Hlavní strana » English Pages » European Constitution Will…

European Constitution Will Change Our Future

English Pages, 10. 9. 2003

When I heard several years ago about the idea of a European constitution, I hoped it was just a wishful thinking of European centralists and federalists and not a realistic project. For I wish, the same as a great part of Czech population, the construction of the European Union was based on nation states and not individual citizens (the basic units of every democratic state). That is why I believed the constitution was not necessary.

Then a rather unexpected shift occurred. Following the general criticism of the tens of thousands pages of chaotic European legislation as well as of the unclear definition of the Union and its potential future development incomprehensible for its citizens, some people began considering the idea of a brief document (that might be called a constitution), which would codify the basic relations of integrating Europe. It should clearly define the extent of such integration and set the limits to its development in future. It might stop the creeping unification of Europe, which I was not the only one to criticize in the past and which has been - since the times of Jaques Delors - managed by the bureaucrats from Brussels behind the back of the continent’s population, behind the back of the citizens of individual member states.

The so-called Convention, however, yielded a completely different result. Even though some Czech as well as European politicians still pretend it is a mere re-codification of the existing model of European integration and thus nothing to worry about (an opinion voiced in our country for example by the participants to the Convention negotiations Jan Kohout and Josef Zielinec), the absolute majority of people who are really concerned know we have been confronted with a radical step. A step across the Rubicon which would be followed by elimination of sovereign European states with their own governments and parliaments that represent legitimate interests of their citizens in favour of the one state. Basic issues in such a state shall be decided by the distant “federal government” in Brussels and Czech citizens shall become a tiny particle the voice (and influence) of which will be practically negligible. Yet there are some who welcome this prospect since that is the Europe they wish for.

We are to believe it is an “objectively” inevitable step and in fact a beneficial one. Yet, it is not inevitable because it is a result of free decision made by human beings and not a law of physics. We have the right to accept or refuse it. If Europe did not maintain this freedom of decision, the situation would be really bad. Furthermore, such a step is not beneficial either. It will definitely weaken European democracy and deepen the “democratic deficit” existing in all supranational structures and the advantages of a nation state will disappear. The important elements of decision making processes will be moved from Prague, Madrid or Helsinki to Brussels, the pressure for further unification (or harmonization) measures aiming at artificial and unnatural uniformity of Europe (figuratively speaking a search for a one size suit to fit all, thin or fat, small or tall) will grow.

I certainly do not oppose European integration. I believe it will be beneficial if Europe reaches an agreement on the same road sings, the same import duties from third countries, the same labeling system of goods and if European nations share the same cultural and civilization values (concerning the capital punishment, organized crime, illegal trade with people and goods across borders, extremist movements, etc.). However, due to different economic levels, to the different stage of social development and to cultural and political traditions of individual countries, it would be in fact harmful if we were to introduce uniform European “eintopf”, if all were to have the same interest rates, taxes, social benefits, economic policy, foreign policy, the same share of domestic and foreign, European and American films in our televisions, closing hours in our shops, the same alcohol content in our beer and thousands of other things same.

This is the core of the current debate about European constitution. And still, this is what is often suppressed or underestimated. Many European governments (including ours and particularly our Foreign Ministry) act as if the only problem to solve was the relative representation of individual countries in the Union institutions. Yet, I am convinced that if we accepted this document as it stands today, if we remained silent or falsely loyal, we would participate in the decision to set off from the current crossroad of European history in the clearly federalist or even supra-nationalist direction.

We should all consider it again. And if we can define our own position, do not let us be shouted down for being anti-European. We may be against the European super-state but we may strongly support reasonably integrated, free, and productive Europe.

Václav Klaus, October 16th, 2003