Macron seemed to lose interest in the conference once it became clear that it was unraveling into a messy affair that to many observers seemed designed to fail. If the conference had wrapped up just a few months ago, before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and while uncertainty remained over Macron’s April reelection bid, its outcome might indeed have been ignored, as had long been expected. But against the backdrop of a war that has given new momentum to efforts to transform the EU in ways previously unimaginable, and with Macron having accumulated a lot of political capital to spend with his reelection victory, the timing of the conference’s conclusion lent itself to more ambitious visions.
Unsurprisingly, then, Macron gave a full-throated endorsement to the conference’s recommendation for treaty change in a Europe Day speech in Strasbourg. The changes, if ratified by national parliaments—and by referenda in some countries such as Ireland—would not only bring an end to national vetoes, it could also include a new idea crafted by Macron, rather than the conference’s citizen participants: an outer circle of EU-affiliated states that are not quite ready for membership or are not necessarily interested in applying for it. Macron suggested that this European Political Community could potentially include Ukraine and the U.K.
Dave Keating
There was a time years ago when I was also fully in favor of abolishing vetoes in European Union decision making. Perhaps I’m getting older and more conservative in my views, but now I’m almost entirely in the opposite camp. At a time when the European Union and its members are facing multiple urgent crisis, from global warming and energy independence to the security and humanitarian aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, diverting time and effort to lengthy negotiations about treaty change seems counterproductive – even downright irresponsible. And that’s before taking into account that these negotiations may fail to deliver consensus – in the years it would take to finalize them, multiple countries could change political leadership, and the new governments may not agree to the outcomes settled by their predecessors – or the final texts may simply fail to get approval, as it happened with the proposed EU Constitution in 2005 – which, ironically for Macron who is championing these changes, failed in France.
Practical considerations aside, removing the veto rights of member states on a range of issues could have unintended consequences for the cohesion of the union. Consider Malta, the smaller country in the EU; without a veto right, Malta has essentially no power to pursue its interests in a political union if a qualified majority decides otherwise. Sure, it may try to convince other members with more voting power of its position, but without a veto its leverage over other countries is vastly diminished. Over the long term, if states find themselves repeatedly at odds with the majority and can’t get their point across, what option do they have other than… leaving the union?
Ironically, countries most fervently in support of Ukraine joining the EU are also opposed to the revision of the treaty – almost as if they realize that, in a qualified majority system, they would lose a lot of influence if a large country such as Ukraine joins. There may be a historical component to this as well, as many European countries spent centuries under Imperial rulers, some broken up into smaller territories; Eastern European countries barely escaped soviet control three decades ago. Despite the benevolence of the European Union, a tighter integration and renouncing veto power could feel as if giving up a freedom and independence too recently obtained.
Abolishing veto rights could influence internal politics as well by reinvigorating extremist parties and fears of losing sovereignty to a supranational, unaccountable authority. This sort of fearmongering was already a major theme of Brexit and the recent French presidential elections, without much basis. I loathe to see the political discourse if states transfer more powers to the EU without veto rights in key areas…
At the end of the day, I prefer to have a united Europe that moves slowly in a common direction than a Europe that moves faster, but in various directions and at various speeds. Basically, I fail to see how a major revision of the treaties would result in a more cohesive Union, in more trust and cooperation between its members, but I can envision many ways in which mutual trust and cohesion would be eroded.
Post a Comment