The other Europe

Citation

Heathcoat-Amory, D. (2004), "The other Europe", European Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.2004.05416bab.002

The other Europe

The other Europe

AbstractThis article introduces the minority report by a group of parliamentary delegates to the convention on the future of Europe. Its authors are seeking to provide an alternative to greater political union. They believe that a flexible association of sovereign nation states is not only more democratic, but ultimately, more practical than the federal European model.

Keywords: Constitutional law, Europe, Democracy

The draft European constitution has been put to one side following the determination of the Poles and Spaniards to protect their voting rights. However it is clear that in some form the constitution will return and that discussions will continue, as each European Union (EU) member state ratifies the constitution, or rejects it. Some member states, such as Denmark, are holding a referendum. So far, the British Government has ruled that out. Their claim is that that the constitution is not really a “constitution” at all, but a tidying-up exercise, or a streamlining of existing practice. Many others see it differently, in particular those who favour the idea of a federal Europe. They interpret the draft constitution as a crucial stage in the evolution of a pan-European identity. Simply by its existence, the draft constitution crystallises thinking about Europe. In its present form, it is effectively a manifesto for a future, fully unified European state.

One of the most damaging illusions about the EU is the idea that further integration and eventual unity are not only desirable, but also historically inevitable. Supporters of political union promote this view assiduously, because it allows them to caricature opponents as “living in the past” or swimming against some great historical tide. It therefore behoves critics of European federalism to set out a positive and practical alternative to the “one size fits all” agenda embodied in the draft constitution. This is what the minority report below sets out to achieve. Drawn up by a group of parliamentary delegates to the convention on the future of Europe in 2003, it shows that there is another way to strengthen the ties of friendship and co-operation across Europe. These goals, which we all support, are better achieved by less centralisation than more, and by a recognition of diversity instead of an attempt to impose uniformity. The alternative to the Europe of the draft constitution is a free association of European democracies brought together through treaties rather than via a constitution. Sovereign states enter treaties with each other, only unitary states have constitutions.

Minority report

There is another way: the Europe of Democracies

Aware of the need to strengthen democracy and respect for the rule of law and human rights in Europe.

Observing the growing gap between the EU institutions and the people of Europe and the loss of popular support for the EU as proved by several referenda and European parliament elections.

Concerned that the convention on the future of Europe is not adequately addressing the “democratic challenge facing Europe”, as described in the Laeken Declaration.

We propose to transform the EU into a Europe of Democracies (ED), which shall be a treaty association of free and self-governing European states and an open economic area.

• •

  Europe of Democracies. The EU shall not have a constitution. Instead, Europe should be organised on an inter-parliamentary basis by means of a treaty on European co-operation. This will create an ED in place of the existing EU. If the EU should have a new name it should be Europe of Democracies.

• •

  A slimline treaty. The present 97,000 pages of the acquis communautaire covering the EU and EEA must be radically simplified. Instead, focus shall be placed on cross-frontier issues where national parliaments cannot effectively act by themselves. Decisions on subsidiary shall be resolved by the national parliaments.

• •

  Open to all democracies. Membership of the ED shall be open to any democratic European state that is a signatory of, and respects fully, the European convention on human rights.

• •

  Simplified decision making. The present 30 different ways of making decisions in the EU shall be reduced to two: laws and recommendations. Where qualified majority voting applies, the proposal in question shall require 75 per cent of the votes to be cast in favour, unless otherwise stated.

• •

  A veto on vital issues. Laws shall be valid only if they have been passed by national parliaments. A national parliament shall have a veto on an issue it deems important.

• •

  The common core issues. Laws shall deal with the rules for the common market and certain common minimum standards to protect employees, consumers, health, safety and the environment. In other areas the ED shall have the power to issue recommendations for member states, which are always free to adopt higher standards.

• •

  Flexible co-operation. The ED may unanimously approve flexible co-operation for those nations that want to take part in closer co-operation. The ED shall also recognise and support other pan-European organisations, such as the Council of Europe.

• •

  Openness and transparency. The decision-making process and relevant documents shall be open and accessible, unless a reasonable cause for exception is confirmed by qualified majority.

• •

  Straightforward council voting. A simplified voting system shall operate in the council, which may comprise each member state possessing one vote in the ED council. A decision by qualified majority shall require the support of countries with more than half the total ED population.

• •

  National parliaments elect the commission. Every national parliament should elect its own member of the commission. The commissioner shall attend the European scrutiny committees of the national parliament concerned. National parliaments shall have the power to dismiss their commissioner. The president of the commission shall be elected by the national parliaments. National parliaments shall decide on the annual legislative programme and the commission shall correspondingly act as a secretariat for the council and the national parliaments.

• •

  No legislation by the court. Legal activism by the European court in Luxembourg shall be curbed, and the court shall respect the European convention on human rights.

• •

  Partnership agreements. The member states and the ED may enter into partnership agreements of mutual interest with states or groups of states. The ED shall respect the parliamentary democracy of its partners and may assist poorer ones with financial aid, while fostering free trade agreements.

• •

  Better scrutiny. The European Ombudsman, the Court of Auditors and the budget control committees of the European and national parliaments shall have access to all documents and all financial accounts.

• •

  Equality of languages. When legislating, all official ED languages shall be treated equally.

• •

  United nations. The ED shall not have its own army. Peacekeeping and peacemaking should be mandated by the United Nations and the organisation for security and co-operation in Europe. Member states shall decide for themselves whether they opt for a common defence through NATO, independent defence, or follow a neutrality policy.

Contribution by convention members:

• •

  David Heathcoat-Amory (member) UK – Parliament.

• •

  Esko Seppanen (alternate member) European Parliament (Finland).

• •

  Irena Belohorska (member) Slovakia – Parliament.

• •

  Jan Zahradil (member) Czech Republic.

• •

  Jens-Peter Bonde (member) European Parliament (Denmark).

• •

  John Gormley (alternate member) Ireland – Parliament.

• •

  Per Dalgaard (alternate member) Denmark – Parliament.

• •

  Peter Skaarup (member) Denmark – Parliament.

• •

  William Abitbol (alternate member) – European Parliament (France).

David Heathcoat-AmoryConservative Party, London, UK