|
European Union – the end or no
end in sight?
Jonathan Bensky, Minister
Counselor for Commercial
Affairs, United States Mission
to the European Union, talks
about the European Union after
the defeat of the constitution
By
Theda Braddock
This summer political
discussions have revolved
around the European Union’s
Constitution (or lack
thereof). The process of
reaching a consensus among 25
countries has been no small
task and now that it has
failed, the question begging
to be asked is, what now?
A recent visit
organized by the local French
and American Chamber of
Commerce (FACC) from a
representative at the United
States Mission to the European
Union served to ease qualms.
Jonathan Bensky, a Senior
Commercial Officer, gave a
presentation during which he
emphasized his beliefs that
the recent setbacks in the
constitution’s progress do not
spell out the end.
Mr. Bensky, who
served in the US Foreign
Service in a variety of
locations, has spent the last
several years in Brussels
observing the goings on of the
EU. “The end is not in
sight…Issues in the EU
never die,” he stressed
repeatedly to a small audience
of business leaders with ties
to the European community.
“All [the changes in the
constitution] will be
implemented one way or
another.”
For those who
aren’t up to date, the EU has
been working for years now on
creating a binding
constitution, which will help
clarify some lingering
issues. The latest version of
the constitution was drafted
last year and has been agreed
upon by thirteen countries.
In May, France, one of the
founding members of the EU,
voted against the
constitution, by referendum.
Shortly after, the Netherlands
followed suit.
The constitution,
which is an amalgamation of
previous existing treaties,
would have primarily served to
standardize practices that
have been in place for a
number of years. Among these
changes- a more proportional
voting system would have been
established, the Charter of
Rights would have gained legal
standing, council meetings
would have become public and a
Union Minister of Foreign
Affairs position would have
been created (though with very
little authority). Perhaps
most importantly would have
been the creation of a longer
term for the chair of the
European Council. The current
6 month rotating term would be
expanded to 2 and half years
with a possibility of one
renewal. One of the major
criticisms of the EU by
members and outsiders there is
a lack of unity. In a union
where 21 official languages
are spoken and the Parliament
meets in three different
cities it’s no wonder there is
a lack of cohesion. The
constitution wouldn’t have
solved all of these problems
but it certainly would have
helped.
France’s political
image took a downfall when its
people voted down the
constitution. Many have
attributed the outcome to
President Chirac’s waning
popularity and a resulting
vengeful mentality. Clara
Thibault, a French intern at
the FACC was upset with the
outcome. “Everybody’s against
Chirac. They just say ‘no’
because they’re so angry.”
In a poll taken the same
weekend as the referendum a
whopping 74percent of the
population had no confidence
in their president. The
numbers were similarly as high
weeks later around Bastille
Day, despite Chirac’s attempt
to reshuffle some major
governmental positions. Other
reasons for the vote could
have been the French’s growing
frustration with the high
unemployment rate and anxiety
about Turkey’s possible future
admission.
So, three months
after the European Summit met
in June and decided to
postpone the November 2006
ratification deadline
indefinitely there is still
the lingering question about
the EU’s future. The US is a
large trading partner for the
EU as trillions of dollars are
swapped every year. Even the
Pacific Northwest, Bensky
pointed out, a region on the
Pacific Rim, has a huge
connection with the EU.
Business has dramatically
increased over the past few
years but investors are
growing concerned about the
constitutional stalemate. The
United States Mission to the
EU mentions on their website
that their “core concerns
revolve around process-agency,
transparency,
accountability-and mutual
regulation” and that they seek
to help businesses with
“compliance to EU standards”
and “access to markets in key
sectors.” A fused Europe
would ease many current
difficulties and possibly lead
to easier access.
For now, as
Olivier Deschamps, a French
FACC intern studying for his
Master’s in International
Business says, “the
relationships are stronger
than the new political aspect
of the EU. The integration
process, politics, will not
interfere with anything.
Business will continue to be
business.”
Bensky assures that the union
is now going back and
“reexamining its roots” just
as it did in September of 2003
when he started in his current
position. “They couldn’t
agree on a constitution but
they did that. The EU will
survive. [It] will move
forward.” As Jack Cowan,
Executive Director of the FACC
said, “on verra.” |
