IT strikes one as quite strange that some Central European countries would want a referendum on EU accession.
Intuitively, it would appear that they are undergoing quite a transformation in having successfully negotiated the chapters of the Acquis and are facing many challenges in slowly trying to approximate and apply EU laws and standards. These states have also geared their budgets, monetary policy and political aspirations overwhelmingly in that direction. Why at the very least, risk instability and waste taxpayer money when it could be better spent? Aren't there better and more appropriate forums for voters to vent anxiety on domestic issues?
While several members in the region are desperately courting Brussels for membership of such a prestigious and lucrative club, but finding it very frustrating, central European states appears to be soul searching for referenda. In any case, other than seeking another opportunity for 'populist' stumping or for a self serving 'mandate,' it begs one to ask: just what kind of EU Bulgaria and Romania may be joining in a few years?
The new EU constitution agreed and executed by the EU 25 heads of state last month is a landmark step with as many question marks as it has answers.
Some of the important provisions of the EU constitution mean that there will be a new system of voting to pass laws. At least 15 member states must agree that represent some 65 per cent of the EU population for a law to be passed. There will also be a permanent EU President, discarding the inefficient rotating presidency, and the EU will also have a foreign minister of sorts. But this is counterbalanced by the retention of a national veto as far as foreign policy, defence and taxation is concerned. There will also be a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, by which EU citizens have their rights spelled out, as opposed to just being nebulously embodied in common law or simple acts which can be overridden by future legislatures.
The EU constitution is long overdue and the need has been recognised as more pressing because the Union has now swelled to 25 countries and will in future number 27, and in the longer term even more. Another argument put forward is that the number of treaties signed with each member state are so many as to create a mass of overlapping complex texts that need to be consolidated into a single overriding treaty.
Moreover, legal scholars point out that it is high time that the EU be endowed with separate formal legal personality, because its political and economic power have been far more developed than its legal standing.
Despite this quantum leap of 'legal personality,' it can hardly be said that the new EU will be a 'state' since it won't be able to raise taxes, or even harmonise them. It also won't have other important powers that are indicia of an independent and sovereign state, such as control of armed forces; nor will it be able to decide its own independent foreign policy or declare war. In fact, the EU foreign minister will have no power over national governments who can veto EU foreign policy. It is likely to be a foreign policy of the lowest common denominator. The EU will not be a unified country - in the sense that the US is - by any stretch of the imagination, but it will increase centralisation to the extent that the separate sovereign states can agree. While it won't be a unified country, it's not just a free trade zone either, because member states have ceded some of their sovereign powers to the EU. The EU has a great deal of power when it comes to cross-border criminal law, the internal market, foreign trade and agriculture, normally domestic issues for states.
For example, despite the creation of the EU Presidency that will take over from the President of the Council of Ministers, the post will have no executive powers and is designed to act as a union spokesperson more than as an executive branch. In fact the EU has two more Presidents with far more power, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Commission. No wonder plain ordinary folk are confused ...
The new voting rules mean smaller member states cannot be overruled and imposed upon by older powers such as France, Germany and the UK. Of course, now that the compromises have been made and the heads of states have signed the new constitution, there will be some very serious referendums that will have to take place. For the constitution to come into force, all 25 countries have to ratify it. Some are constitutionally obliged to have referendums, such as Ireland and Denmark. Other governments have signalled that they will hold referendums on the politically hot potato, such as England, France, Portugal and Spain. This referendum process will be a crucial crossroad for EU institutional development.
The possibility that one of the 25 states will say 'no' is not too remote and this could precipitate serious problems. Legally, the new constitution cannot take effect if one state says no and the EU would be left with its previous structures, despite the cumbersome complexity due to its growth. Politically, this would be a disastrous scenario because it would be hard for an overwhelming majority of states to take a step back for the intransigence of a few. The majority may want to proceed on their own and possibly force any other members that don't agree out. Or, they could maintain the old structures for those that don't accept the new constitution, and go it alone with the new constitution with all the states that agree to take this leap forward. But this would hardly be smooth going, if at all practical.
If we are to assume that Bulgaria and Romania do indeed have referendums on accession and the new EU treaty 'all in one,' image what they may risk in a no vote - EU exclusion, they would have the chance to become members and so couldn't be expelled. The political and economic instability generated in the region would be hard to estimate.
After Bulgaria and Romania, future EU expansion seems particularly troubled for the region. Greek Cyprus has called on Turkey, which is still waiting to be formally considered as potential member state, to formally recognise it as an EU member country. If it does not, Greek Cyprus will not recommend to the EU that accession negotiations should be embarked upon with Turkey. The French have suggested that they will have a popular referendum on whether Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. Greece is threatening to exercise its veto on FYROM (as the EU still recognises it) when it seeks EU and Nato membership, unless 'Macedonia' resolves the dispute over its name to its satisfaction and relinquishes all claims on Northern Greek territories.
While many champion the referendum process, they may well be underestimating populist backlashes, as revealed earlier in the year in the European Parliamentary elections. They may also be overestimating just how much the average voter understands of EU institutions. It is a time for leadership in this region which has suffered so much from parochialism, populism and political expediency. Having viewed some of the disappointing wrangling in the constitutional convention process, and the minefield of problems that will rise to the surface in extending membership to other states in the region, perhaps new central Europe should be showing the responsible path to old Europe and not mimicking its failures. Why should Bulgaria and Romania 'fix' a referendum when the EU 'ain't yet broke'?
Nick Peterson has worked for top law firms and bulge bracket investment banks. He currently leads seminars for professionals around the globe, acts as an expert on EU and World Bank programmes and is an investment banking consultant.
