A dodgy constitution

I once heard of an Ivy League professor who had written 50 constitutions. All of them collapsed, including the one for the college boat club. If that gentleman is not now advising the Convention on the Future of Europe, someone very like him surely is.

On the opening day of the convention in March 2002, its president, ValZry Giscard d’Estaing, bravely compared the congress to the Philadelphia Convention, which wrote the US constitution in 1787. One might equally make a comparison with the conferences which created the Dominion of Canada. Unlike the constitutions of the Ivy League professor, the products of those meetings have stood the test of time. So, in 100 years’ time, should we be expecting to travel via Giscard European Airport and the Route TranseuropZenne Giscard, just as we already use Washington International Airport and the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway, honouring bygone constitution-builders? Confident that I won’t be around to be proved wrong, I say, ‘Aucune chance.’ A comparison of the constitution-building processes in the United States, Canada and the EU reveals that certain preconditions for success are absent from the EU Convention at this stage.

The purpose of the Philadelphia Convention and the three conferences which led to the creation of Canada in 1867 (Charlottetown, Quebec and London) was clear: to write a constitution for a new federal state. By contrast, the European Convention still seems confused about its purpose. Some delegates believe that their task is to write a new constitution; others believe that they are merely tidying up existing treaties. The constitution-drafters have gained the upper hand, but have not yet defined what they mean by a constitution. It is not at all clear what will result.

This lack of clarity results in part from the size and structure of the European Convention. The Americans and Canadians met in continuous session, and devoted themselves exclusively to the task at hand.