The political forces fighting to have the content of EU common policies included in the Constitution are, I believe, going down the wrong road (see this column yesterday). It is natural for every party and even every pressure group to do everything they can to impose their ideas but the course of economic policies is not a constitutional matter. It comes under the responsibility of the elected institutions, mainly parliaments and governments. They are the ones who establish and who manage the policies. Otherwise, what would be the point in elections every four or five years? We must not play down their importance or forget that national democracies are the basis for European democracy.
Necessarily banal. Constitutions set out the principles and the general standards accepted by all citizens and are valid for an indefinite period, whereas economic policies change every time there is a change of majority. Elections are the instrument whereby citizens choose between the different solutions that political parties put to them. I know you have heard this all before. But all around us we hear passionate declarations calling for this or that operational measure to be included in the Constitution. One day, it is generalisation of the 35-hour week (as if working hours should be defined for ever in a Constitution instead of constantly evolving with social progress, such as the duration of paid leave). The next, in a different direction, it is boundless liberalisation for services of general interest. If such demands become generalised there will never be a Constitution as all proposals would be rejected, by the Left if it is too liberal, or by the Right if it is over-interventionist.
Yes to principles and guidelines. The above does not mean that the Constitution cannot set out principles and guidelines of an economic and social kind. On the contrary. But these principles and guidelines must reflect the average ideas of the public. In Germany, if I am not mistaken, the notion of social market economy and the joint management of companies are included in the Constitution, as public opinion is in favour of this. At European level, the draft Constitution resulting from the work of the Convention comprises a considerable number of principles that have been built up over the years and which would not have been accepted all that long ago. They mainly concern the field of ecology, the social area and that of services of general economic interest. The draft takes up the notion of "social market economy" tending to "full employment", embodies gender equality, consolidates the procedures which are part of Community practices concerning the "guidelines for employment", health and safety at work, rules for consultation on collective dismissals and the creation of European works councils, as well as containing terms such as "social progress" and "social protection". To this must be added the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights (which, as we know, represents the second part of the Constitution), including the Union's commitment to recognising and respecting access to services of general economic interest "in order to promote the Union's social and territorial cohesion". Article 6 of the third part affirms that the Union and Member States must ensure that such services work "on the basis of principles and in conditions, mainly economic and financial, which allow them to carry out their missions". It will be up to the European legislation to define such principles and such conditions, which have been on the table for several years now with results that are already significant. Details are to be settled by normal procedure. The same is true, I believe, for requests regarding working hours (35 hour week) and the idea of a guaranteed European minimum wage.
Opposing demands. The situation is similar for the environment. The draft Constitution states that environmental protection demands must be integrated in the definition and implementation of Union policies and actions, mainly in order to promote sustainable development (Art.III-4). It is good that sustainable development is spelled out like this in the Constitution and that three articles (129, 130 and 131) define the main principles of it. But the Constitution cannot go further, otherwise it would be impossible to come to any agreement. Those who call for provisions in keeping with their ideas are the same who state they would reject the Constitution if it contained provisions not in keeping. For example, the Attac-France association set out 21 demands, mainly calling for all reference to competition to be eliminated as regards services of general interest (the draft states that competition rules are applicable to these services as long as application does not prevent accomplishment of the mission attributed to them in law or de facto, which already seems quite a lot to me) and that fiscal dumping must be countered. Others make conflicting choices. How, under such circumstances, can one reach a Constitution for all?
(F.R.)