Order Code RS21618
Updated December 27, 2005
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The European Union’s Constitution
Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
In June 2004, the European Union (EU) concluded work on a constitutional treaty
that contains changes to the EU’s governing institutions and decision-making processes.
Commonly referred to as the “constitution,” this new treaty aims to institute internal
reforms to enable a larger EU to operate effectively and prevent gridlock, but it must be
ratified by all member states to enter into force. The future of the EU’s constitution,
however, has been thrown in doubt after French and Dutch voters rejected it in separate
referenda in May and June 2005. This report provides background information on the
constitution, its key provisions, the current crisis, and possible implications for U.S.-EU
relations. It will be updated as events warrant. For more information, see CRS Report
RS21372, The European Union: Questions and Answers; and CRS Report RS21344,
European Union Enlargement, both by Kristin Archick.
Background
The European Union (EU) is a treaty-based, institutional framework that defines and
manages economic and political cooperation among its 25 member states (Austria,
Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). The
Union represents the latest stage in a process of European integration begun after World
War II to promote peace and economic prosperity in Europe. This European integration
project has evolved from encompassing primarily economic sectors to include developing
a common foreign policy and closer police and judicial cooperation. With the end of the
Cold War, the Union has also sought to extend the benefits of membership, especially to
central and eastern Europe. Ten states — Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia — joined the EU on May 1,
2004. Two other states — Bulgaria and Romania — are expected to join in 2007. Turkey
is another candidate for membership and began accession negotiations in October 2005,
but these will take at least a decade to complete. The western Balkan states also harbor
EU aspirations in the longer term. The EU opened accession talks with Croatia in
October 2005 and named Macedonia as a candidate for membership in December 2005.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
The EU represents a unique
EU Institutions
form of cooperation among
The European Commission is essentially the EU’s
sovereign states that has been built
executive and has the exclusive right of legislative initiative.
through a series of binding treaties.
It ensures that the provisions of the Treaties are carried out
EU members work together through
properly. The 25 Commissioners, including a President, are
appointed by agreement among the governments of the member
common institutions that embody
states for five-year terms. Each Commissioner holds a distinct
the EU’s dual supranational and
portfolio (e.g., agriculture). The President of the Commission
intergovernmental character.
sets its policy priorities, organizes its work, and represents the
Commission internationally.
Different policy areas have different
decision-making procedures;
The Council of the European Union (Council of
economic, trade, and social policies,
Ministers) is comprised of ministers from the national
governments. As the main decision-making body, it enacts
for example, are currently decided
legislation based on proposals put forward by the Commission.
by a complicated system of majority
Different ministers participate depending on the subject under
voting, while decisions relating to
consideration (e.g., economics ministers could convene to
discuss unemployment policy). The presidency of the Council
foreign and security policy require
currently rotates among the member states for a period of six
consensus. Critics have long
months.
charged that the EU’s decision-
The European Council brings together the Heads of
making processes are too slow and
State or Government of the member states and the President of
cumbersome, and that the EU’s
the Commission at least twice a year. It acts principally as a
guide and driving force for EU policy.
institutions are overly complex, lack
transparency, and are unintelligible
The European Parliament consists of 732 members.
to the average European citizen.
Since 1979, they have been directly elected in each member
state for five-year terms. The Parliament cannot enact laws like
national parliaments, but it shares “co-decision” power in some
Key institutional reforms in the
areas with the Council of Ministers and can amend or reject the
EU’s December 2000 Treaty of Nice
EU’s budget.
were intended to enable an enlarged
The Court of Justice interprets EU law and its rulings
Union of 25 or more to function
are binding; a Court of Auditors monitors the Union’s
financial management. Additionally, a number of advisory
effectively. Skeptics argued,
bodies represent economic, social, and regional interests.
however, that Nice set up an even
more complex and less efficient
decision-making process. Thus, EU leaders in December 2001 announced they would
convene a Convention on the Future of Europe to reform EU decision-making further and
review EU structures ahead of enlargement in May 2004.
