The idea of a new treaty reform is out there – and it is time to talk about our priorities. In this loose series of guest articles, eurobloggers
answer to the question: “If you could change one thing in the EU Treaties, which would it be?” Today: Horațiu Ferchiu. (Back to the start of the series.)
Changing
one article in any of the EU treaties is most likely going to have
the same effect as a butterfly fluttering his wings in chaos theory.
The evolution of the European project, its many twists and turns, has
been a very improbable outcome for most people. There are of course
those who have always believed in the dream. And it is their efforts
that have brought us here today.
I
gave this idea, of changing one provision of the treaties, a lot of
thought. It is a very difficult thing to stop at just one because
there are many things I would like changed. However, after going
through the treaties once more, it suddenly doomed on me that I
should use the butterfly effect – that one small alteration that
would incite enough change to actually lead us to a very different
outcome, let’s say in 10-15 years.
What
I would like to change
So
I stopped at Article
3, paragraph 4 of the Consolidated version of the Treaty on European
Union – The
Union shall establish an economic and monetary union whose currency
is the euro. This
is the article I consider most worthy of changing, as changes to it
would incite little revolutions in all other articles of the Treaty,
and in turn change our lives.
The
change I have in mind is to see this article transformed into – The
Union shall establish a political, economic and monetary union whose
currency is the euro. I
have considered adding social union, but in more ways than one the
concept is included within the specter of political union.
Now,
why does adding ‘political union’ change things?
First
off it would require us to make a choice regarding the future of the
Union, more overly so since political union implies the end of the
national state. It also implies the recognition and upholding of a
distinct ‘EU’ nationality, as a more complex construct on which
the European Citizenship builds upon. The national state, as we know
it today, would need to suffer a process of surrendering authority
both upwards and downwards – some of the powers invested in
national administrations today should move upwards to the new
construct and some of those powers should move downwards, most
reasonably to regions (NUTS
levels 1 or 2 depending on member state particularities).
The
powers of the member state should dissipate in both directions
maintaining a clear division of executive, legislative and judicial
powers, divided on levels of competence in both directions. One could
draw parallels here with the federal system in the US, although
significant variations are in order if it were to comply with EU
reality.
Regional
assemblies and the European Parliament
Secondly,
a “political union” would forever mark a clear distinction in
politics at upper levels and regional levels all across the
continent. It would mean the end of European parties consisting of a
variety of national parties, and open the door to truly pan-European
parties with their own membership base and local representatives.
Local parties in existence would also have to comply with this new
reality, and a change of scope and means would be necessary.
A
system of regions with their own legislative assembly would allow for
a closer representation in this first level of legislative power,
with politicians closer to the “action” and the people. Moreover,
a second
chamber to the European Parliament, elected in regional
constituencies, could also benefit the democratic exercise, by
allowing people to vote for a regional representative on the European
level. Elections for the European Parliament could then take place in even
smaller constituencies than the region and be focused on truly
European issues and themes. In
effect this will
lead to a three-tier elected leadership: the local regional assembly,
the European Parliament, and the secondary European chamber elected
at regional level.
Improving
the debate and establishing elected leadership
A
political union would inherently change many of the debates currently
on the EU agenda. Social protections issues, the environment,
internal migration – these could all be handled at the larger
level, creating a base level for all to respect. Local assemblies
could then supplement those regulations, block some of them by
referendum or even join hands in vetoing them. Because if for example
a piece of legislation is approved at pan EU level, and 2/3 of all
regions reject it in local referendums then the respective law or
regulation could and should fail.
But
most importantly it would create a sense of union far above what we
see today within the union. Access to a designated top tier
legislative election that happens at a pan EU level will allow
citizens to get in touch, appropriate and support EU themes and
issues. If parties that wish to send representatives to the European
Parliament would be required to have presence, members and candidates
in at least 2/3 of all regions, that would insure that a particular
theme is very well debated and presented to the largest group of
population possible. That in turn would also mean that elected
members of the European Parliament would have to keep a closer
contact with their constituents and in turn communicate better.
Everybody wins.
Implementation
– the executive
Moving
along from the legislative, we have the executive branch. As Brussels
is more and more contested over issues of representation it is clear
that moving towards a political union would insure that the citizens
would feel better represented. In a similar manner it would allow for
people to feel involved in top tier politics. Whether we are
discussing a president for the union, or a board of directly elected
representatives that share “presidency” on a rotational basis is
less important. What we need is not a struggle about technical
features of different political integration models (federation,
confederation), but to allow for a more democratically elected
leadership.
I’ve
always considered that the current system, the European Council and
the Commission itself is quite remarkably undemocratic. If you look
at the European Council for example, its members are democratically
elected heads of state and government (prime ministers or
presidents); but that becomes less obvious if you look at how they
got elected – in theory by the will of the majority of the
population, but more often than not, it is actually the person or
representative of the party that got most votes from those that
showed up to vote. So if let’s say 40% of those that can vote show
up, and 60% of them vote for a certain individual, then that person
is actually elected by 24% of the voting population. And then you
have them all together, behind closed doors, deciding on a future for
all of us.
If
people got a chance to express their vote in a more direct manner,
and if they where able to think that their vote actually makes a
difference, then most likely than not, they will show up. It’s also
a theme-related objective – important themes can play a more
important role within the electoral process.
The
executive branch would then be again differentiated on a two-tier
basis – regional and EU-wide. Which means that people got to vote
once for their immediate needs – local taxes, education, regional
issues in general that they can relate to by experience – and once
for the upper level – where they would actually feel as part of a
greater debate concerning their and their children’s future. There
is yet again a lot of choice available for the type of executive both
at a regional and pan-EU level, but the important thing here is
allowing people to actually choose and decide through their vote.
Laws,
leaders and justice
In
matters of the judicial things are even simpler – there is already
a European Court in existence, it works and would just need some
minor changes. A basic judicial code should be the basis with the
regional legislative allowed to add specific pieces of legislation to
that for their territory, as long as that legislation does not come
in conflict with pan-EU legislation. This
would also imply a common penal and civic code, so as to allow for
citizens to have the same rights and access to the same type of
judicial proceedings all across the union.
Establishing
a common judicial code is in principle agreeing on some principles
and then coming up with the adequate way to implement those
principles. It will prove to be a more complicated matter in member
states like the UK that has a different judicial system. But since
crime is crime, no matter where it happens, justice should also reach
the point of uniformity across the union.
The
flutter of wings
All
things are possible once a decision is made to put into existence a
political union. Most importantly because it would increase the level
of democratic representation across the continent and create a “union
of minds” of sorts if EU-wide parties with EU-wide themes and
projects would enter into existence. Until now, the differences
between parties from different countries – even if they belong to
the same European family – make it impossible for a voter in Spain
to express the same opinion as someone in Romania, or for a German to
express the same opinion as a Greek and so on.
An
EU-wide party will have to have the same agenda in Spain, in Poland,
in Greece and implicitly national populism, as we know it today,
would pretty much disappear from EU-wide politics. It’s going to
exist probably at regional level, but there it has to face a closer
and smaller electoral base and an upper level that will exert some
measure of control. This implies and leads to a new type of reality,
where local politics can no longer affect major EU themes and empower
people to look at matters directly.
A
political union would lead to a different type of Union. It will
bring about a lot of changes and the treaties will inherently change,
by force of nature, as reality will require. So in the end, if I were
to change one article it would be this one, because changing this
means pushing the whole EU construct further, with the flutter of
wings from a single butterfly, or in this case, a one word addition.
Horațiu Ferchiu is an urban and regional planner based in Bucharest, Vice
President of the Romanian Association of European Federalists AFER.
He presents his views on the development of the European Project
towards a Federal EU on fedeu.blogactiv.eu,
mostly on issues of identity, people, federation and a more
democratic and innovative EU.
|
If you could change one thing in the EU Treaties, which would it be?
1: Wenn du eines an den EU-Verträgen ändern könntest, was wäre es?
2: Making the Commission truly Democratic ● Eurocentric
3: Against the creeping transfer of powers: a subsidiarity test by the European Court of Justice ● Martin Holterman
4: Political union – the butterfly effect of a single word ● Horațiu Ferchiu
5: People, not member states: A treaty change for a new era of political organisation ● Protesilaos Stavrou
6: Eine Klausel für sozialen Fortschritt ● Eric Bonse
1: Wenn du eines an den EU-Verträgen ändern könntest, was wäre es?
2: Making the Commission truly Democratic ● Eurocentric
3: Against the creeping transfer of powers: a subsidiarity test by the European Court of Justice ● Martin Holterman
4: Political union – the butterfly effect of a single word ● Horațiu Ferchiu
5: People, not member states: A treaty change for a new era of political organisation ● Protesilaos Stavrou
6: Eine Klausel für sozialen Fortschritt ● Eric Bonse
Pictures: By Werner Seiler (User:Centine) (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons; private photograph [all rights reserved].
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen
Kommentare sind hier herzlich willkommen und werden nach der Sichtung freigeschaltet. Auch wenn anonyme Kommentare technisch möglich sind, ist es für eine offene Diskussion hilfreich, wenn Sie Ihre Beiträge mit Ihrem Namen kennzeichnen. Um einen interessanten Gedankenaustausch zu ermöglichen, sollten sich Kommentare außerdem unmittelbar auf den Artikel beziehen und möglichst auf dessen Argumentation eingehen. Bitte haben Sie Verständnis, dass Meinungsäußerungen ohne einen klaren inhaltlichen Bezug zum Artikel hier in der Regel nicht veröffentlicht werden.