Does the EU need a “proper” constitution?

Anna Dekalchuk, September, the 30th

Outline

1. What is it, a “proper” constitution for the EU?2. C-word as a misnomer in the European context3. “Constitutional” – still an adjective (“exercise in

PR” rather than in state-building)4. Unwrapping the CT: Lisbon and path dependence

1. What is it, a “proper” constitution for the EU?

Two main meanings of the word “proper”

PROPER = FORMAL

Constitution as an ideal model, characterized by Raz’s seven criteria:

(1) constitutive; (2) stable; (3) superior; (4) written; (5) justiciable; (6) entrenched; (7) common ideology

“Trap problem”: there is no other entity but state which is ruled by constitution

1. What is it, a “proper” constitution for the EU?

Two main meanings of the word “proper”

PROPER = FORMAL

PROPER = PECULIAR TO

Constitution as an ideal model, characterized by Raz’s seven criteria:

(1) constitutive; (2) stable; (3) superior; (4) written; (5) justiciable; (6) entrenched; (7) common ideology

“Trap problem”: there is no other entity but state which is ruled by constitution

The EU needs something which is proper for it, peculiar to itAbsence of contradiction: any entity needs something which is proper for it, peculiar to it

e.g. a state needs a constitution

BUT: Does the EU need a proper constitution? Is “constitution” = something needed for the EU?

Step

-by-

step

inte

grat

ion

Establishment of the European federation

with the Constitution

???

2. C-word as a misnomer in the European context

Back in the end of 1940s

The path of integration was chosenLet’s follow the path

Finalité politique = something needed

2. C-word as a misnomer in the European context

Historical institutionalism

Calculus approach Cultural approach

RChI HI SI

Interdependence of agent and structure, their two-way influence

The interests of agents are formed endogenously and exogenously at the same time

A view of institutional development that emphasizes path dependence and unintended consequences

3. “Constitutional” – still an adjective (“exercise in PR” rather than in state-building)Goals

1. To make people understand and appreciate the EU more fully

2. (less ambitious) to reverse the sagging popularity of the organization

Challenges

o Democratic deficit o Eastern enlargemento Infinite complexity and awkwardness of the EU treaties

3. “Constitutional” – still an adjective (“exercise in PR” rather than in state-building)Democratic deficit (follow Moravcsik’s defence)

oThe EU shouldn’t be treated as an utopian ideal model of plebiscitary democracy;othe EU is not a super-state;othe EU deals with the rather limited number of nation states’ functions;othese limited functions don’t require a high citizens‘ involvement even at the national level;othe nature of the EU is that it deals with only that sort of functions. oThe democratic control of these functions should be put into practice in accordance with their endogenous logics

Is it true? No, it isn’t

3. “Constitutional” – still an adjective (“exercise in PR” rather than in state-building)Nature

Steps in essence

3. “Constitutional” – still an adjective (“exercise in PR” rather than in state-building)Essence

? Unw

rappin

g p

roce

ss

Unw

rappin

g p

roce

ss

We expected

We got

4. Unwrapping the CT: Lisbon and path dependence

The Reform treaty = the unwrapped Constitutional treaty

Main differences between the LT and the CT (follow S.Kurpas analysis):

1.absence of the symbolic elements compared to the CT;2.amending treaty , not a replacement of the existing treaty as the CT was.

Still on the path

What is your definition of a proper constitution for the EU?

What do you think of the Lisbon treaty: is it a step back or a step towards the European Constitution?

If the Lisbon treaty is failed on the October the 2d, can we still dream of the future European Constitution?