Hlavní strana » English Pages » Foreword by Václav Klaus to…

Foreword by Václav Klaus to the CEP publication "Shall we say our Yes or No to the European Constitution"

English Pages, 6. 5. 2005

The European Constitution (or, perhaps more accurately, the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe) is a text which is too long, too complicated and, for an ordinary mortal, insolvable. Though unread, unstudied and therefore, in essence, not understood, it will fundamentally affect the lives of the citizens of those countries of the European continent, for whom it will become their supreme constitutional document. It will affect the lives of all of them, i.e. both those who are averse to it and those who think that there is no need for them even to take note of it. Some might argue that there are more such unread and yet important documents around us. This is certainly true, but it is not the entire truth.

It is not true primarily because in this case it is a key, essentially revolutionary document. In what it implies, it is quite clearly a very exceptional document, even though its authors and advocates try to hide its importance. They do not want us to know about its real content, for good and – for them – sensible reasons.

In essence, this document is a decisive step from a Europe of states towards a single European state. It is a step from the voluntary, constantly negotiated and reaffirmed cooperation of European states in thousands of concrete matters towards the irrevocable dominance of all European institutions and authorities over national institutions and authorities.

It is a step from the states as a primal collectivity of public life of people living in Europe towards the suppression of their sovereignty and transfer of their sovereignty to supranational units.

It is a step from the diversity and independence of European nations (from a humbleness towards them), which has thus far not been disputed by anyone or anything, towards an attempt to create a common, and therefore the most homogenous possible, entirely new, so far nonexistent European nation (and with it common European symbols, emblems and other external attributes).

All of this and much more cannot be denied, even though different ‘Europeans’ or self-assigned ‘owners of Europeanness’ have been trying to do it for a long time.

The Constitutional treaty which is presented for ratification – and there is no doubt that the very use of the word ‘constitution’ was meant to highlight that this document is of crucial importance – was written and pushed through in the member states’ governments by those who wish for substantially accelerated unifying evolvement on the European continent and who have been striving for this for a number of years or even decades. The arguments they use to advocate their stance are old and existed throughout the 20th Century. And they were not used just by the people with high-minded intentions.

These people view the nation-state as a relic of the unfortunate, more or less barbarian European past (which had, in their eyes, lasted until the genesis of the European integration project in the 1950s), as the main, if not sole, cause of the wars which were happening on the European continent in this barbarian past, as a breeding-ground for the recurrent emergence of undemocratic, totalitarian regimes, as too little territory for decisions about the ‘grander issues’ of mankind and, not least, they see the nation-state as a weak counterbalance to the large countries in other continents, which are dangerous because they lack that enlightened European view of the world held by today’s authors of the European constitutional treaty.

These people, on the contrary, view a pan-European state as the initial stage of an enlightened, problem-free future masterminded wisely from above, as a guarantee of the absence of wars, as a trustworthy guarantor of freedom, democracy and human rights (until, indeed, the end of time), as the holder of a broad-minded insight and detached point of view, as an effective counterweight to other superpowers which is equipped with better ideology and ‘superior values’.

The European democrats, of which I hold myself to be one (both a European and a democrat), view this entirely other way round. For them the nation-states are (and have always been) the core of Europe and a guarantee of its good future. Supranational or pan-European institutions and all attempts to gain control over Europe and govern it from one place have always resulted in a lack of freedom, national oppression, subordination to the large and powerful, and similar effects. That is why they were sooner or later abandoned.

The authors of this text, which came into being at the beginning of the promising 21st Century, know very well that the citizens of the European continent who – on the basis of their own experience and the experience of entire generations of their ancestors – appreciate their citizenship and civic rights in the framework of existing nation-states, do not want this fundamental and, in effect, immense –  one might say outright ‘Misesian’ – step or leap into the unknown.

Therefore they try not to take the citizens’ opinion on these things into consideration – under the pretence that the common people are not yet (and never will be) ready to make decisions on such big issues and that is why they need to be guided by those – the self-appointed vanguard – who were ready to assume this mantle long ago. Much could be written about what is hidden behind this feeling of theirs. It would be possible to write a lot about their real motivation. I do not think their behaviour is caused by intellectual defect, i.e. their incapability to presume different context and effects, which perhaps at first glance are not to be seen if we fail to look carefully enough.

Their behaviour is rather caused by their mistaken opinions, their wrong interpretation of the past, their misunderstanding of key pre-requisites of freedom, democracy and prosperity. They are victims of Hayekian fatal conceit and the misplaced pride of Man and his reasoning.

It is also caused, however, by their very narrow-minded (although in a certain sense perhaps understandable) interests, their belief in the possibility to assert oneself in today’s over-bureaucratized pan-European state and in its many institutions (which, unlike the institutions of individual states, have the privilege that they are remote from authentic civic control). Because all these people know that well their ‘constitutional treaty’ is deliberately unclear, deliberately diffuse, deliberately inconsistent. That is why it hides many matters. Therefore certain things remain unsaid or not fully expounded. That is why it is not easy to understand it and that is why it is particularly not easy to comprehend all of its impacts on the lives of us all. That is why its text itself is an interim document, which will need to be followed by others before that little, last, final, very clear and understandable step.

The Centre for Economics and Politics has decided to contribute to the understanding of the text of the ‘constitutional treaty’ by publishing a translation of ‘An analysis of the Constitution that makes the EU into a State’, which was released by the EU Research and Information Centre in Dublin in Ireland at the end of 2004 under the guidance of Anthony Coughlan, Professor at Trinity College. We could certainly make an analysis of this kind by ourselves, but because, as we say, ‘no one is a prophet at home’, we preferred to translate this text which we consider exceptionally successful and perhaps also quite understandable and easy to read.

We would very much like this analysis to be read by the most possible citizens of our country and for them to base their opinions of the ‘constitutional treaty’ on the real arguments and not on irresponsible, ‘Cyril-Svobodaian’ non-arguments about the horror of what may happen if we – God forbid – fail to approve this document in our own country.
I believe that this publication offers sufficient instruction for anybody who wants to participate in deciding on this matter. To form an opinion is not only the civic right of each of us, but also our civic duty.

Yet, if this analysis, translated from English, is too long and too difficult for some, then let them read at least the ten points I have summed up below, which in my opinion, are entailed by the ‘constitutional treaty’ in its entirety and in its essence:

1. The European Union will become a state and will have all the fundamental features of a state. It will have its own constitution, its citizens, its territory, its external border, its currency, its president, its minister of foreign affairs, etc. It will have its own flag, anthem and public holiday. (Some of these features already exist; others are introduced or strengthened by this document.)

2. In this newly established state of a federalist type, current member states will still be called states, but in reality they will be mere regions or provinces by their competences. The President of the Republic will still be called politely ‘Mr President’ by the European bureaucrats, but the ‘European directives’ will be realized regardless of member state authorities.

3. The constitution of the EU state will be superior to the constitutions of the member states. The entire Union’s legal order will also have primacy over the legal order of the member states.

4. The very term ‘constitutional treaty’ is imprecise and only temporary. This document will only be a treaty between sovereign states until it is ratified - as a treaty - in the member states. Then this document will become a real constitution.

5. The concept of shared sovereignty - hitherto dominant in today’s old EU - is being weakened and a new pan-European sovereignty is emerging instead. The states of the new EU are loosing their so far exclusive right to create their own laws.

6. The citizens of the individual member states will become citizens of the state of the European Union, with direct rights and obligations to the institutions of this European state. It is possible to be a citizen of a state; it is not possible to be a citizen of an international organization.

7. The member states will only be able to exercise those competences that are left to them under the EU constitution, not the other way round, which was the original idea of European integration. Derived (secondary) EU legal acts will be superior to the original (primary) legal acts of the member states. The primary and the secondary are being inverted. 

8. In its exclusive competence the EU, and not its member states, will be concluding majority of international treaties with other states and the member states will be able to sign only treaties which ‘unreservedly support the Union’s common foreign and security policy’.

9. In the voting procedures, the weight of smaller member states, including the Czech Republic, is decreasing with the constitutional treaty (as compared to the current situation resulting from the Nice Treaty).

10. The Union itself can extend its own sphere of competence through the so called ‘flexibility clause’ and ‘passerelle clause’. Even those areas of decision-making in which the member states will retain in the future their right of veto can be at any time transferred under majority voting (it is sufficient that the presidents or prime ministers of the EU countries agree on this unanimously, thus without the national parliaments having to decide on the issue, to say nothing of the citizens’ consent).

If anybody wants an even shorter synopsis, the meaning of the term ‘sovereignty’ – as used in Article 1 of the Czech Republic’s Constitution –  is the key to everything. Under this article ‘the Czech Republic is a sovereign, unitary and democratic, law-abiding State...’. The word ‘sovereign’ is of paramount importance in this respect. The Czech law dictionary defines sovereignty as ‘the independence of a state’s power from any other power within the state and externally...’. I am more than convinced that the Treaty establishing Constitution for Europe does not ‘fit’ into this explanation of the term sovereignty.

Václav Klaus, CEP publication "Shall we say our Yes or No to the European Constitution", April 2005