He can be contacted on the email: regional_economic_compass@
yahoo.co.uk
Intuitively, it would appear that they are undergoing quite a transformation in having successfully negotiated the chapters of the Acquis and are facing many challenges in slowly trying to approximate and apply EU laws and standards. These states have also geared their budgets, monetary policy and political aspirations overwhelmingly in that direction. Why at the very least, risk instability and waste taxpayer money when it could be better spent? Aren't there better and more appropriate forums for voters to vent anxiety on domestic issues?
While several members in the region are desperately courting Brussels for membership of such a prestigious and lucrative club, but finding it very frustrating, central European states appears to be soul searching for referenda. In any case, other than seeking another opportunity for 'populist' stumping or for a self serving 'mandate,' it begs one to ask: just what kind of EU Bulgaria and Romania may be joining in a few years?
The new EU constitution agreed and executed by the EU 25 heads of state last month is a landmark step with as many question marks as it has answers.
Some of the important provisions of the EU constitution mean that there will be a new system of voting to pass laws. At least 15 member states must agree that represent some 65 per cent of the EU population for a law to be passed. There will also be a permanent EU President, discarding the inefficient rotating presidency, and the EU will also have a foreign minister of sorts. But this is counterbalanced by the retention of a national veto as far as foreign policy, defence and taxation is concerned. There will also be a Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, by which EU citizens have their rights spelled out, as opposed to just being nebulously embodied in common law or simple acts which can be overridden by future legislatures.
The EU constitution is long overdue and the need has been recognised as more pressing because the Union has now swelled to 25 countries and will in future number 27, and in the longer term even more. Another argument put forward is that the number of treaties signed with each member state are so many as to create a mass of overlapping complex texts that need to be consolidated into a single overriding treaty.
Moreover, legal scholars point out that it is high time that the EU be endowed with separate formal legal personality, because its political and economic power have been far more developed than its legal standing.
Despite this quantum leap of 'legal personality,' it can hardly be said that the new EU will be a 'state' since it won't be able to raise taxes, or even harmonise them. It also won't have other important powers that are indicia of an independent and sovereign state, such as control of armed forces; nor will it be able to decide its own independent foreign policy or declare war. In fact, the EU foreign minister will have no power over national governments who can veto EU foreign policy. It is likely to be a foreign policy of the lowest common denominator. The EU will not be a unified country - in the sense that the US is - by any stretch of the imagination, but it will increase centralisation to the extent that the separate sovereign states can agree. While it won't be a unified country, it's not just a free trade zone either, because member states have ceded some of their sovereign powers to the EU. The EU has a great deal of power when it comes to cross-border criminal law, the internal market, foreign trade and agriculture, normally domestic issues for states.
For example, despite the creation of the EU Presidency that will take over from the President of the Council of Ministers, the post will have no executive powers and is designed to act as a union spokesperson more than as an executive branch. In fact the EU has two more Presidents with far more power, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Commission. No wonder plain ordinary folk are confused ...
The new voting rules mean smaller member states cannot be overruled and imposed upon by older powers such as France, Germany and the UK. Of course, now that the compromises have been made and the heads of states have signed the new constitution, there will be some very serious referendums that will have to take place. For the constitution to come into force, all 25 countries have to ratify it. Some are constitutionally obliged to have referendums, such as Ireland and Denmark. Other governments have signalled that they will hold referendums on the politically hot potato, such as England, France, Portugal and Spain. This referendum process will be a crucial crossroad for EU institutional development.
The possibility that one of the 25 states will say 'no' is not too remote and this could precipitate serious problems. Legally, the new constitution cannot take effect if one state says no and the EU would be left with its previous structures, despite the cumbersome complexity due to its growth. Politically, this would be a disastrous scenario because it would be hard for an overwhelming majority of states to take a step back for the intransigence of a few. The majority may want to proceed on their own and possibly force any other members that don't agree out. Or, they could maintain the old structures for those that don't accept the new constitution, and go it alone with the new constitution with all the states that agree to take this leap forward. But this would hardly be smooth going, if at all practical.
If we are to assume that Bulgaria and Romania do indeed have referendums on accession and the new EU treaty 'all in one,' image what they may risk in a no vote - EU exclusion, they would have the chance to become members and so couldn't be expelled. The political and economic instability generated in the region would be hard to estimate.
After Bulgaria and Romania, future EU expansion seems particularly troubled for the region. Greek Cyprus has called on Turkey, which is still waiting to be formally considered as potential member state, to formally recognise it as an EU member country. If it does not, Greek Cyprus will not recommend to the EU that accession negotiations should be embarked upon with Turkey. The French have suggested that they will have a popular referendum on whether Turkey should be allowed to join the EU. Greece is threatening to exercise its veto on FYROM (as the EU still recognises it) when it seeks EU and Nato membership, unless 'Macedonia' resolves the dispute over its name to its satisfaction and relinquishes all claims on Northern Greek territories.
While many champion the referendum process, they may well be underestimating populist backlashes, as revealed earlier in the year in the European Parliamentary elections. They may also be overestimating just how much the average voter understands of EU institutions. It is a time for leadership in this region which has suffered so much from parochialism, populism and political expediency. Having viewed some of the disappointing wrangling in the constitutional convention process, and the minefield of problems that will rise to the surface in extending membership to other states in the region, perhaps new central Europe should be showing the responsible path to old Europe and not mimicking its failures. Why should Bulgaria and Romania 'fix' a referendum when the EU 'ain't yet broke'?
Nick Peterson has worked for top law firms and bulge bracket investment banks. He currently leads seminars for professionals around the globe, acts as an expert on EU and World Bank programmes and is an investment banking consultant.
He can be contacted on the email: regional_economic_compass@
yahoo.co.uk
