WORLD VIEW: Radical change is sometimes necessary to ensure things remain the same. That paradox is central to the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe, which this week opened its proceedings in Brussels. It merits careful consideration by the Irish representatives there, who want to preserve existing balances within the European Union, but disagree about the best means to do so.
Radical change is apparent, first of all, in the convention's make-up. It brings together 105 national parliamentarians from the 27 existing and aspirant member-states, along with government representatives and those from the established EU institutions.
This departure from the established inter-governmental method of preparing EU treaty changes by ministers and diplomats is intended to confer greater democratic legitimacy on the convention's work, which is best summarised in the declaration agreed by heads of government in Laeken last December: How to bring citizens, primarily the young, closer to the European design and institutions, how to organise politics and the European area in an enlarged Union and how to develop the Union into a stabilising factor in the new, multipolar world.
The declaration addresses these questions comprehensively, with no taboos attached. This means it is likely to generate political controversy - essential if it is to attract attention from national and European publics. The radical dimension is most apparent in the aspiration shared by many of its leading figures to agree a "constitution", a "constitutional treaty" or a "constitutional text" for the EU, setting out in clear and simple fashion basic values and structures governing it.
In a visionary speech to the convention's opening session its president, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, called on it to agree such a document, saying it could lay the foundation for a changed role for Europe as a power capable of talking on equal terms with the greatest powers in the world.
The praesidium working with him shares much of this aspiration, as did other opening speakers. They included the former Taoiseach, Mr John Bruton, and Mr Proinsias De Rossa, representing the Oireachtas, who both supported an EU constitution - but notably not the Government's representative, Mr Ray MacSharry. He sees a constitution leading to a European state, which he says is unrealistic and not going to happen. He says the Government "wants to modernise the Union, not to rebuild it from scratch".
The germs of a serious political disagreement are clear in these exchanges. But it would be a mistake to confine it to a sterile argument between inter-governmental and federal methods of integration. Such a false choice has for too long bedevilled this debate, based on either/or and zero sum assumptions between the nation-state and a federal superstate.
Thus the inter-governmentalists say that sovereignty shared is sovereignty surrendered - and make the same assumptions about democracy, economic regulation and political identity. Since there is no European public sphere, people or Demos, they say, deeper integration necessarily dilutes national identity and democracy, impoverishing citizens in the interests of transnational and bureaucratic elites. A constitutional document is unnecessary and potentially destabilising.
Such positions underlie many of those who campaign against the Nice Treaty in Ireland and some who support it, notably the Attorney General, Michael McDowell. They are not shared by the Fianna Fáil mainstream represented by Mr MacSharry. But his views appear cautious and defensive compared to many others in the convention, including Mr Bruton and Mr De Rossa.
In supporting an EU constitution they do not necessarily buy into a federalist agenda leading to a state-like core. An alternative vision is possible, summarised in the slogan "a federation of nation-states" floated by a number of European leaders.
According to this account the EU is much more that an international organisation, but less than a state. It is a non-state polity combining political authority, institutions and identity. Its dimensions of community and legitimacy must be increased if it is "to command the level of public support that's necessary for the scale of the endeavour we are engaged in", as Mr Bruton put it.
To preserve the balances Mr MacSharry says the Government values it will be necessary to think more radically about the best means to do this. The very act of enlarging the EU to double its present size will qualitatively change its character. The question of how to preserve the institutions that have served Ireland and other smaller states well, especially the European Commission, becomes pressing in this context.
There is a definite trend among the larger states, exemplified in a joint paper by the Germans and British, to go for more inter-governmental methods, determined by the European Council and the council of ministers rather than the supranational Commission. If they succeed we will be closer to a directory of the larger states. To prevent that happening the smaller ones will have to develop new ideas about how to strengthen the EU's core institutions in a larger Union.
Radical ideas about how to do that would include electing the Commission president directly from national electorates on the same day as the European Parliament elections, thereby developing a transnational "we-feeling" and strengthening the Commission's role and legitimacy among the member-governments. Alternatively, the Commission president could be elected from the European Parliament, creating greater accountability. More majority voting would be easier to agree if the question of representation on the Commission was reopened at the convention, rather than rotated after membership exceeds 27, as agreed at Nice.
This would help to bring citizens closer to the European design and institutions, as called for in the Laeken Declaration. So would a radical simplification of the treaties; whether that is best achieved by a constitutional treaty or a classical state-like constitution is a huge subject of debate. It is closely related to the preferred political destination of the EU and whether it becomes a unitary political system or retains its present hybrid, dialogical character between the nation-states and the central core. Much greater openness of the legislative process will help to legitimate it.
Ireland should support a continuing strong cohesion function which can extend the benefits we have gained to the new states coming in. Even as a net contributor we have much more to gain politically than lose fiscally by this. In the same way Ireland can contribute much to the elaboration of an ethical globalisation approach to the EU's foreign and security policy. It is better to be critically involved than to opt out.
Such a radical approach would continue Ireland's traditionally pragmatic attitude to European integration, but adapt it to these changing circumstances.
