“Till recently, the efforts of the (European) Union were concentrated on the creation of monetary and economic union… But today we need a broader perspective if Europe is not to decay into a mere market, sodden by globalisation. For Europe is much more than a market. It stands for a model of society that has grown historically” – Lionel Jospin, Prime Minister 1997 – 2002.
Today, many politicians and intellectuals recognise the fact that the European project needs to go beyond the economic and monetary union. Without casting any doubts on the benefits of the single market, many recognise that this sort of Union will never capture the imagination of the citizens across the Union.
Conflicts such as the war in Iraq have shown that, despite the fact that the European Union is an economic giant capable of taking other global economic power houses head on, politically it is a nonentity, a midget. The lack of a common foreign policy coupled with the lack of a common defence policy exacerbates this. In fact, for defence purposes, Europe relies rather heavily on Nato.
It is for this and for other reasons that my colleagues in the European Green Party and in Alternattiva Demokratika were so ardently in favour of a European Constitution. Yes, Europe does need a Constitution in order to solve the problems associated with an ever wider union stretching from Finland to Malta and from the United Kingdom to Cyprus, and also to galvanise the support of the citizens towards the European project, especially in view of the fact that euroscepticism is currently on the rise across the block.
We believe that the Lisbon Treaty is a step in the right direction and as Greens we are strongly in favour of it.
Firstly, the treaty clarifies what the Union stands for; its aims include among others the social market economy and full employment, and makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. However, with disappointment we note that all mention of the EU flag, the EU motto and the EU anthem has been removed from the Lisbon Treaty. Personally, I think that this hinders the citizens’ emotional attachment to the Union.
Allowing certain member States to opt out of the Charter of Fundamental Rights defeats the scope of the Union, and in our view this is perhaps the most serious shortcoming of the treaty. The Charter of Fundamental Rights is what makes Europe what it is, the continent, which, following the French Revolution, gave birth to the concept of liberty and freedom. This should have been an unrenouncable part of the treaty.
The European Parliament, which represents the citizens of the Union (despite Gonzi’s claim that the MEPs are there to serve the interests of the government), has been granted additional powers thanks to the Treaty. These powers include the direct election of the President of the Commission, greater powers in the decision-making process and greater powers in the ratification of international treaties by the EU. This is being done without neglecting the power of the national Parliaments, which will be much more involved in the decision making process once the Treaty is in force.
As a Green, I note with pleasure that EU citizens can, on their own initiative, ask for an EU-wide referendum on certain issues if one million signatures are collected from across the 27 member States. This greatly strengthens the role of civil society and provides ample room for its participation in the democratic process.
In this context, the notion of the primacy of EU law over national laws seems to have disappeared from the treaty; this is an essential instrument to ensure that all member states achieve the goals of the Union.
Despite all its positive aspects, the treaty lacks something, which is essential if the EU citizens are to feel a certain sense of ownership – it lacks democratic legitimacy. The ratification of something of the sort, which will have an impact all over the EU, cannot be left in the hands of national Parliaments; neither should we rely on the referenda of individual member states, because the process of European integration cannot be stopped just because it is outvoted by 50 per cent+1 of the citizens in any single member state. The governments of the 27 member states should have enough courage to ask for a ratification of the treaty through an EU-wide referendum using the double majority criterion; the treaty should be approved by the majority of the EU citizens in the majority of the member states (at least 14), otherwise Europe would have to go back to the drawing board…