EU unity (one-speed Europe) in favour of a legitimate union.
But what is the alternative? Growing popular disillusionment, hardening resistance, blocked future reform and ultimate failure. The writing is on the wall.
The democratic European Union is worth the sacrifice of two current principles of lesser value.
In short, we need the substance of the Lisbon Treaty, but not without a ground-breaking democratic reform.
Ralf Grahn
,
The referendum outcome may be both deplorable and unwise, but the Irish voters should be treated as adults. They live with their decision, until they are ready to make a new one, without being force-fed.
At this moment I think that it is improbable that the voters in Ireland would endorse any conceivable add-ons in the form of declarations. The attitudes might even harden, resulting in embarrassment for the government, the European Council and the European Union in general.
Failing that, an amicable solution may be found. Ireland, perhaps the Czech Republic and some others, might be persuaded to let the willing states proceed on the basis of substance of the Lisbon Treaty. But can we bet on such an outcome, and could it be done without an amending treaty? In the end, the countries wanting to move ahead could establish a new union, if they have to and if they have the will.
***
The parliamentary ratifications show a strong voting record in favour of the Lisbon Treaty. In my view, representative democracy is clearly superior to plebiscites in scrutinising and approving international treaties, including the EU ones.
At the same time, the anti-EU sentiments are gathering force because of the methods used and contemplated to enact EU treaty reform.
Strong as the sentiments are, the motives behind them are misguided. The main idea seems to be to wreck the process and to debilitate the European Union.
A feeble European Union is less able to enhance the security and prosperity of EU citizens. It is an illusion to imagine that global challenges and European level questions could effectively be handled by re-exporting them to the national governments and parliaments.
Therefore, it lies in our collective interest that the substance of the Treaty of Lisbon, with its modest reforms, is allowed to enter into force.
***
But the handling of the ratification processes is damaging for the relationship between the national leaders, the European Council and the European Union on the one hand and large swathes of EU citizens on the other hand.
This does not augur well for the future of the European project. Legitimacy is a core problem, and it is not being addressed adequately within the present parameters.
***
During the ratification process of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights was introduced and put in place as soon as the new union commenced work.
Europe needs something of the kind.
Democratic accountability in EU affairs can not be achieved by the present dual character of the European Union, and the national level is not an effective answer.
Therefore, the substance of the Lisbon Treaty as an initial foundation, needs the additional change of the European Union into a democratic polity.
The European “Bill of Rights” would be this qualitative jump, as a solemn undertaking by the member states.
They need to understand that all EU affairs have to emanate from the EU’s citizens, to be exercised by their elected representatives and with a politically responsible government.
This is the crucial reform principle to prepare during the coming months, jointly with the efforts to bring the Lisbon Treaty reforms into force.
The democratic principle is not only a groundbreaking novelty. It goes against the intergovernmentalist credo of a number of member states.
Therefore, putting it into practice would require some member states to embrace democracy as the only viable option for the 21st century, knowing that they would have to leave a number of recalcitrant members behind.
In other words, two major shifts are needed: The full adoption of the principle of EU level representative democracy and the sacrifice of EU unity (one-speed Europe) in favour of a legitimate union.
But what is the alternative? Growing popular disillusionment, hardening resistance, blocked future reform and ultimate failure. The writing is on the wall.
The democratic European Union is worth the sacrifice of two current principles of lesser value.
In short, we need the substance of the Lisbon Treaty, but not without a ground-breaking democratic reform.
Ralf Grahn
,
Wednesday, 9 January 2008
EU Treaty of Lisbon: Foreign and security policy
One the one hand, the governments of the Member States of the European Union find it necessary to join their forces by creating a common foreign and security policy (CFSP), including a common security and defence policy (CSDP). On the other hand, these same governments are loath to give up their formal sovereignty. Therefore, in addition to the amended Treaty provisions, including requirements for unanimous decisions, they agree on a joint declaration, which says, in effect, that they can continue to do what they very well please.
The amended Treaty on European Union (TEU) has to be read in conjunction with Declaration (number 13) concerning the common foreign and security policy:
“The Conference underlines that the provisions in the Treaty on European Union covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the creation of the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Establishment of an External Action Service, do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States, as they currently exist, for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy nor of their national representation in third countries and international organisations.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.
It stresses that the European Union and its Member States will remain bound by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, by the primary responsibility of the Security Council and of its Members for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
***
Your glossator is caught thinking that such inconsistencies translate into weaknesses. Dealing with the great and rising powers of the world will continue to be based on the eventual good will of the Member States of the EU.
The declaration seems to be unclear enough to offer an escape route for almost any occasion, should a Member State choose to distance itself from the common efforts to achieve a consistent EU policy. Every Member State would seem to be able to release itself from responsibility concerning the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy in general and its national representation in third countries and international organisations, as well as in all questions pertaining to the “specific character” (whatever that is) of its security and defence policy. A special escape clause seems to be on offer for the members of the Security Council of the United Nations, especially the permanent members France and the United Kingdom.
On this basis, is the Reform Treaty going to create a “superstate”, a “superpower”, a “great power” or a “great regional power”?
What do the coming arrangements resemble more, the Constitution of the United States of America (1787) or the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Continental Congress, which nearly lost the colonies the war for independence?
***
The IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 15) said: The second Chapter contains the provisions of Title V of the existing TEU, as amended in the 2004 IGC (including the European External Action Service and the permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence). In this Chapter, a new first Article will be inserted stating that the Union’s action on the international scene will be guided by the principles, will pursue the objectives and will be conducted in accordance with the general provisions on the Union’s external action which are laid down in Chapter 1. (Footnote 6 contained the text of the declaration mentioned above.)
After Chapter 1 General provisions on the Union’s external action, follows Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy. The new first Article (10c TEU) in Chapter 2 refers to the provisions in Chapter 1, and it forms a bridge between the two chapters. .
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306), Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy, Section 1 Common provisions, inserts an Article 10c TEU.
Article 10c
The Union’s action on the international scene, pursuant to this Chapter, shall be guided by the principles, shall pursue the objectives of, and be conducted in accordance with, the general provisions laid down in Chapter 1.
***
Next time we turn to the CFSP competence of the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
The amended Treaty on European Union (TEU) has to be read in conjunction with Declaration (number 13) concerning the common foreign and security policy:
“The Conference underlines that the provisions in the Treaty on European Union covering the Common Foreign and Security Policy, including the creation of the office of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Establishment of an External Action Service, do not affect the responsibilities of the Member States, as they currently exist, for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy nor of their national representation in third countries and international organisations.
The Conference also recalls that the provisions governing the Common Security and Defence Policy do not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of the Member States.
It stresses that the European Union and its Member States will remain bound by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and, in particular, by the primary responsibility of the Security Council and of its Members for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
***
Your glossator is caught thinking that such inconsistencies translate into weaknesses. Dealing with the great and rising powers of the world will continue to be based on the eventual good will of the Member States of the EU.
The declaration seems to be unclear enough to offer an escape route for almost any occasion, should a Member State choose to distance itself from the common efforts to achieve a consistent EU policy. Every Member State would seem to be able to release itself from responsibility concerning the formulation and conduct of its foreign policy in general and its national representation in third countries and international organisations, as well as in all questions pertaining to the “specific character” (whatever that is) of its security and defence policy. A special escape clause seems to be on offer for the members of the Security Council of the United Nations, especially the permanent members France and the United Kingdom.
On this basis, is the Reform Treaty going to create a “superstate”, a “superpower”, a “great power” or a “great regional power”?
What do the coming arrangements resemble more, the Constitution of the United States of America (1787) or the Articles of Confederation (1778) and the Continental Congress, which nearly lost the colonies the war for independence?
***
The IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 15) said: The second Chapter contains the provisions of Title V of the existing TEU, as amended in the 2004 IGC (including the European External Action Service and the permanent structured cooperation in the field of defence). In this Chapter, a new first Article will be inserted stating that the Union’s action on the international scene will be guided by the principles, will pursue the objectives and will be conducted in accordance with the general provisions on the Union’s external action which are laid down in Chapter 1. (Footnote 6 contained the text of the declaration mentioned above.)
After Chapter 1 General provisions on the Union’s external action, follows Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy. The new first Article (10c TEU) in Chapter 2 refers to the provisions in Chapter 1, and it forms a bridge between the two chapters. .
***
The Treaty of Lisbon (OJ 17.12.2007, C 306), Chapter 2 Specific provisions on the common foreign and security policy, Section 1 Common provisions, inserts an Article 10c TEU.
Article 10c
The Union’s action on the international scene, pursuant to this Chapter, shall be guided by the principles, shall pursue the objectives of, and be conducted in accordance with, the general provisions laid down in Chapter 1.
***
Next time we turn to the CFSP competence of the European Union.
Ralf Grahn
Thursday, 3 January 2008
Daniel Hannan digs the US Constitution
The best things can always be briefly stated, were Daniel Hannan’s words about the US constitution:
“The Lisbon Treaty, say its advocates, is shorter than the old European Constitution. Where the previous draft ran to 349 pages, the new one is a mere 287. (As opposed to my copy of the US constitution which, with all 27 amendments, runs to a mere 18: the best things can always be briefly stated.)”
***
Briefly stated, perhaps the next European Constitution will start to propel the ‘Federal Republic of Europe’ towards the greatness achieved long ago by the United States of America.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Daniel Hannan: Testing our intelligence with the Treaty; Telegraph blog, 2 January 2008;
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/jan08/lisbontreaty.htm
“The Lisbon Treaty, say its advocates, is shorter than the old European Constitution. Where the previous draft ran to 349 pages, the new one is a mere 287. (As opposed to my copy of the US constitution which, with all 27 amendments, runs to a mere 18: the best things can always be briefly stated.)”
***
Briefly stated, perhaps the next European Constitution will start to propel the ‘Federal Republic of Europe’ towards the greatness achieved long ago by the United States of America.
Ralf Grahn
Source:
Daniel Hannan: Testing our intelligence with the Treaty; Telegraph blog, 2 January 2008;
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/danielhannan/jan08/lisbontreaty.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
