Scottish referendum and the next Convention

Tomorrow is a big day for the European Union. If Scottish citizens (including more than 160 thousands non-British ones) vote for the independence, they will launch an unprecedented process within the EU. It will trigger a whole debate about the reorganisation of internal EU affairs. 

If they vote NO, it will trigger a reorganisation of the Great Britain according to the latest promises of the UK leaders. So the reorganisation process is under way, one way or another. 

My sympathy is with the pro-independance vote but not so much because independant Scotland is so dear to me. I could live with both outcomes, whatever the Scotts choose. 

What I am interested in is how such a process would be menaged by the European polity. And it is better to test it with the pragmatic British mind than an emotional Iberic heart (Catalogne). 

Here I come to a second part of this blog. What should be the best platform to deal with a Yes vote of the Scottish voters? I tend to think it should be a Convention. Here are some arguments for this thesis:

1. Whoever followed the discussion about jthe Scottish independance knows that in the discussion rooms part of the public always came from the Cataluna. So whatever comes out of negotiations between London-Brussels-Edinburgh, will be closely followed by Madrid and Barcelona.... Sorry, I meant to say that both Madrid and Barcelona will be part of this process anyway. So the new blueprint will hold for the future. And that is why it is important to set the precedent right! 

2. One of the big discussions about independant Scotland is the question of the British pound. Interestingly, it touches the discussion on the benefits and costs of having a single currency - the Euro. If Scotland is asked to negotiate its terms of accession according to the Maastricht treaty and the Copenhagen criteria, it would be forced to adopt the Euro, which economicaly (access to the British market) is not the best solution. This opens the whole debate about concentric circles in the Union. Should we force all the countries to join all the core policies, or should we allow for flexibility, different speed Europe? Should we allow countries to leave the Euro, without leaving the Union? We should touch on such taboo topics too. 

3. A minor detail which was already discussed in the last Convention. Can we still afford to have a Commissioner from each Member State? Because of the Irish no in their first Lisbon treaty referendum, we have to stick to 28 'ministers' and we are approaching a non-managable number of them in the future. If this logic holds true that each of the 16 German landers (if Germany was to disaggragate) could claim a Commissioner... we would end up in the Commission of 40.... This has to be rationalised somehow. 

4. Of course there is an issue of the potential UK referendum whether to stay in the EU or not. A Convention process would the best forum to discuss the reformed EU at large. It gives the opportunity to cater for the wishes of the British euro-scepticism and the Dutch EU reluctance... 

I advise all of those interested in the topic to follow the streaming of the conference 'We, the citizens: how to let Europeans participate in the future Treaty changes' where different experts discussed not only the question of the Convention, but a European-wide referendum as well. I am particularly enchanted with the speech of Ben Crum (II part, 1:00) where he developes a political perspective of a vulgarisation of the convention method. He says: 'We have to live the fact that democracy is a way.' 

So we cannot pre-define all the results. We have to live both the success and the failure if we want to learn and open the decision process. 

What I find most striking is his idea that also the citizens should be allowed to elect directly their representatives for the next Convention. So are we moving back to the ancient Rome and the idea of people's tribunes? This is a new issue for me that merits a good discussion... 

Let's keep our minds open and see how the future unfolds... 

Banking Union - unintended consequences and path dependency

I kept silent for 6 months or so.... Was I too busy? Or my personal computer went down which forced me to use the older, crappy one. Anyway, my previsions for steps to federation during last December proved overly optimistic and a bit too early. But the unfolding of events looks like there is a new great bargain approaching.
I can bet by December 2012 we shall start a real next step in the european integration. Will it be called Banking Union (sounds like Ban-Ki-Moon...... :), or Fiscal integrated management..... or The Union (do not mistake with The Facebook :))..... the name can be sorted later. But the financial and economic crisis is posing an existential threat to the Union as we know it and it will require a substantial readjustement of the whole structure. When I wrote about the last Convention in 2005 I did not think we shall have another one that quickly. But from what Andrew Duff says and I believe THIS TIME he might be right..... we might face a new one in the beginning of 2015. What is the logic?
1. European Council will come up at the end with Treaty proposals that will substantially alter the distribution of power and competences in the European Union. Depending on the British position we shall have a new Maastrich type treaty (for all 28 Member states).
2. The economic governance reforms will be created in a piecemeal approach. They will not be perfect, rather short-term fixes like EFSF, ESM..... Ok, 6-pack was not short term... but what I try to say is that we shall have many pieces of a structure but the new architecture shall be missing.
3. The European Parliament elections will be tough for the traditional ruling blocks of Socialist and European Peoples Party. The new power structure and new entrants will show the disenchantement of the population with the behind the scenes tractations at European summits.
4. A legitimation effort shall be needed, and maybe this will even be the claim of main parties that a Convention looks  at the new picture and tries to bring clarity to the new status quo.

