Libertas.org

By Dr. Jana Hybaskova, MEP, Czech Republic.

As a Member of the European Parliament, I am not satisfied with the German Presidency of the EU. As an elected representative paid with European taxpayers’ money, I am certain I should be democratically entitled to vote on laws which affect those taxpayers and surely the most important legislation on which I can vote is a treaty founding a Constitution for Europe.

However, all I was able to do is discuss with the legislative constitutional committee the fact that nobody had officially seen the German Presidency’s 12 point questionnaire which lists the pros and cons which have emerged from the deadlocked talks on the European Constitution. It is unacceptable that the content of this document is unknown to elected MEPs but is well known to the Brussels bureaucrats or sherpas. In the case of the Czech Republic, it is even more comic that one of these two sherpas is Jan Zahradil. The deadline for member states to respond to the questionnaire and suggest how they imagine Europe going forward was Sunday evening - just a few hours before the results of the French elections are known.

The division on the first, second and third chapters will disappear as the member states, remove those elements of the treaty on which they could not find an agreement. For example, the references to the European anthem and flag will disappear. The clear statement that European law is superior to national law will also disappear even though member states have already agreed to this principle in previous accession treaties. Elsewhere, the European Parliament is compensating it by bypasses. The term “European law” will be probably replaced by the term “European regulation” and, of course, the document will not be called the “European Constitutional Treaty”.

From the second chapter of the proposed treaty will fall away the social charter. In the third chapter, only those regulations will remain without which the system would break up, which at present is nearly all of them. The national parliaments will be sold short as they will not be afforded the right of legislative superiority over the European Parliament. The European Parliament will not get the normal rights of a parliament, namely, the right to vote on and exercise control over the present European pseudo-government - the Commission. The Commission, comprised of appointees of member states, will continue to do what it wants to. We will have a new treaty without new ratifications by member states and we will not have a Constitution. We will, therefore, become neither a super-state nor a state nor a federation of states.

In theory, we can be happy that the glass is half full glass. For example, in the areas where European legislation is blocked by a requirement for unanimity among member states, a double majority system will enable a rebalancing of the votes of member states weighted by their population. However, the question remains as to whether Europe will accept Poland’s special requirements regarding the calculation of votes. If the Czech Republic supports the Polish position, it might be accepted. The European foreign minister will remain in his position but will be referred to differently as will be the case with the president of Europe.

By the end of May, a group of MEPs will publish a report insisting on the preservation of the rights of our citizens, including the rights resulting from the social charter. We will argue that we should be represented in the final round of debates on the new treaty and that it should contain reference to climate change, energy security, sustainable development, improvement of the European social model in the context of the demographic development and the strong role of the European Central Bank in preserving the security of the Euro zone.

This is not about whether it will be a Constitution or not - Europe will be probably safer as the provision for double majority voting will enable us to better address the issues of illegal immigration and terrorism. However, an important point will be missing which is a clear consensus that Europe has a political dimension, which fact is disputed. In this round, the member states won. All power belongs to a fragmented Europe and to the bureaucrats who have to be able to reconcile the wishes of 27 countries with the Commission’s nonsensical regulations.

There will not be a unified European patent standard and regulations, an effective foreign policy agenda or anti-monopoly system. There will be no open market for services or an open and transparent market for energy.

I am sorry that the German Presidency did not give me a chance to put my case clearly and vote openly - even with the likelihood of defeat - for a common transparent and powerful Europe and for its basic laws enshrined in the Constitution. Europe will stay a hostage of people like Václav Klaus. The political might of member state governments has stayed intact but I believe that it is for the last time.