Conference of European States (Chapter 5)

In your reactions to this Blog, there has been one consistent sceptical strand –

“This is all very ingenious, but how could Brussels ever accept it?”

I want to respond to this scepticism.

I think there are good practical reasons for taking the CES proposal seriously.

• First:  It addresses the arguments which underlie all Euroscepticism.  After all, there are no significant streams of anti-European opinion in the UK.  Millions of Brits have enjoyed Continental and Mediterranean holidays within Europe, and many thousands have first or second homes there, although they were denied a vote in the Referendum.  Many more have studied or are studying in member-states of the EU, and are the wiser and better-educated for the experience.  Even ardent Brexit-voters were heard to say – “I’m against the EU, but not against ”Europe” or the Europeans…  Chancellor Merkel speaks fondly about “the European family”, although wrongly equating that term with “member-states of the EU”.
• The term “European Union” means, I suggest, the constitutional legal structures of the European family.  They have changed frequently since the early days of the Coal and Steel Community of the 1950s, and there is no reason why they should not be changed further.  As a first stage of the Brexit negotiations, my CES proposals would replace those structures, with a softer, more collegiate, association – and leave the institutions of “the EU” behind.   My intention would be to persuade the same 28 member-states to adopt a new “family” system, proud and content to be closely associated with each other in a network of common European culture, history, hopes and interests.  The new structures would apply equally to all members of the family, without exceptions or a la carte exemptions.  The very drafting of that alternative Constitution would, I believe, change the European playing-field: the unpopular and unrealistic supra-national elements of the EU Constitution would be modified or excluded altogether – the EU Parliament and the European Court would be omitted, the Council would be expanded and the Commission restructured to meet the executive needs of the new association.
• NB  Nothing would of course affect the Strasbourg European Court of Human Rights, which forms no part of the EU, and all CES member-states would be required to confirm their individual acceptance of its jurisdiction, outside the scope of the CES.  This very re-structuring would take the sting out of much Euroscepticism throughout Europe – and would take many cards out of right-wing political hands.  The family of Europe would be less prone to family squabbles.
• Second:  This re-structuring would address the specific strands of UK opinion which were decisive in securing the UK Brexit victory: it would honour and respect the Brexit verdict, because the “free movement of labour” would simply be omitted, as a prerequisite of CES membership, and national authority would be reasserted.  The cold mathematical logic of the Referendum ballot-box would be respected, and the objection based on loss of sovereignty and lack of UK border controls would be met. All future changes would be consensual, not passed by “qualified majorities”. The CES Constitution would offer the prospect of a much less conflictual future for all the European states.
• Third:  The new CES settlement would appeal to many EU nations and interests, outside the UK, who are plagued with similar strands of Euroscepticism and political opposition.  Every state, and every citizen, would have a more comfortable sense of being in sovereign control of their nation’s affairs.  Over the two years of the Art.50 negotiation-process, levels of confidence in the power of “Europe” would be strengthened, and opinion would coalesce around the new CES constitutional terms.
• Fourth: The first stage would transform the shape, and dramatically reduce the complexity, of the long Art. 50 negotiations.  Most of the substantive negotiating would be done in the course of drafting the new Constitution.  At the end of that process, the CES Constitution would fall to be adopted by unanimity.  It would then be a relatively easy drafting task to transfer the rights and obligations of the Lisbon Treaty from the “European Union” to the more consensual “Conference of European States”.  The whole process could be contained within the prescribed two-year period (Art. 50), without creating any lapse between the old-structures and the new.
• Fifth: It would give practical effect to the many sentiments of genuine sadness and regret which have been triggered by the UK’s BREXIT vote.  The process would move the member-states from the present break-down of the old Constitution to a consensus on the new – that would be the objective.  At that stage, there would be no exceptions for any member-state: all would be subject to the same CESrules and principles.  With the entry-into-force of the new CES Constitution, the UK would be fulfilling the verdict of the Referendum – “to leave the EU” (i.e. to leave behind the supra-nationalism which characterized the old institutions) and to join a looser association with improved prospects of success in the future.

These five strands of the forthcoming negotiations offer many opportunities for compromise and concession, while remaining true to the objectives of both sides.  I do not intend to specify here the “trades” and concessions which might be made – it would be for those with closer experience of EU negotiating styles to make their contribution, if this project proceeds.

Roger Warren Evans

Barrister-at-Law [Retired]

23 St Peter’s Road  Newton  Swansea SA3 4SB    Tel: 01792-366134   roger@warrenevans.net