Friday, March 18, 2005

Constitution too small a step to justify its grand name


I came across an interesting critique of the Constitution for Europe today.  Charles Wyplosz suggests that the debate over the constitution is already a failure (warning: PDF):
But success has had its price. Twenty-five countries do not cooperate as six used to. Each enlargement inevitably gives the impression that the undertaking is being diluted, and perceived dilution means more weight to national interests and less willingness to take the next integrative step. Or so it seems. This paper argues that this perception is misguided. The EU-25 group is considerably more integrated than the EU-6 ever was. Dilution is not a necessary consequence of enlargement, rather enlargement is bringing to the fore a number of institutional failures that were present all along.
What is needed now is a clean-up of European institutions and practices. Fifty years of negotiations have lead to good and less good agreements, which warrants re-examination. Anyway, times have changed and old agreements, including old acquis communautaires are outdated. The European Constitutional Convention, a consequence of the failure of the Nice summit in December 2000, offered a unique opportunity of sorting out this legacy. This opportunity has not been well-exploited. By refusing to open the Pandora box that a clean-up requires, and by adopting wholesale all the acquis communautaires, good and bad alike, today’s leaders have failed their duty. The Constitution is not bad per se, it is just too small a step to justify its grand name.
He is probally right, but it would be hard to sell a Constitution any more grand then the current one.  And that is going to be a tough sell as it is.

No comments: