[FR] Ratification and revision of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe

Among the words that recur constantly in the current debates on the European Constitutional Treaty, ‘unanimity’ among Member States is undoubtedly one of the most frequently used. Used sometimes by opponents as the only guarantee of national sovereignty, or, conversely, by supporters as proof of the text’s immutability, it is at the heart of the differences in interpretation of a text that remains poorly understood.

However, there are two areas where the principle of unanimity among Member States is particularly crucial for the future of the Union: the ratification of the Treaty and its revision. In both cases, the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) did not opt for what the author of this study calls a ‘constitutional break’ that would have given the Union the means to ‘reform itself’ without necessarily requiring the approval of all its members. By asking Professor Oberdorff to examine these two stages in the institutional development of the EU, Notre Europe wanted both to put the current debate on ratification and revision into perspective and to outline the first steps towards a more forward-looking reflection on the evolution of these procedures.

First of all, the perspective: no, this Constitutional Treaty is not set in stone. Admittedly, unanimity is still required for the text to be revised. It is also regrettable that the third part of the text on Union policies has not been clearly exempted from this rule. However, three important nuances put this statement into perspective.