Europe's future constitution must be given a heart and a soul, writes Proinsias De Rossa
The recent publication of a "skeleton" for a possible European Constitution by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, on behalf of the Convention of the Future of Europe, is a significant milestone in Europe's evolution.
The task for the months ahead is now not only to put flesh on the bones of this skeleton, by taking account of the conclusions of the convention's various working groups, but, more importantly, to ensure that Europe's future constitution is given a heart and a soul. For me, this means a constitutional commitment to a Europe where the social, the environmental and the cultural dimensions are just as important as the economic and the monetary.
The text of this draft constitution reflects the two-stated purposes of the convention - greater democratic legitimacy and more transparency and openness at European level. It points to a number of areas in which reforms of existing EU policies and institutional arrangements may be pursued. Furthermore, the clear, logical structure marks real progress.
The adoption of the concept of a constitution for Europe is a significant advance in itself. I believe Ireland's constitutional experience has been mostly positive. Our basic legal document has protected us from overbearing government and equally has elaborated our rights. A European constitution, which in essence will involve a consolidation of the five existing EU treaties, will serve to add a new dimension to this protection, in so far as decisions made at European level are concerned, or when our Government is acting on foot of European initiatives.
There are those who will seek to argue that the use of the term "constitution" supports their contention that the Convention is seeking to establish a European Super State. In fact the draft proves the opposite.
The explanatory text clearly states that "any competence not conferred on the union by the constitution rests with the member-states". It puts forward the concept of "a union of European states which, while retaining their national identities, closely co-ordinate their policies at the European level, and administer certain common competencies on a federal level".
It further stresses the principles of subsidiarity, whereby decisions are taken at the lowest possible level - local, regional, national or European - and proportionality, whereby European action has to produce proportionate results, in the activities of the union. It emphasises that these principles must be closely monitored to ensure compliance in EU legislation and activity.
In addition, the working group on the role of national parliaments in decision-making, of which I was a member, strongly argues for the role of national parliaments to be fully embedded into any new constitution.
In presenting the draft constitution, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing made clear that what is envisaged is not "a constitution for a state" but rather, "the attempt of a collectivity of peoples and states to define their future together". Hence, the draft Article One places a particular emphasis on the diversity of the union and on its continuing openness to further enlargement.
This approach emphasises the hybrid system that has evolved in Europe, which is neither fully inter-governmental nor fully federal but instead a unique mixture of both.
I take the view that what Europe now needs is a new style federalism, based on this hybrid.
By this I mean a system that decentralises rather than centralises power. Put simply, what we need is a more democratically accountable system with clear roles for each European institution and a system which maintains the current balance between the council and the commission, with both held fully to account by the European Parliament and by national parliaments (such as the Oireachtas), in their respective spheres of responsibility.
It can be seen from all this that there are many issues yet to be debated and agreed as the convention moves from the phases of listening and discussing to that of actually seeking agreement on a growing agenda of practical issues.
These include controversial questions such as the proposal for an elected president of the European Council to serve for a 5-year term in place of the existing rotating presidencies. In my view this proposal in its present form is not in the interest of small states. Or the proposal for the creation of a totally new institution - a congress - which I believe would unnecessarily complicate decision-making if it were to have power, (or would be an unnecessary talking shop if it had none).
THERE are also important questions relating to the future of common foreign, security and defence policy. I strongly disagree with the current draft which implies a separate article on defence. I believe common defence should always be closely linked to foreign and security policy in order to ensure that it is always seen as a political, social and economic question in the first instance.
The status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is another contested issue between those, like the Government, who are wary of it being made legally enforceable, and those, like myself, who hold that it should be made legally binding for European- level decisions and give EU citizens major new rights.
The debate about economic governance is also extremely important. The logic of a single market and a common currency implies greater economic and budgetary co-ordination. It may also imply the establishment of minimum standards in corporation tax.
This is not an argument for uniformity in tax rates nor for common income or property rates.
However, this aspect of the debate is only half the story.
We must equally address the future of the European Social Model. We must ensure that this is integrated into any new constitution and that it is given equal status with the economic and monetary objectives.
My major criticism of the current draft is the virtual absence of references to this social model which I believe is the very heart and soul of Europe. As far as I am concerned, achieving proper recognition for this model will be one of the key political Convention battles between the centre-left and the centre-right. A more efficient and democratic common market with a common currency without the integration of the objectives of social inclusion, the elimination of poverty, universally-available public services and protection of the environment will be a heartless place and will fail to win the loyalty of Europeans.
Proinsias De Rossa is Labour MEP for Dublin and a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe