Euro

Posted 3:32 AM by Dil
Europe should forget the federalist papers
By Denis MacShane
Published: April 22 2003 20:12 | Last Updated: April 22 2003 20:12

There are some 60 days to go before the Convention on the Future of Europe finishes its work. Will the grand hopes that Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and his 100 conventioneers would write a new blueprint for Europe come true? When it began its work last year there were ambitious comparisons to the Philadelphia process of two centuries ago that gave rise to the US constitution. Reading some reports of today's European Convention, one has the impression of arcane wrangles more like a latter-day Treaty of Versailles conference.

In the 18th century, the US conventioneers were 50 strong, all men, mainly slave owners and met in secret. Their constitution was denounced by Walter Bagehot as being too rigid. In The English Constitution, published in the 1860s, Bagehot saw the lack of flexibility in the US constitution as giving rise to the American Civil War. Today, the US constitution is revered. Yet in my lifetime it still condoned racism, held back women's rights and even today permits capital punishment - long banished in the European Union.

So Europe's conventioneers need to be both more modest and more ambitious. The desire to write an American-style constitution that will be eagerly accepted by the peoples of all 25 EU member states needs to be put to one side. The EU will continue to be a mixture of national will and sharing of sovereignty. To say we need "more" Europe is not the point. We need a more efficient Europe, a more dynamic Europe, a more coherent and united Europe. A Europe that does not provide a subsidy of $2 a day to each of its cows via the absurd Common Agricultural Policy that still absorbs nearly half of the EU's budget.

We need a more dynamic Europe. There are more than 7m workers in France and Germany alone deprived of their most important right - the right to work because of the stubborn refusal of trade unions, employers and European Central Bank bureaucrats to promote policies aimed at creating jobs.

After the divisions over Iraq, we need to find ways for Europe to speak more clearly with one voice on a basis of partnership with the great forces for democracy in the world but not to create a new transatlantic rivalry.

The conventioneers may argue that these tasks are not their business. But they are seasoned political animals. Their proposals must withstand the pressures of European voters who increasingly feel the EU is not taking care of their day-to-day concerns.

That is why the remaining 60 days should be devoted to less debate on ultra-visionary architecture. The EU is process, not finalised product. Instead, the convention should focus on producing recommendations that will be broadly acceptable to Europe's governments. They, after all, will have to take forward the convention's work in the form of a new Treaty of Europe that allows the 25 parliaments and the citizens of Europe to come together.

Mr Giscard d'Estaing and his conventioneers need to make sure the best is not the enemy of the good. High hopes of ultra-federalists or fanatical nation-firsters should be parked. The convention should produce a sensible, working plan to allow 25 nations to take as many decisions as possible in common, while maintaining the indissoluble link that binds people to their parliaments and national governments.

If this means compromise and limited approach so be it. Otherwise the convention will be seen as just another longer, more expensive seminar on the future of Europe. It would then be up to the 25 governments to begin anew in the subsequent inter-governmental conference, which could mean a drawn-out negotiation and hasty decisions in the final 24 hours.

This would be a shame. The work of the convention has been of high quality. The contributions are serious and thoughtful. Different proposals deserve examination. The nervous bureaucratic protectionism seen from different national ministries terrified of sharing competences with their colleagues across frontiers needs to be overcome.

So in its last 60 days, the convention has to have the ambition to be modest and give Europe a workable set of proposals - without minority reports and conflicting alternatives - that can command general support. Then the convention will go down in history. And Europe's ministers will not face an endless IGC when they should be concentrating on getting Europe back to work and making its historic enlargement signed in Athens last week deliver a Europe of peace, prosperity and social responsibility.

The writer is Britain's minister for Europe