Why Strauss-Kahn is wrong on the European Constitution

By: Wolfgang Munchau

I have the greatest respect for Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former French finance minister, and I would have preferred him as the next French president over Segolene Royal or Nicolas Sarkozy. He is a much clearer-headed strategist on both foreign and economic policy than either of the two. I disagree with him, however, on his proposal to reform the European Constitution. It is the kind of proposal that raises false hopes, and makes agreement more difficult.

 

Strauss-Kahn made his proposals in an Oped in Le Monde of February 6. He began by severely criticising Germany for failing to boycott the Madrid meeting of the 18 countries that ratified the treaty - with no representatives of France and the Netherlands present of course. He notes that this was the first time that such a high-level meeting took place without French representation, and that this could set the precedent for an unwelcome split. He also criticised the present French government for failing to speak up on this issue, for failing to engage in a dialogue, especially with Germany.

 

Up to this point, I sympathise with him. But not on the concrete proposals he makes subsequently. He wants to chuck the current treaty overboard, and start negotiations from scratch on the basis of the following five principles:

 

1. More powers to the European Parliament than envisaged in the existing constitutional treaty.

2. Budgetary measures to reduce poverty in the accession states, to prevent social, fiscal and environmental dumping, strengthening of the common policies on energy, sustainable development, and south Mediterranean development.

3. A European economic government to focus on growth and employment, accompanying a single monetary policy.

4. New social rights beyond those guaranteed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, including a minimum wage in each European country. He said the next treaty must be a social treaty.

5. Clarification on Europe's frontiers, and recognition that the next stage of enlargement has to be preceded by further deepening.

 

Not all these five points are wrong, but the problem is that setting new hurdles that some of member states are certain to reject is exceedingly counter-productive. You could argue that the present constitutional draft addresses most of his issues, albeit imperfectly, but more succinctly than the Treaty of Nice and its predecessors. Going beyond the Constitutional Treaty, for example on the question of social rights or minimum wages, would almost certainly ensure second-round failure by ratification process, in the UK, in Poland, or in the Czech Republic, or in possibly five more countries. A minimum wage may be a good policy for France - though it may well be set at too high a level - but it would be suicidal for east Europe. In any case, this is not something that belongs in a Constitution.

 

While more rights for the European Parliament are a laudable objective, the present Treaty draft makes significant progress. If you want more parliamentary democracy, then say yes to the present treaty, and then let's continue to talk afterwards. But blocking this treaty is not solving that particular problem.

 

On the substance of his points, I totally disagree with him about the need for a clarification on Europe's borders. European history has shown us that such clarification will be illusory. The borders of Europe are not fixed by geography, but variable by history, and we ourselves are in charge of our future history. I have more sympathies with him on the question of economic governance, but here again, the Constitution makes some progress. Perhaps we could strengthen the role of the euro group in the Constitution more formally. Ok, let's do that. But we don't need to dump the present draft.

 

If we followed Strauss-Kahn proposals, there is absolutely no guarantee that a new treaty will emerge. In the unlikely event that such a treaty came about, it would probably not be ratified by all 27 members. We would be there where we were in the summer of 2005 - frustrated at the end of a long process.

 

I still believe that the most feasible of all solutions is one that leaves the present Section I of the current draft treaty broadly in tact. There is some flexibility over Section III - the policies. The Spanish summit made the point that the most feasible way out of the current impasse is add to the current text, rather than to subtract from it. My own personal favourite, is to add euro area specific points on economic governance, which would be neutral for the British and the East Europeans. Subtracting from the Treaty is going to be far more difficult. It is neither clear what we should subtract from the Treaty, nor how that would solve any specific French or Dutch problems.

 

I fear we will be wasting a lot of time and effort by discussing five-point lists. Nicolas Sarkozy's mini-treaty is another such list, but with different bullet points. The stark difference in those two lists alone shows how illusionary the idea is of a simple treaty, based on a few broad principles. This is not yet a serious debate.

 

 

---