Just a 'tidying-up exercise' or a drastic loss of sovereignty?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The European Union constitution divides political opinion like few other issues. To some it is merely a "tidying-up exercise"; to others it represents a dramatic loss of sovereignty to Brussels.
According to the draft constitution, the presidency of Europe would no longer be rotated among the member states. Instead, the president would be elected by heads of states of member countries for a term of two and a half years. Supporters feel this would create a central, agenda-setting figure, but smaller countries complain that presidency would be dominated by Europe's major powers.
A new European foreign minister would work alongside the president and would conduct, in the words of the constitution as currently drafted, "the Union's common foreign and security policy". The foreign minister would be selected by a vote of the heads of state.
The eventual aim is to have a common foreign policy. Member states "shall support the Union's common foreign and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity".
Several governments, especially Britain, are suspicious of this shift and have insisted on retaining a national veto over foreign policy and defence. But while opponents have attacked the constitution as a tool for those wishing to create a federal Europe, it does contain significant bulwarks against this. It enshrines the principle that the Union is "subsidiary" to member countries, able only to act in those areas where "the objectives of the intended action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states but can rather... be better achieved at Union level".
It is not proposed that Europe would set or harmonise taxes across the continent, despite calls for this from members of the commission and some countries. The European Commission, the EU's civil service but also the body responsible for proposing EU legislation, is also set for a shake up. Each country would have one commissioner (big countries currently have two) but only 15 of the 25 would have a vote. The voting commissioners would be rotated among the member states.
The constitution plans to give the European Parliament - currently under the presidency of Ireland's Pat Cox - a much more prominent role in the running of Europe.
The draft also incorporates a Charter of Fundamental Rights for EU citizens, covering everything from the right to life to the right to strike. This is a key for Britain, which does not want the European Court to be interpreting the charter and thereby extend its power.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments