Instead of sending soldiers, the EU should be exporting our values and promoting peace, writes John Hume.
The outcome of the convention on the future of Europe is remarkable. The representatives of the governments and parliaments of Europe, as well as those of the European Commission and Parliament, have succeeded in developing a consensus on the future European Constitution. After 16 months of intense and public discussions, we now have a blueprint for the future of Europe.
Traditionally European constitutional negotiations have been the preserve of government heads and their senior advisers. Most public representatives, and their voters, have been presented with major constitutional reforms on a take-it or leave-it basis. While the process of European integration has been advanced through this method, it has become apparent that Europe is so important in all our lives nowadays that such an elitist approach is no longer viable.
The convention has succeeded because it is based on the fundamental pre-requisites of modern politics in advanced and diverse societies - inclusiveness, equality and dialogue. All significant sections of opinion have been involved in the negotiations, and all significant decisions must be arrived at by consensus, not by majorities.
The draft constitution is, in most respects, a substantial advance on any document ever produced before by the European Union. The constitution may not express the stirring sentiments of other constitutions but 20th century European history has taught us the dangers of political rhetoric. It must also co-exist with the constitutions of the 15 (soon to be 26) member states. It must also define the extremely complex and entirely innovative political structure that is the European Union. Valery Giscard D'Estaing's final document will probably be some 60 times longer than James Madison's US constitution. But we live in much more complex societies and political systems than that of 18th century America.
The constitution includes a number of remarkable achievements. It defines the first priority of the European Union as the preservation and strengthening of peace. Making this the foundation of the constitution is a powerful reminder to our leaders and peoples why we need the EU and why we must maintain it as the best example of conflict resolution in world history.
Second, the need for unity in diversity is explicitly recognised. The constitution overcomes the false conflict between European and national identity that eurosceptics of all nationalities harp on about by ensuring that every European citizen preserves their Irish, German, Italian or other identity while acquiring European citizenship.
Above all, the constitution enhances the democratic accountability of the EU institutions. There is much greater clarity in the division of powers between the EU, the member states and the regions. The possibilities for public scrutiny of EU decision-making are much increased.Member state parliaments will be facilitated in holding their own governments to account over European policy.
The end of the so called and much disliked pillar system will be mourned by no one other than the most obscurantist bureaucrats. The role of the democratically elected European Parliament is to be enhanced, including the establishment of a direct link between the outcome of European elections, the choice of Commission president and the composition of the European Commission.
For Ireland as a whole, providing a constitutional basis for regional and cohesion policy is a major advantage. It will no longer be possible to advocate the downgrading or abolition of EU regional policy. In addition, there is a little-noticed reference to territorial cohesion in the constitution that will in practice greatly assist cross-border co-operation both on this island and across Europe.
In a document of this complexity there are bound to be issues of concern. There is an undercurrent in the text that ignores the practical experience of the convention and the lessons of the EU's own history. There is a discernible tendency in some aspects to give less weight to the principles of equality and inclusiveness, and to lose sight of the unique nature of the EU.
Those who put forward the EU super state conspiracy theory are very wide of the mark. The strength of the EU has been that it has never tried to become a state. Instead we have built a Europe that allows states and peoples to work together. It is crucial that we remember that the EU is built on the diffusion rather than the accumulation of power.
The proposal for a European foreign minister, responsible for conducting a common foreign, security and defence policy, is misconceived. By trying to emulate a more conventional state structure in this way, we would be moving away from the spirit of the EU. At the same time, the detailed proposal would make the foreign minister responsible to national governments through the European Council and to the European Parliament in his capacity as a vice-president of the Commission.
The confusion engendered by the existing division of labour between Secretary General Solana and Commissioner Patten would be multiplied. It would be much more effective if a commissioner for peace and reconciliation were to be appointed, backed up by a peace and reconciliation directorate general. Instead of sending soldiers, the EU should be exporting our values, promoting our philosophy of peace. We should be sending teams to areas of conflict to promote dialogue. The EU must bring people together by political means, not separate them by military force.
The other concern relates to the composition of the European Commission. It is the crucial institution that gives the EU its unique character and provides its driving force. Every member state has always been represented in the Commission, and every commissioner has enjoyed equality with every other commissioner. Eliminating the automatic right to nominate a commissioner, and to create first and second class status within the Commission is to override the fundamental need for equality and inclusiveness within the EU institutions.
It has always been recognised that population size should be taken into account in the Council of Ministers and in the parliament. But it is precisely why each member state must be represented equally in the Commission.
The draft constitution solves a great many of the issues that the EU has been discussing for decades. Other issues it raises can clearly only be resolved within the Inter-governmental Conference that will decide the final text.
We should be looking to our representatives in the IGC to build upon the major contribution of the convention and to avoid losing the unique features of the EU that have made it a beacon of peace and reconciliation to the rest of the world for almost half a century.