So let's see and wait if this time my prognosis will be proved right. I expect a bumpy second part of 2012 but the framework presented by Van Rompuy for the June summit seems like a vision document (but without the dates).....

Summing up, It is a very good time to be passionately interested in European politics. Watch the new union unfold. As to discussions if this should be a federation, confederation, union or community..... I vote for 'EUROPA'. We do not need to abide by what is there in the political science. We create an entity that will defy the existing categorisations. New ones will need to depict the new reality. Enjoy the show!

The EU on a way to federation

So it looks like France and Germany agreed for a new treaty change. Yet this time the logic of change is different. It is enough if some 17 plus countries ratify the new treaty for it to come into force. This looks like a situation experienced by the States of America when they were ratifying the US Constitution in 1787...
So this is a historical moment: change from a confederal rule of unanimity to a federal rule of a majority. Ok, a special majority where France and Germany have to be in, or do they?
So the next steps are as follows:
The European Council will agree this week to start the treaty amendment process. Then the European Parliament will use its right to convene a Convention, why should not it insist of this right?
So in March we start a Convention, which we probably be limited in time - let's say till end of July. The new IGC will be so locked by the Convention that it will barely touch on the substance and in December 2012 we shall start the ratification process. However this time ratifications will be clearly scheduled in a sensible way. Starting from the most pro-European to the least. So if the majority to enact the treaty is set at let's say 4/5 of the countries and 2/3 of the population we shall see an interesting count down.
Maybe it is time to undust my thesis on the dynamics of the Convention? Who knows....
Now let's see who will chair the next Convention? Is it Mr Van Rompuy or the Convention will be allowed to choose itself? Rather not.

Barroso II - Yes but for 8 months only?

We are living in interesting times and not only 'financial times'. The European debate reaches its peak without being noticed. Four very important issues dominate the agenda and they are all linked one to another
1. Ratification of a Reform treaty that took already 7 years of preparation (since the Declaration of Laeken in December 2001). The Irish will make it or break it and thus will shape the future of the Union, either way.
2. The choice of the political leadership of the Union. The discussion around Barroso, the future President of the European Council and the foreign minister are actually a repetition of the discussion held around the Convention on the Future of Europe in 2002-03.
3. The ruling of the Constitutional Court of Germany shows that finally the issue of democratic deficit has to be treaten at a political and not philosophical level only. Germany being the biggest EU democracy will shape the future of the debate about the role of the national parliaments, EP, Committee of the Regions etc. After incremental changes during the next years it will lead to a new Reform Treaty to be negotiated in the next 5-10 years.
4. The reluctance of Mr Klaus to sign the treaty ratified by both Chambers of the Parliament will shape the relations between the legislative and executive power. I do not know much about Czech constitutional politics but I sense a big defeat of Mr Klaus. Still I believe he will manage to delay the coming into force of the treaty by let's say 6 months.

Conclusions: The current constitutional discussion in the EU shows that the proponents of the politisation of the Union are gaining ground. I am happy to see all this happening. We should not be pressed by the Calendar too much and let things be settled when they get mature. I do not like the rush of the German government to have all the bits ready before 1 October. This is an unnecessary brinkmanship for me but maybe I do not see the full political context.

I suggest to break the link between issues. How can we achieve this? By electing a temporary care taker Barroso II Commission which is actually already the case (given the departures of Mandelsson, Huebner, Grybauskaite, Michel). 2010 will be anyway a year when relations between the 3 top jobs in the EU will be settled so Barroso could be replaced by some one else if the new political equation sees the light of the day finally.

The only BUT for this solution is the question: which country will temporary lose 'its' Commissioner during the transitory period - till the entrance into force of the Lisbon treaty. I suggest that we divide all the EU countries into 3 groups: big (DE, UK, FR, IT, E, PL), middle (from RO - 22 M person till Bulgaria - 8 M person) and small and than make them choose straws who will 'lose' the Commissioner in each group. This would free 3 posts :) and keep a political balance between the EU states.

Somebody asks what will happen if France does not have a Commissioner? Would it make the EU less legitimate? I would answer that anyway France has so many ways to influence the EU (Sarkozy, DGs in the Commission, COREPER, EP etc.) that it would change much. Anyway the French big fish will sit in other cabinets too so why be afraid.... By the way it is Mr Chirac who brokered this unclear deal in Nice (less Comissioners than the number of MS) so at least they could praise being the fathers of the changes.

Anyway in the long term this should be up to the President of the Commission to chose how big his team should be. He should be able to create a Cabinet type Commissioners - a clever British invention to limit the number of political interlocutors for key decisions.

Why did the Convention fail.... or did it?

I keep on repeating myself. It still bothers me why the European project does not have a clear acceptable description of what it is. Why almost 60 years after the Declaration of Robert Schuman we did not agree where we want to go and how we want to do it.

Ok, we are learning by doing. Who would ever say that these poor, post-communist Poles with many complexes and fighting style will ever steer the European project (second half of 2011). Do we really trust others that they will take into account our interest and not drive through our country like Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin used to do. Each nation state has gone through a long debate about issues like what means human rights (right to kill, right to believe, right to protest, right to protect). And actually the drafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights was a good exercise in creating ambiguous compromises and blurring the meaning of words. I think this debate is not over but we need it. This is a major debate of any federalism: how far can a central judiciary intervene in the parts which compose the polity. I think we need a debate about the rights of gay marriages in less liberal states. And the rights of gypsies to settle down on the outskirts of Rome. And the rights of employers to sack all the workers and bring Latvian cheaper workforce with a temporary contract.

I think we have forgotten that building of the single market was not the aim in itself. That it is only a tool for a greater cause. And this cause is much closer to the Kantian proposal to establish peace among nations. And even if 55 years after the world war II we already think it is unthinkable again we still need to go back to this primary preoccupation and bring back its own sense.

Bacause both the conference in Hague in 1949 (establishement of the Council of Europe) and the Schuman declaration had this basic preoccupation in mind. But to be really in line with the facts, the institutional structure proposed by Schuman has changed considerable over time as a result of internal negotiations and changing priorities.

But when I hear all these discussions about 'Europe puissance' - the power of Europe, it is really the old French dream of establishing world rules that comes to my mind. Yes we have interests and want to spread our values. But really a common foreign policy which is the reason for criticising Europe is at the end a secondary preoccupation. The major one was always internal. The Americans via NATO took care of Western Europe external security, so there was only the inner one to cope then. But it is true that one day the external security might become the primary one. Terrorism in fact is a serious threat. But still many times this comes eventually back to the one of integration of foreigners (Muslem British or Germans) in the societies. There is also state terrorism which has not die out with the end of cold war. But I think I shall come back to these issues later because the logic of this post is getting lost.

Still this is the major challenge of writing about EU. Whatever you start with it brings you always to other issues and it is difficult to conclude.

So coming back to the issue of Convention (on the Future of Europe). Did it fail or not really?
It failed largely because:
1. It failed to attract enough media and politician attention before the closing months when the real articles of the 'Constitutional Treaty' have been assambled together.
2. It produced a long juridical text which does not pass the test of explaining or resolving the fundamental dillemas of the European project. It has been kidnapped by lawyers.
3. It (President) forced a controversial idea of changing voting rules in the name of efficiency and simplicity, which applied directly create a risk of giving too substantial powers to the largest nation states.

It succeeded because:
1. It has initiated a huge debate inside EU and closed the period when European politics has been confined to elitist groups.
2. It has shown to many federalists the limits of comparison with USA and the process of statebuilding and the mobilising force of European ideal.
3. The Convention has established a precedent/model of debate and negotiation which is superior to the model of Intergovernmental Conferences.

Ok, that's it for now. I will come back to these issues again.