Analysis: Trust and accountability remain key in framing of a new Europe

Britain lends its weight behind a written constitution for the EU but many problems must be overcome if the people are to be convinced

Rarely has such a sacred cow been slaughtered with so little ceremony. In the genteel surroundings of Edinburgh's Caledonian Hotel, the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday backed calls for an EU constitution – an idea seen by generations of British politicians as little short of a betrayal of the national birthright.

While his Conservative counterpart Michael Ancram denounced the speech as a "sell out" and a move "to a superstate", Mr Straw responded by saying that almost every golf club has a constitution.

What was needed, said the Foreign Secretary, was a document, "which enshrines a simple set of principles, sets out in plain language what the EU is for and how it can add value, and reassures the public that national governments will remain the primary source of political legitimacy".

For a country that has always prided itself on its lack of a written constitution, it is a bold policy, and one which has not come about easily.

As recently as October 2000, Tony Blair argued in a speech in Warsaw that it was, "perhaps easier for the British than for others to recognise that a constitutional debate must not necessarily end with a single, legally binding document called a constitution".

But since then the tide has been turning. Mr Straw first opened up the possibility that Britain would countenance an EU constitution in The Hague in February. Since then, it has emerged that the Foreign Office is already preparing its own draft constitution to submit to a convention of the great and good that will be debating the future of Europe.

So why has the Government changed its mind? The answer is a mixture of pragmatism and foresight and is bound inextricably with the desire to engage more positively within the European Union.

First and foremost, ministers have come to the conclusion that an EU constitution of sorts is now inevitable. Better, therefore, to be on the right side of the argument and influence its outcome than to carp from the sidelines.

Momentum for a big constitutional change within the EU has gathered since the disastrous and ill-tempered Nice summit in December 2000. At that fractious meeting it became clear that the 15 heads of government could barely agree the smallest of reforms.

If decision-making with the current membership was so sclerotic, how much worse would it get with up to 10 new countries joining the EU in 2004? Meanwhile, the voters have become ever more sullen and distrustful of the EU's leadership, turning out in low numbers to elect the European Parliament, and voting "no" in referenda on membership of the the euro in Denmark and on the Nice Treaty in Ireland.

Enter Valery Giscard d'Estaing, patrician former French president, who was appointed to lead a convention designed to clarify and simplify the EU's structures and rules, preparing for a new world after expansion eastwards. By the end of next year, Mr Giscard's European Convention is due to complete its recommendations on how the EU should change. They will go to heads of government who take the final decisions.

At present, the EU's rules are laid down in its governing treaty which has been amended at successive inter-governmental conferences and by the judgments of the European Court of Justice. The treaty texts run to 80,000 words almost none of which, as one MEP put it yesterday, are comprehensible, "without the assistance of several lawyers".

As Mr Giscard made clear, his task of giving "a clearer answer to the question 'who does what'," inevitably entails a constitutional re-write of the EU's founding treaties.

By contrast with some previous exercises, the British Government has tried its hardest to play a leading role in Mr Giscard's European Convention, dispatching its energetic Europe minister, Peter Hain, to take part.

Two other factors have helped the Government's conversion. First, opinion polls which reveal that an EU constitution is rather popular, even with British voters, to the surprise of politicians. A Eurobarometer survey conducted in 2000 showed that, across the EU, 70 per cent of people are in favour of an European constitution and six per cent against. In Britain, 47 per cent backed the idea with six per cent opposed and the remainder saying they didn't know.

Second, the Government's self-confidence within the EU has grown steadily as has its belief that a constitution can be turned to its advantage. At present, EU member states are pledged to "ever closer union", a phrase that Eurosceptics point to as evidence of the endless integration that lies at the heart of the European project.

The advantage of a constitutional text is that it should bring clarity, and limit the powers of the EU in some areas. It could also bring some finality to the process of European integration. That, in turn, makes a referendum on joining the single currency an easier prospect.

Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat member of the European Convention who has tabled his own draft constitution, said: "Britons will not accept the euro if they do not trust the authorities that are going to run it. It is a question of building trust."

Whether or not that is the case depends on what is in the constitutional text that is finally agreed. Mr Straw's speech yesterday is the beginning of the end game as the Convention moves into gear.

The British Government will submit its draft text within two months and Mr Giscard, or his deputy, Guiliano Amato, may also put a draft text on the table soon. Huge problems remain to be resolved, including how to define the competences of national and European tiers of government.

Alain Lamassoure, a centre-right French MEP on the Convention, has produced a report suggesting that they are split into three categories: powers exercised as a matter of principle by member states; the EU's responsibilities; and shared competences. Critics argue that the situation in several policy areas is so complex that this solution will not work.

In general, Britain, backed by several big member states, is determined to preserve the power of national government while many members of the Convention and some of the smaller countries want to bolster the power of the European Commission and the European Parliament.

Britain is also opposed to giving legal backing to the Charter of Fundamental Rights – which is now only declaratory – by making it a bill of rights within a new EU constitution. That is a battle Britain is likely to lose because many see the promulgation of rights as an essential way of making the EU relevant to the voters. And there will be disputes over other issues, too, including the powers of the European Court of Justice.

Whatever the outcome, there is no mistaking the significance of Mr Straw's statement yesterday. Sensitivity to Euro-sceptic opinion has given way to a realpolitik. Battle on the European constitution has been joined and Britain intends to fight hard – this time from the inside.

Written answer a proposal to help the policy-makers in Brussels

The constitution of the United States, adopted in Philadelphia in 1787, is often held up as the model for a European document that would define the powers and limitations of the EU.

The Foreign Office is preparing its own draft constitution, while Andrew Duff, a Liberal MEP, and vice president of the European Parliament's delegation to the European Convention has produced a far-reaching proposal, which is summarised below.

Preamble

The member states and citizens of the European Union, determined to live together in justice, freedom and peace, to uphold democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law, to respect the diverse cultures of Europe, to organise our relations together, do establish this as our Constitution.

Article 1 - scope

1. The Union shall set itself the following objectives:

To promote social and economic progress;

To establish an area of freedom, security and justice;

To enhance the environment of Europe and the world;

To secure and defend the Union.

2. The Union is empowered to govern in accordance with its principles and in pursuit of its objectives as laid down in this Constitution.

Article 3 - citizenship

2. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union establishes as a Protocol to this Constitution. It is binding upon the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union in its entirety. It is binding upon member states and political authorities within them when and in so far as they implement Union law and policy.

Article 4 - governance

1. The Union shall fulfil its objectives in a manner demonstrating consistency, openness and solidarity.

Decisions will be taken as closely as possible to the citizen without impairing the effective operation of the Union.

2. The European Union shall respect the national identities of the member states. Its actions shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives.

Article 9 - institutions

3. The Congress shall meet to elect or to impeach the President of the Commission. It shall comprise the European Parliament and an equal number of representatives of member state parliaments.

Article 18 - amendment

2. Amendments to the Constitution, or the accession or secession of a member state or associate member, will take effect if supported either:

(i) by the Council, acting by a three-quarters majority of the member states, and by the Parliament, acting by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, and ratified thereafter by all member states according to their own constitutional requirements; or

(ii) by a referendum of the citizens of the Union, by the Parliament and by the Council.