Yesterday I attended a very interesting seminar with Professor Sverker Gustavsson, Swedish political scientist, and Annika Ström-Melin, head of the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. Each approached the topic of the future of the EU and especially the future of the constitution from quite different angles:
Sverker Gustavsson
- The EU does not have to create clarity by writing down or bringing together the existing treaties into one. That would do more harm than good to the EU. Clarity is not always a good thing.
- Compare the Swedish constitution. The Swedish constitution does not provide clarity on matters that are regulated outside politics, albeit matters covered by the principle/freedom of assembly (e.g. the labour market and unions). This makes it a "living constitution". In reality nothing important is clear from the Swedish constitution except how to elect and appoint a government.
- There are two forces: the right to vote v. capitalism (or the right of ownership). It is the use of the rights in the constitution that decide politics, and that is very far from any sort of clarity.
- There is a similar "terror balance" between free trade and the right to vote / freedom of assembly in the EU. One result from this struggle is that free trade and the four freedoms are not applied to the same extent on services or on goods and services paid by taxes. This is an issue that could potentially be contested in the ECJ but since all or most of the EU member states have similar systems, the EU does not want to take on that conflict and disturb the balance. There is a a "mutual insight that either 'side' could destroy each other if the principle [of free trade] was applied fully".
- Instead of writing down the EU should decide where the breaking point between the two poles (rights) ought to be. In other words the EU should engage in a debate about basic values and concentrate on how to create more flexibility and reform. That is the real constitutional debate.
- In addition, the EU and its member states should iron out the formal aspects of the constitution and concentrate on the content of politics. Formality is not that important. It does not hinder further enlargement of the EU. If the EU wants to bring in new members, it will do so irrespective of any imagined formal restrictions. What is important is that the lawyers dare to do.
Annika Ström-Melin
- The period of reflection that the EU has announced is worrying because the conflicts in Europe are still just under the surface. And the European countries have not even started dealing with the years of communist oppression. In other words, one cannot be sure that Europe will continue to be peaceful.
- Europe should not underestimate the potential destructive force of nationalism. European integration has grown out of the fact that nationalism led to horrific events and circumstances. European leaders "tricked" countries to co-operate. Compare with the Council of Europe which is mostly about proclamations and solemnity.
- The EU is very good and effective - but lack of clarity is a huge problem. And it is linked to the question of democracy. In Sweden we have regulated basic freedoms and rights but in the EU democracy is only indirect. The member states have delegated more than free trade, areas coming very near to the inner core of the right to vote.
- The constitutional treaty was good because it summed up what European co-operation looks like today. Civil freedoms and rights must be engrained in a constitution in order to place limits on the expansion of the EU's power. For example, Sweden would not want the issue of abortion to be decided by the Polish government. Swedes' right to vote on that issue must remain in Sweden.
- The EU cannot continue as before, according to the usual method. The EU we have today functions pretty well; neither more nor less is needed. However, Europe needs clarity on what is it we have today.
- The democratic deficit is the price we pay for keeping conflicts out. Europe for peace is not an obsolete idea.
- The EU is the best available method. European co-operation is a method for our time. Decisions must in many areas be taken on another level than by the nation-state. But we will never have full franchise at the European level.
