On Giscard`s Mind

The Malta Independent 

“Asked whether only the existing fifteen members of the EU would be allowed to have the final say on the treaty or whether the accession countries would be able to vote, the PMOS (Prime Minister Official Spokesman) said that only the fifteen existing members would be allowed to have their say.”

This quote I picked from the UK government web-site reporting a press briefing given by PMOS in answer to whether the ICG (Inter Governmental Conference) set to discuss and approve the EU Constitution to be proposed by the Convention in June, will give a vote to candidate countries. The ICG is set to start after Latvia approves the last candidate country referendum on 20^th September 2003.

This brings to the surface a question I often wondered about before but which is now set to assume increased importance. Where exactly do we stand regarding the EU project if we have signed a Treaty the basis which is set to be changed by adoption of a new Constitution which we will not be asked to vote upon as it will be decided by unanimity of the existing 15 member states.

“It would be wrong for candidate countries, Malta especially given that it is bound by the neutrality provisions in its constitution, to take a passive role about the ICG negotiations.”

It is pre-mature to judge whether the Constitution in its final format would present a significant departure from the Treaty. However, it is only fair to assume that this will be so as otherwise the huge effort needed to put the Convention together and then to call an ICG would not be justified if all that will change is procedural streamlining rather than substance possibly leading to shaping up of a semi-federal model.

What I do not quite follow is why candidate countries are not being invited to have their say in the negotiation of the final Constitution which is expected to bind them upon accession. The fact that the ICG has been scheduled to start after the accession referenda calendar is fully exhausted, is further indication of the wish to get the candidates’ ayes out of the way before the real hard-nosed negotiations on the EU new constitution actually start.

And here the stage is well set for a clash of nerves between those who want the EU to adopt a semi-federalist model with enhanced co-operation provisions for one-third of the members to be permitted to venture further up-field into areas which do not reach the level of voting necessary for adoption of an across – EU policy, and those who want the individual countries to keep autonomy on crucial issues such as taxation, social chapter and common security and defence policy.

“Giscard had also speculated that out of the 25 EU members and candidates it is quite possible that at least 2 will choose this route”

It would be wrong for candidate countries, Malta especially given that it is bound by the neutrality provisions in its constitution, to take a passive role about the ICG negotiations. They should lobby to be fully involved in the negotiations and to be permitted to vote on the Constitution if they are expected to be bound by it.

Not long ago Giscard d’Estaing expressed the view that when the final shape of the Constitution will be decided upon, it will explicitly revoke all previous treaties so that those countries that do not endorse the new constitution will not be able to cling to the old treaties. They will have to be squeezed out of EU membership and invited to continue economic co-operation up the single-market level through the EEA or some other privileged partner status but will not be allowed to remain an EU member outside the new Constitution.

Giscard had also speculated that out of the 25 EU members and candidates it is quite possible that at least 2 will choose this route.

Few doubted that he had the UK in mind when he expressed these views. Who else could have been on Giscard’s mind?