It has been over a year-and-a-half since the “No” vote of France and the Netherlands halted the ratification process of the EU Constitutional Treaty. Following these electoral rejections, the European Union called for a period of reflection to analyse what had gone wrong and come up with possible solutions to reconnect the citizens with this European project. Originally, the period was supposed to last no longer than a year but in mid-2006, EU heads of state and governments agreed that any solution to this Constitutional stalemate should only be in place by the end of 2008 at the latest.

The question is whether the EU is managing to bridge the gap and bring this project closer to its citizens.

The “No” vote in the French and Dutch referenda and the scepticism that prevailed in these and in other member states, especially among those that have not as yet ratified the Treaty, signalled a growing sense of disenchantment among EU citizens. The European Commission might argue that there was a vacuum or a lack of information among the non-voters, or that the protest votes were directed more at their national governments than at the EU or the Treaty itself. While both of these arguments are relatively solid, the reality is that the Constitutional Treaty exposed a growing distance between the EU and its citizens, notwithstanding that surveys might sometimes suggest otherwise. What is at stake in this reflective period is not only the future of the Constitution itself but also how the EU will manage to halt this downward shift in support from its own citizens.

European Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Institutional Relations and Communication Strategy, Margot Wallström has recently called for a second chance for the European Constitution. Addressing the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, Commissioner Wallström presented a new paper entitled The cost of the non-Constitution. In her paper, the Commissioner highlighted how the European Constitution could have helped the EU operate in a more efficient, democratic and simple manner, particularly in six important areas:

Fundamental Rights: The incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution would have provided the EU with a set of fundamental rights that would be legally binding on the Union, its institutions, agencies and bodies and also on the member states whenever they implement EU law. Without the Constitution, the Charter lacks binding legal force, while with no legal basis in the present Treaties, accession to the European Convention of Human Rights is not possible.

Freedom, Security and Justice: With the increasing terrorism threat, this area has become of immense importance and very sensitive to the European citizens who, in turn, have very high expectations of the Union. How-ever, the current intergovern- mental framework, based on different pillars, often leads to endless discussions on where the dividing line falls and the decision-making process, based on cooperation and the usual need for unanimity, lacks the democratic and judicial legitimacy and consequently restrains the EU from adopting a swift and effective response. The Constitution would have helped the EU in this regard by putting the policies on

border controls, visas and asylum and immigration, as well as judicial and police cooperation, altogether under one heading and applied by co-decision procedures and qualified majority voting (with a small number of exceptions).

Energy policy: The explosion in oil prices left the EU with no option but to adopt a common energy policy to meet these challenges more effectively. But without the introduction of the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament, as proposed by the Constitution, here again, the options open to the EU remain limited and constrain its ambitious 2007 energy strategy.

Health: Commissioner Wallström mentioned how the Constitution could have helped in this area by introducing a provision that would allow the Union to legislate whenever common safety and security issues are involved, particularly where it concerns the safety of medicinal products, epidemics, chemical accidents and bio-terrorism.

External actions: The creation of the post of EU Minister of Foreign Affairs would have enhanced the influence of the union as a global actor. Without its Foreign Minister, the EU remains incapable of speaking with one voice on external actions.

Institutional framework: Finally, the Constitution would have brought about crucial innovations in the framework within which the EU operates. The extension of the co-decision procedure should have increased democratic legitimacy. National parliaments will also become more involved and qualified majority will be redefined to facilitate the decision-making process of the Council.

The document comes as part of the Commission’s launched programme of action after the conclusion of the so called Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate. The action programme is based on the conclusions drawn out of the reflective period (The period of Reflection and Plan D) and aims to meet public concerns. It also seeks to create the conditions needed for an institutional settlement, as pointed out in the document entitled A Citizens’ Agenda – delivering results for Europe.

Furthermore, in her address to the Parliament, Commissioner Wallström called for more political will, debates and information by member states, saying that Europe “deserves a second chance”, but at the same time warning that “it cannot afford a second failure”. For, despite presenting her best arguments to rescue the Constitution, the drive for better communication and to build on a Europe of results, scepticism in certain countries is still running high while in others it is fast resurfacing. The Nether-lands, for instance, while ,reluctant to pick up the issue during its election campaign, appears to be increasingly eurosceptic. Sweden, on the other hand, recently refused to ratify the EU Constitution, saying that Swedes would like to see what kind of treaty is really going to be put forward before they resume the ratification process.

Some EU leaders are promoting the idea that ratification should continue regardless, while others favour a new Treaty or that some elements of the Constitutional Treaty could be implemented either within the current framework or by amending the Nice Treaty. Some countries prefer to have the option to opt out of certain areas while others came up with the idea of signing a declaration or protocol to strengthen the social dimension of the EU. Some even favour the deletion of the term “Constitution” from the text.

Which option is the most suitable, workable and closer to the citizens in an enlarged European Union?

Hard to answer. Maybe it is still early to judge but, so far, the outcome of the reflection period is proving somewhat futile.

Ronald Mizzi is Research Analyst at Forum Malta fl-Ewropa

[email protected]