Public benefit?

Following the Spanish referendum in February, voting is underway across the countries of the European Union which have decided to hold referenda on the proposed European constitution. European-wide opinion polling suggests that the result in Spain will be repeated in most countries – a clear majority of those voting in favour, even if there is widespread abstention and a lack of detailed public understanding of what is being proposed. Only in a small number of countries – the UK, France (where the debate on the referendum due at the end of May is taking an increasingly eurosceptic tone), the Netherlands, Poland and the Czech Republic – is there any likelihood of a substantial vote against the proposed constitution. But if one country votes against, the whole constitution would not proceed, since it requires ratification by all 25 member states to take effect. What does the new EU constitution mean, and what is in it that would work to Scotland’s benefit?

Less radical than some

The European Constitution is in fact legally not a constitution at all: it is, like all previous legal acts governing the operation of the EU, a treaty between sovereign states. But it does contain many elements which have a constitutional effect, and are subject to control – and interpretation – by the judges of the European Court of Justice. In many ways the constitution aims to tidy up and rationalise many of the innovations brought into force by previous treaties amending the original 1957 Treaty of Rome. Indeed, the constitution itself is less innovative than previous such treaties. The Single European Act of 1987, signed by Mrs Thatcher, enshrined qualified majority voting which was essential to the development of the Single European Market. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 created the euro, enshrined the co-decision powers of the European Parliament and incorporated co-operation on justice and home affairs within the EU framework; and the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated the Schengen free travel zone within the EU and laid the basis for co-operation on European defence.

The new constitution does, of course, have some important innovations of its own. It draws a line under the creeping centralisation of the EU by defining clearly how competences are distributed between the Union, its institutions and the member states. It allows, for the first time, a member state to withdraw from the Union. It introduces some measures to promote greater democratic participation, including a right for citizens to propose legislation. Important rationalisation measures such as a reduction in the number of commissioners and more coherent rules on what constitutes a qualified majority of member states to agree a new law are included. It streamlines decision making on foreign affairs and justice and home affairs by incorporating these subjects within the full EU structure, and creates a European Minister for Foreign Affairs. And the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is included for the first time, enshrining guarantees for the citizen that decisions taken in Brussels or Luxembourg will not infringe basic human rights.

No major domestic issues

These issues are important to those who believe in making Europe work better and in Europe making a greater impression on the world stage. Improving decision making will also help those who need to enforce their rights across frontiers – for example, making the justice and home affairs system more efficient will make it easier for Scots who live or who own second homes in another EU country to deal with cross-border legal issues, or for those who buy in another EU country goods or services which are defective to achieve a worthwhile remedy. From the Scottish perspective useful, if minor changes to wording are included which will make it easier for legislative regions such as Scotland to be consulted about the form of proposed EU legislation at the pre-legislative stage, thus helping to ensure that EU legislation recognises Scottish conditions better than it may have in the past.

There is no major issue of domestic importance, however, which is changed in any meaningful way by this constitution. Environment, economic, trade and industry policy will be decided very much as before. The constitution itself makes no significant change to either agriculture or fisheries policy, meaning that valuable changes under consideration, for example the devolution of fisheries management to regional groups (such as for the North Sea), will not be affected by agreement on the constitution itself. Moreover, changes are underway in other key policies to Scotland such as regional policy, where the focus is shifting very much towards support for the new member states in eastern and central Europe, which suggest that the EU is likely to become less rather than more relevant to the daily life of the Scottish citizen in future.

An increasingly alien body?

On the basis of the points above a case can be put together suggesting that this is a valuable tidying up exercise which will make a Europe of 25 work more effectively and will not inevitably mean greater centralisation of powers in Brussels. But this will not in itself form a convincing case to convince a naturally eurosceptic population that it should vote actively in favour. (Scotland showed greater levels of support for Europe than England in the 1980s and 1990s, but we should not forget that Scotland was more eurosceptic than the rest of the UK in the 1970s.) The growing levels of opposition to the Common Fisheries Policy will act to bolster the case against the constitution, and the diminishing importance of regional policy will take away from the constitution’s proponents, examples of direct European support for projects in Scottish regions.

On the other hand there is plenty of material in current and planned EU policy and legislation on core issues such as environment, economy, justice and home affairs, trade and tourism which does act to the benefit of individuals. But most of what happens in Europe is a closed book to domestic ministers, officials and MSPs, let alone the general public. Politicians who want Scots to vote in favour of the new constitution, which distinguished Scots such as Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Professor Neil McCormick played a key role in creating, will have to demonstrate more clearly than they do at present why decision making on EU issues matters to them, and what steps they are taking to influence it. Otherwise the EU will be seen as an increasingly alien body working to the benefit of business, lawyers and bureaucrats but doing nothing to improve the lives of ordinary people.

Update on Services Directive

As the March edition, in which I wrote on the proposed Services Directive (page 54) was going to press, the Commission announced that they were prepared to consider some substantial changes to the original proposal, in response to strong lobbying, mainly from France and Germany. These countries, influenced by the increasingly eurosceptic tone of the debate on the constitution in France, are concerned that the full application of the country of origin principle for service providers could undermine the social model which applies in these countries by allowing competitors from member states with much lower social costs to compete in their markets. The Commission has also said it is prepared to reconsider the inclusion of sensitive sectors in the scope of the directive.

These points were reinforced at the Economic Summit in Brussels on 21-22 March, where heads of state and government made it clear that they did not want the directive to undermine the European social model. Because of the nature of the EU legislative process the Commission cannot come forward with new amendments itself, but will instead respond to proposals put forward by the Parliament and member states after the Parliament’s first reading. The UK is a strong supporter of the aims of the directive, but has welcomed the Commission’s readiness to consider changes in these areas.

Colin Imrie is a former diplomat and Commission official and is now Director of Eurosolution.com Ltd, an Edinburgh-based consultancy services firm working on EU matters