Institutional reform required to make such policies effective
Part of the rationale for the constitutional treaty is that it would substantially enhance the capacity of the EU to act effectively, especially in the field of justice and home affairs, and in external policy.
Issues to consider
- Do you believe efforts to adopt the 2004 constitutional treaty should continue? Or would you rather have a more limited treaty?
- In either case, would a referendum as part of the ratification process be (a) appropriate or (b) unnecessary?
June 25th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
We have consistently argued in favour of a written constitution. Notwithstanding the fact that our constitution is unwritten, we have also consistently argued that we should obtain the peoples’ specific consent for significant changes to that constitution.
Based on that we should be arguing for an Irish-style test. Does the treaty transfer significant powers from one group of politicians to another? If so then yes, it should be subject to the consent of the people.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Citizens must understand their rights and obligations if these are to be effective. Therefore a European constitution must be comprehensible to any intelligent person of average education.
The 2004 constitutional treaty is long and difficult to understand: no wonder it has been rejected by the only people, the Irish, who have been allowed to express an opinion on it.
The United States constitution is short enough to carry in a pocket and is capable of being taught at school. However, it requires further reading of a voluminous constitutional literature for a full understanding, as does the British constitution, which does not exist as a separate document.
Another alternative is the elephantine Indian constitution, which has lengthened by accretion but has the virtue of containing practically all the country’s political arrangements and is written in relatively clear English.
Whatever the decision on length, the key test of comprehensibility should be applied to any future European constitution.
The use of referendums and plebiscites does not indicate democratic government. They have frequently been used by dictators to obtain bogus legitimacy for undemocratic arrangements.
Any such mass policy vote needs to be implemented only when there is reasonable certainty that it really will reflect popular opinion.
Representative democracy, for example parliamentary government, is also capable of doing this.
Whichever form of expression is selected, what is more important is that the development of a European constitution be a transparent process, involving the citizenry in initiating proposals, discussing and debating principles, reviewing drafts and openly expressing opinions on them.
This may be a long process, but it is important to take as much time as is needed to get this document right. Indecent haste can lead to constitutional dissension at a later stage that could undermine the long-term project of European unity.