Toward a European Constitution
The Convention on the Future of Europe. The Convention began work in
March 2002 in Brussels, Belgium. EU member states appointed former French President
Valéry Giscard d’Estaing to serve as chairman, and charged the 105- member Convention
with addressing several key tasks, including examining and better defining the distribution
of power between the EU’s institutions and the member states; encouraging the
development of the EU as a coherent foreign policy actor; and strengthening the Union’s
democratic legitimacy. In October 2002, the Convention decided to develop a draft
constitutional treaty — commonly referred to as a “constitution” — to merge and
reorganize the EU’s four existing treaties into a single document and lay out new
proposals for institutional reform. In July 2003, the Convention finalized a 240-page
“Draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe” and concluded its work. The draft
was divided into four parts: Part One set out the definition and objectives of the Union
and outlined its competences and institutional framework; Part Two enshrined the EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights, completed in 2000, into EU law; Part Three addressed the

CRS-3
policies and functioning of the Union, detailing how the EU would reach and implement
its decisions; Part Four spelled out “general and final provisions” dealing with procedures
for the text’s ratification and possible future revisions.
The Intergovernmental Conference. In October 2003, EU leaders convened
an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) to work out the definitive text of the new
constitutional treaty to codify any alterations of the EU’s structures and functions. The
Convention on the Future of Europe’s draft treaty from July 2003 served as the basis for
discussions at the IGC. By December 2003, consensus had reportedly been reached on
most issues proposed by the Convention, but EU leaders were unable to conclude the
treaty primarily because of a dispute over the proposed voting rule changes. Spain and
Poland feared that the simplified voting rules proposed by the Convention would give
larger member states an advantage; the current weighted voting system tends to favor
smaller and medium-sized states. The change in government following Spain’s March
2004 election, however, helped break the deadlock because the new Spanish government
dropped its predecessors’ outright opposition to altering the voting rules, which forced
Poland to be more flexible also. EU leaders succeeded in finalizing the constitution in
June 2004; they signed it on October 29, 2004, and set November 2006 as the target date
for the constitution’s entrance into force.
The Ratification Crisis and Current Status
In order to come into effect, the EU’s constitutional treaty must be ratified by all 25
member states through either parliamentary approval or public referenda. Twelve states
have completed ratification, but the constitution’s future has been thrown into doubt
following its rejection by French and Dutch voters in separate referenda in May and June
2005.1 In both countries, some arguments against the constitution reflected concerns that
it would enshrine liberal economic trends that could undermine French or Dutch social
protections. In addition, many French and Dutch voters viewed a “no” vote as a way to
express dissatisfaction with their unpopular national governments, the EU bureaucracy,
and Turkey’s prospective EU membership. Other reasons for rejecting the constitution
differed. In France, some feared that the constitution — by paving the way for further EU
enlargement — would erode French influence in the EU, while Dutch voters complained
that the EU’s big countries were already too strong and that certain provisions of the
constitution would increase their power even more.
Following the French and Dutch “no” votes, it became unclear whether other EU
members would proceed with their ratification plans. Proponents of moving forward
hoped that if most members approved the constitution, this would help force a second
vote in those states that rejected it. However, on June 6, 2005, UK Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw announced that there was “no point” in continuing to plan for a UK poll, and
effectively postponed the UK’s referendum indefinitely. At their June 16-17, 2005
summit, EU leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the constitution but announced that
decisions about the timing of ratification were for each member state to determine. They
acknowledged that the initial ratification deadline of November 2006 was no longer
tenable and did not set a new target date. Experts say this decision effectively puts the
constitution on hold until at least mid-2007, after France’s next general election.
1 French voters rejected the constitution by 55% to 45%; Dutch voters rejected it by 62% to 38%.

CRS-4
Nevertheless, some members are continuing with ratification; on July 10, 2005, voters in
Luxembourg approved the constitution.
EU officials are quick to emphasize that the EU can continue to operate without the
constitution and could enlarge further under the rules set out in the Nice Treaty of 2000.
