THE EU CONSTITUTION - a Finn at the Convention EDUSKUNNAN KANSLIAN JULKAISU 1/2004 Kimmo Kiljunen THE EU CONSTITUTION — A Finn at the Convention Commentary: Matti Vanhanen Jari Vilén Esko Helle PUBLICATIONS OF THE PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE 1/2004 EDUSKUNNAN KANSLIAN JULKAISU 1/2004 Dedicated to the memory of my father Veikko Kiljunen. Dr. Kimmo KILJUNEN, MP represented the Parliament of Finland at the European Convention. The opinions in this book are Dr. Kiljunen's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Eduskunta. CONTENTS FOREWORD 9 1. WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN UNION? 11 1.1. The Philadelphia Convention 12 Federalists and anti-federalists 13 Confederation or Federation? 15 1.2. The EU into a Federal State? 18 The spectre of federalism 19 1.3. The roots of integration 21 1.4. The birth of the Union 23 Beyond the common market 25 1.5. The European Union sui generis 26 Difficulties in definition 28 Shared sovereignty 28 1.6. A supra-national union 29 1.7. Towards a post-nation-state era 33 Supra-national democracy 34 2. THE BRUSSELS CONVENTION 37 2.1. Why have a Convention? 39 2.2. The first Convention 41 2.3. The Laeken decision 43 2.4. The Convention comes to order 47 2.5. Consensus 49 Whom did we represent? 50 3. THE EU CONSTITUTION 53 3.1. Founding treaty or constitution? 54 What shall we call this Treaty? 55 Competence competence 56 3.2. The Constitution for Europe 57 The boundaries of Europe 58 3.3. Values of the Union 59 Christian values 60 3.4. Objectives of the Union 62 The languages of the Union 63 3.5. A simpler system 64 Directives into laws 64 The Convention’s working groups 65 Legal personality for the Union 66 3.6. Fundamental rights 67 Union citizenship 67 Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitution 68 3.7. Competence of the Union 69 The tripartite division of competencies 70 Areas of Union competence 71 3.8. Subsidiarity 72 Monitoring subsidiarity 74 The regional and local levels 75 4. COMMON FOREIGN AND SECURITY POLICY 77 4.1. CFSP 78 Foreign policy included in integration 79 4.2. ESDP 80 Civilian crisis management 82 Crisis management operations 82 4.3. Comprehensive security 82 The position of the Social Democrats 84 The Convention’s proposals on foreign policy 85 Foreign Minister of the Union 85 4.4. The Defence working group 86 Small achievements 88 Great objectives 88 4.5. Towards a common defence 90 Enhanced cooperation 90 Enhanced cooperation in defence policy 91 Closed structured cooperation 92 The Military Capabilities Agency 93 Open defence cooperation 94 4.6. Security guarantees 95 The solidarity clause 96 Stairway to defence cooperation 96 4.7. Security policy options 98 The neutrality of Finland and Sweden 98 Old Europe and new Europe 99 Credibility of the EU military capacity 101 Four schools of thought 102 5. INSTITUTIONAL REFORM 105 5.1. Compromise of the large countries 109 5.2. EU institutions 111 5.3. Giscard’s tactics 114 5.4. The Convention’s proposal on institutions 116 European Council 116 Commission 120 European Parliament 122 Council of Ministers 125 Court of Justice 127 Other institutions 127 5.5. Qualified majority 128 Equality of Member States and citizens 129 Voting weights 130 The night of long knives in Nice 132 Simple double majority 134 5.6. The role of national parliaments 134 Processing of EU matters in Finland 135 Parliamentary practice 137 National parliaments in the EU Constitution 138 MEPs and MPs 140 6. THE END OF THE CONVENTION 141 6.1. Last-minute changes 142 Small Member States broke ranks 143 The Praesidium’s compromise 144 Symbols of the Union 145 6.2. The challenge of democracy 146 The citizens’ initiative 146 The democratic life of the Union 147 6.3. Common commercial policy 148 Legal basis for services of general economic interest 148 The EU and the trade in services 149 Exceptions to the common commercial policy 150 6.4. The passerelle clause 151 Extending qualified-majority decision-making 152 Home and justice affairs 153 6.5. Future of the Convention 154 What did we learn? 155 6.6. Approving the Constitution 156 Why have a referendum? 157 Enacting the Constitution 158 Withdrawal from the Union 159 6.7. June 13 160 BIBLIOGRAPHY 165 INDEX OF NAMES 171 A FINN AT THE CONVENTION — COMMENTARY 177 Matti Vanhanen MP 179 Jari Vilén MP 191 Esko Helle 197 FIGURES Figure 1 Definition of Confederation and Federation 16 Figure 2 Definition of a Supra-National Union 31 Figure 3 Convention on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 42 Figure 4 The Convention on the Future of the European Union 45 Figure 5 Steps towards a Common Defence for the EU 97 Figure 6 Security Policy Options 103 Figure 7 Developing the European Union 110 Figure 8 Institutions of the EU 112 Figure 9 The Convention’s Proposal for EU Institutions 119 Figure 10 Composition of the Commission 121 Figure 11 Distribution of Seats in the European Parliament 124 Figure 12 Voting Weights in the Council of Ministers 131 Figure 13 Parliamentary Processing of EU Legislation in Finland 136 Figure 14 The Outcome of the Convention 162 FOREWORD “Congratulations, you have just given birth to a new superstate! You got the Constitution you wanted, and now the EU looks like a single state. All we need now is a single people.” An embittered, passionate outburst at the solemn concluding session of the Convention from the staunch Danish Euro-sceptic Jens-Peter Bonde. This discordant note in the proceedings was followed by an unbroken silence in the packed hall. A lone pair of hands came together in applause: alternate Member Esko Seppänen’s. Was that the result? Have we been in a process to produce a Constitution for a Federal State? To top it off, the Draft Constitution was approved at an undemocratic Convention, with the tacit approval of the Finnish Convention Members too. Wise enough, some of the Finns refused to sign the covering letter of to the Convention’s proposal, “Convention fizzles out in Brussels,” ran the headlines in the Finnish press. Is this really how badly we did? Sixteen months of work and nothing to show for it but general confusion? Did the European Convention really fail? Things did not look much better at the intergovernmental conference before Christmas when the Convention’s Draft Constitution was taken up. Chaired by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, the summit was unable to agree on the Constitution. Was the Convention’s proposal that poor? According to a survey conducted by the EU Commission, almost half (48 %) of all Finns knew in spring 2003 that the Convention was preparing proposals for reforming the EU. Only the Swedes and the Greeks (Greece held the Presidency at the time) were better informed than the Finns. Furthermore, 41 % of Finns knew that the Government was represented at the Convention, though only 25 % knew that the Finnish Parliament was represented, too. The Finns interviewed for the Eurobarometer were for the most part of the opinion that both the media (87 %) and politicians (74 %) should tell the public more about what the Convention was doing. Most said that there was little news about the Convention, and mostly negative at that. The Convention had a bad press in Finland from day one: the large Member States were railroading the small ones, Chairman Valéry Giscard d’Estaing was acting autocratically, the Praesidium and Secretariat were running things as they pleased without any Finns involved, the Convention had exceeded its mandate, its preparations were confusing and secretive, etc. etc. No wonder, then, that of all the Member States Finland has the most negative attitude to the EU Constitution. Under half of all Finns (44 %) are in favour of enacting an EU Constitution, and in a single year this figure dropped sharply, by ten percentage points. The average figures for the whole EU are 63 % in favour of a new Constitution and only 10 % against. In Finland, no fewer than 39 % are against. Not even the traditionally Euro-sceptic British and Danes are this reluctant. 9 Did the Convention project the right image? Is the EU conspiring to hoodwink Finland with its Constitution? What is the Union becoming: a Federal State or a superpower? Was it a mistake to entrust reform of the EU to something like the Convention in the first place? Will a referendum need to be held on the Constitution? Citizens need information. Both decision-makers and the media are responsible for giving them that information. We, the Convention Members, carry a particular responsibility in illuminating the process and the end result that will lead to a new EU Constitution. This, then, is the reason for writing this book. A lot will be written about the Convention and the EU Constitution. Convention Members from various Member States will assess their work and its results. There were many of us, and each has a tale to tell. There were different national, political and institutional backgrounds. That is why it is useful for us Finnish Convention Members to contribute to this European debate. This book includes not only my own analysis but also brief comments from other Finnish Convention Members representing our Parliament - Matti Vanhanen and Jari Vilén (who replaced Vanhanen for the last two months), and alternate Member Esko Helle. This book is a document about the drafting of the EU Constitution, but it is also more than that. It is a background work and textbook on the history of integration and the institutional development of the Union.