COMMENTARY: What's in a name, even for the EU Constitution?
|
By Minttu Mikkonen
Parliament's Grand Committee voted on Friday to recommend that the government make a presentation to Parliament for the ratification of the proposed Constitution for the European Union.
Splendid. Now all we need to know is how much we care one way or another.
Unfortunately, the EU Constitution has been conceived in the public mind as a project of the elite, even though the intention has been to clarify the Union's decision-making processes in such a way that we EU citizens would understand them better. The aim has also been for the EU to leave some of the legislative brushwood in the hands of member-states.
The referendums held in France and Holland, which rejected the treaty, forced the Constitution into a holding mode last summer, with several countries agreeing to suspend ratification.
The "pause for reflection" has largely been taken as a pause without very much reflection going on, as the Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn (Centre Party) has observed.
Finland joined other EU members in freezing ratification of the Constitution. As recently as in February of this year, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre Party) said on the subject that the country taking over the reins of the rotating EU Presidency from next summer would be ill-advised to set out its stall categorically in advance.
The situation has changed, and it now looks as though the government will propose ratification before Parliament breaks up for the summer recess.
Parliament will in all probability also approve the deal, since the three largest parliamentary groups are in favour, even the EU-sceptic Centrists.
So what really happened?
The Finnish elite took the hint from the comments of their European colleagues that one or other member-state ought to do something so that the EU could emerge from its pause into something at least approaching thought and action. The matter was discussed in the three government parties in the course of the winter.
In March, Antti Kaikkonen, the Centre Party MP and one of the two vice-chairs of the Grand Committee, announced in a Helsingin Sanomat interview that the government could propose ratification. His comment did not come as any bombshell delivered without first checking with the party leadership.
Curiously, it was more difficult to determine the position of the Social Democrat grouping. What went through was a form of words in which the government are not "obliged" to do anything, but rather that Parliament expresses its wish for ratification and leaves the timetable up to the government to ponder. According to some analysts, doubting backbench MPs were brought into line by announcing to them that if you are not for ratification, you are against the EU.
The critical voices appealed to the fact that signals had come out of Britain and France suggesting that ratification of the shelved Constitution would in fact weaken Finland's credibility as EU President.
Of the fourteen Finnish MEPs, only four are in favour of a speedy ratification.
Even if everything goes according to plan, it seems unlikely that ratification will be possible before Finland takes over the Council Presidency on July 1st. Nevertheless, it is the thought that counts, as they say.
The June European Council immediately ahead of Finland's stint as President is supposed to find agreement on how to proceed with the EU Constitution.
A proper discussion on the future of the EU will nonetheless have to wait for another twelve months, until after the French and Dutch elections. Within the Commission, the estimate is that a revamped agreement could perhaps be concluded in the first half of 2008.
Commissioner Rehn noted last week that the document acquired an excessively grand and formal stamp when it was called a constitution. Others have echoed this view; it would, they say, have been wiser to talk of a basic agreement.
Finland's six months from July are not expected in advance to produce any significant breakthroughs. The citizens' coffee-cups are unlikely to spill over at the news of ratification by Finland, but perhaps our leaders will find it more comfortable to sit at the EU table knowing that they have achieved at least something.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 8.4.2006
The author is a Helsingin Sanomat political journalist.
Parliament's Grand Committee voted on Friday to recommend that the government make a presentation to Parliament for the ratification of the proposed Constitution for the European Union.
Splendid. Now all we need to know is how much we care one way or another.
Unfortunately, the EU Constitution has been conceived in the public mind as a project of the elite, even though the intention has been to clarify the Union's decision-making processes in such a way that we EU citizens would understand them better. The aim has also been for the EU to leave some of the legislative brushwood in the hands of member-states.
The referendums held in France and Holland, which rejected the treaty, forced the Constitution into a holding mode last summer, with several countries agreeing to suspend ratification.
The "pause for reflection" has largely been taken as a pause without very much reflection going on, as the Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn (Centre Party) has observed.
Finland joined other EU members in freezing ratification of the Constitution. As recently as in February of this year, Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Centre Party) said on the subject that the country taking over the reins of the rotating EU Presidency from next summer would be ill-advised to set out its stall categorically in advance.
The situation has changed, and it now looks as though the government will propose ratification before Parliament breaks up for the summer recess.
Parliament will in all probability also approve the deal, since the three largest parliamentary groups are in favour, even the EU-sceptic Centrists.
So what really happened?
The Finnish elite took the hint from the comments of their European colleagues that one or other member-state ought to do something so that the EU could emerge from its pause into something at least approaching thought and action. The matter was discussed in the three government parties in the course of the winter.
In March, Antti Kaikkonen, the Centre Party MP and one of the two vice-chairs of the Grand Committee, announced in a Helsingin Sanomat interview that the government could propose ratification. His comment did not come as any bombshell delivered without first checking with the party leadership.
Curiously, it was more difficult to determine the position of the Social Democrat grouping. What went through was a form of words in which the government are not "obliged" to do anything, but rather that Parliament expresses its wish for ratification and leaves the timetable up to the government to ponder. According to some analysts, doubting backbench MPs were brought into line by announcing to them that if you are not for ratification, you are against the EU.
The critical voices appealed to the fact that signals had come out of Britain and France suggesting that ratification of the shelved Constitution would in fact weaken Finland's credibility as EU President.
Of the fourteen Finnish MEPs, only four are in favour of a speedy ratification.
Even if everything goes according to plan, it seems unlikely that ratification will be possible before Finland takes over the Council Presidency on July 1st. Nevertheless, it is the thought that counts, as they say.
The June European Council immediately ahead of Finland's stint as President is supposed to find agreement on how to proceed with the EU Constitution.
A proper discussion on the future of the EU will nonetheless have to wait for another twelve months, until after the French and Dutch elections. Within the Commission, the estimate is that a revamped agreement could perhaps be concluded in the first half of 2008.
Commissioner Rehn noted last week that the document acquired an excessively grand and formal stamp when it was called a constitution. Others have echoed this view; it would, they say, have been wiser to talk of a basic agreement.
Finland's six months from July are not expected in advance to produce any significant breakthroughs. The citizens' coffee-cups are unlikely to spill over at the news of ratification by Finland, but perhaps our leaders will find it more comfortable to sit at the EU table knowing that they have achieved at least something.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 8.4.2006
The author is a Helsingin Sanomat political journalist.
MINTTU MIKKONEN / Helsingin Sanomat
minttu.mikkonen@hs.fi