French presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy attempted to kick-start the EU from its period of ‘reflection’ last Friday by presenting a ‘mini-Treaty’ to solve its constitutional quandaries. The ‘mini-treaty’ would include ‘about two thirds’ of the flailing Constitution, including:
· the election of the Commission president by the European Parliament;
· creation of a European minister of foreign affairs;
· replacing unanimity by a "super qualified majority";
· reinforced cooperation, and;
· citizen initiatives.
But let us ignore the undoubted importance of what is in and what is out for just a minute. The point that everyone should be screaming about is M. Sarkozy’s insistence that national parliaments could decide on a slimmer version of the constitution without the need for fresh referenda. The reason he gives? That voters in France and Netherlands who voted the old constitution down would be satisfied to see the just two-thirds of it that he says should remain, because they were ‘not critical’ issues. It sounds astonishing arrogance doesn’t it? Perhaps we should be grateful that he at least said parliaments, rather than governments – there would be a chance of national debate.
Yet the future of something so far-reaching as the EU has become through removing large chunks of sovereignty from its member states (including of course the UK), should be put to its people directly. No British parliament in the present climate will be elected on its constituency members views on Europe. But the fact is no-one with influence in Brussels wants referenda, even on a ‘mini-treaty’ because they know they would probably lose. One of the biggest criticisms of the EU is that it has always an elite project run far from the ‘masses’; it seems M. Sarkozy wants it to remain that way.
By James Gubb