As the odds of a double whammy rejection increase, what would be next for the Constitution after a no vote? Declaration 30 on the ratification of the Constitution says:
"The Conference notes that if, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council."
On its face, this suggests that the Constitution is not technically dead until at least six states reject it. There is an implicit assumption that all 25 member states will make a decision on the Constitution before the European Council will meet to figure out "Plan B." However, that isn't realistic. Two strikes may be all the Constitution needs to end the process prematurely. So what is likely to happen?
There is the opt-out/side payment route, as was done with after the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. The member states who have not yet ratified the Constitution could be asked to continue the process while France and the Netherlands could be offered some sort of concession to gain popular support for the treaty. Unfortunately, this is not easy to accomplish without reopening the debate over the Constitution, something that would essentially mean starting over. Plus, the primary reason for the likely rejection of Constitution is that the public is skeptical of the old way of doing things and it will not be bought off so easily as in the past.
The more likely route is that the process will be stopped in its tracks for a moment of reflection. There could be some sort of informal agreement about implementing certain reforms, but the larger and most urgently needed reforms like QMV voting in the Council and full-time president of the Council require the backing of a new treaty. This means the best hope for the process is that the a future presidency rallies the member states and pushes forward with the process. Luxembourg does not have enought time left in its presidency to do much, and the United Kingdom, who takes over in June, lacks the enthusaism needed to do the job successfully. Austria and Finland are up next in 2006, but I am also skeptical of their chances. It may take Germany in 2007 to provide the push for change, but that could hinge on who is in charge there when the time comes.
Of course, if six states did decide to reject the Constitution it becomes a dead letter anyway.
"The Conference notes that if, two years after the signature of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, four fifths of the Member States have ratified it and one or more Member States have encountered difficulties in proceeding with ratification, the matter will be referred to the European Council."
On its face, this suggests that the Constitution is not technically dead until at least six states reject it. There is an implicit assumption that all 25 member states will make a decision on the Constitution before the European Council will meet to figure out "Plan B." However, that isn't realistic. Two strikes may be all the Constitution needs to end the process prematurely. So what is likely to happen?
There is the opt-out/side payment route, as was done with after the Danish rejection of the Maastricht Treaty. The member states who have not yet ratified the Constitution could be asked to continue the process while France and the Netherlands could be offered some sort of concession to gain popular support for the treaty. Unfortunately, this is not easy to accomplish without reopening the debate over the Constitution, something that would essentially mean starting over. Plus, the primary reason for the likely rejection of Constitution is that the public is skeptical of the old way of doing things and it will not be bought off so easily as in the past.
The more likely route is that the process will be stopped in its tracks for a moment of reflection. There could be some sort of informal agreement about implementing certain reforms, but the larger and most urgently needed reforms like QMV voting in the Council and full-time president of the Council require the backing of a new treaty. This means the best hope for the process is that the a future presidency rallies the member states and pushes forward with the process. Luxembourg does not have enought time left in its presidency to do much, and the United Kingdom, who takes over in June, lacks the enthusaism needed to do the job successfully. Austria and Finland are up next in 2006, but I am also skeptical of their chances. It may take Germany in 2007 to provide the push for change, but that could hinge on who is in charge there when the time comes.
Of course, if six states did decide to reject the Constitution it becomes a dead letter anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment