A few months ago, much of the talk surrounding the erstwhile EU Constitution was about ‘cherry-picking’. Yet now that the cherry-picking season is upon us, European politicians are demonstrating a striking reluctance to roll up their sleeves and get on with the job. For those of you not fully initiated into the intricacies of eurospeak, cherry-picking refers to the idea that while it might be impossible to ratify the entire EU Constitution, the most palatable elements might be plucked and rehashed in an acceptable form – a sort of EU law cherry pie, to over-extend a metaphor. But when EU foreign ministers met last weekend to discuss the future of the constitution, there was little agreement on anything. So, for the foreseeable future, it looks like stagnation will continue to be the order of the day for the EU Constitution project. In fact, on the basis of the weekend’s discussions, I would go as far as to say that governments’ optimism about the possibilities for ‘practical progress' in the absence of constitutional reform also looks dubious.
The official line issued by the chair of the meeting, Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, is that there is no dispute that the Constitution project should be pursued, but that the time is not yet right and that emphasis should be placed on achieving practical goals in the meantime. The theme of practical reform and progress has been echoed by several leaders recently. The new Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi called for a focus on ‘concrete projects’ during his first meeting with EU Commission President Barroso yesterday. Meanwhile, last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel set out a vision for slashing EU bureaucracy.
But when it comes to the question of what to do about the Constitution, there is in reality scant common ground. Both French Europe Minister Catherine Colonna and Dutch Foreign minister Bernard Bot sounded deeply sceptical about the prospects for resurrecting the constitution. Even German Foreign Minister Hans-Walter Steinmeier recognised that the term ‘Constitution’ might have to be dropped. Amongst new members, Czech Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel doubted whether half of the member states supported pursuing the constitution in its current form. So despite Ms Plassnik’s optimism, it seems pretty unlikely that the EU Constitution, as it was presented to us back in 2004, will raise its head again.
So what about cherry-picking? Also on the agenda over the weekend was the proposal to pursue further integration of Justice and Home Affairs policy under the Nice Treaty. But, according to EU Observer, both Germany and Ireland have made clear that outside the constitutional framework, they are not willing to accept these proposals. It would appear that while the changes were acceptable in return for other bon-bons contained in the constitutional treaty, alone these particular cherries seem less sweet.
Of course the EU is making progress without the constitution. Ministers today agreed on a finalised services directive and the enlargement negotiations with Croatia and Turkey are still going ahead. But given the seeming inability of Ministers to uphold a common front on existing substantive issues it seems likely that further splits will emerge if attempts are made to use the cherry-picking method to implement other changes. It is a common criticism of the EU, repeated in this week’s edition of The Economist, that it has focused too much in recent years on structural reform. Yet maybe, with such a large and complex administration as the EU, big blockbusting treaties have become the only way to achieve anything of substance. Certainly, the current policy of attrition seems unlikely to yield significant results. As I have repeatedly argued, the bitter truth is that the EU really does need a structural overhaul. Until a satisfactory solution to this issue is reached, all other progress will be un-even and unpredictable.