Some commentators speculate that certain elements of the EU constitution could be
implemented by agreement among EU leaders or by amending the existing EU treaties.
Others suggest that parts of the constitutional treaty might be renegotiated, although this
would likely be extremely difficult given that the existing draft is already replete with
compromises among member states and because opposition to the treaty comes from
disparate directions. The EU may be facing a period of stagnation, at least in the short
term, as members grapple with internal reforms and the EU’s future shape and identity.
Given that considerable opposition to the constitution is tied to concerns about EU
enlargement, some predict that the “no” votes could also impede efforts toward further
expansion, especially to Turkey and possibly the Balkans.2
Key Provisions in the EU’s Constitution
The text of the EU’s constitutional treaty is 341 pages.3 Major changes to the EU’s
governing institutions, decision-making processes, and policies include:
! A New President of the European Council. The constitution abolishes
the rotating six-month presidency in favor of an individual — elected by
member states for a term of two and one-half years, renewable once —
to ensure policy continuity and raise the EU’s profile on the world stage.
! A New EU Foreign Minister. This new post is also intended to boost the
EU’s international visibility, and combine into one position the current
responsibilities of the Council’s High Representative for the EU’s
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and the External Relations
Commissioner, who coordinates the European Commission’s diplomatic
activities and manages the EU’s development programs. The EU foreign
minister will be an agent of the Council of Ministers (representing the
member states), as well as a Vice-President of the Commission.
! A Revamped European Commission. In the first Commission appointed
under the constitution, each member will retain one Commissioner.
After this term (in 2014), to help decrease gridlock, the number of
Commissioners will be reduced to correspond to two-thirds of the
number of member states. Small states had initially opposed slimming
down the Commission, fearing that it would decrease their influence.
However, the European Council may alter the number of Commissioners,
thus leaving the door open to a larger Commission in the future.
2 “Humbled EU Leaders Scrap Constitution Deadline,” Financial Times, (FT), June 17, 2005;
“Britain Postpones Plans for EU Referendum,” FT, June 6, 2005; “Varied Reasons Behind Dutch
No,” BBC News, June 1, 2005.
3 Text of the EU’s constitutional treaty is available on the EU’s website [http://europa.eu.int/
constitution/index_en.htm].

CRS-5
! Increased Parliamentary Powers. The constitution extends the European
Parliament’s right of “co-decision” with the Council of Ministers to many
additional policy areas, including agriculture and home affairs issues. It
caps the Parliament at 750 and includes other provisions to encourage
closer ties between EU bodies and national parliaments.
! Simplified Voting Procedures. The constitution simplifies the EU’s
current system of Qualified Majority Voting (QMV), a complex weighted
voting formula. Beginning in 2009, decisions made by QMV will pass
if supported by 55% of member states (comprising at least 15 of them)
representing at least 65% of the EU’s population. A blocking minority
must consist of at least four countries. The use of QMV is also expanded
to policy areas previously subject to unanimity, including asylum and
immigration. Member states will retain national vetoes, however, in
sensitive areas such as taxation and most aspects of foreign policy.
! A New Exit Clause. The text sets out for the first time in EU law
procedures for a member state to voluntarily withdraw from the Union.
It also retains EU provisions that allow certain rights of a member state
to be suspended if it is deemed to have breached core EU values.
! A New Solidarity Clause. This provision affirms that the EU “shall act
jointly in a spirit of solidarity” if any member is the victim of a terrorist
attack or other natural or man-made disaster; it calls on member states to
offer assistance, including military resources, to the victimized member.
! Steps Toward Building a Common Defense Policy. The text asserts that
the Union shall seek “the progressive framing of a common Union
defense policy,” which “will lead to a common defense.” It establishes
a “mutual assistance clause” permitting a member state that is the victim
of armed aggression to ask for military assistance from the other
members. Member states may also engage in “structured cooperation,”
which would allow a smaller group of members — especially those with
higher-end defense capabilities — to cooperate more closely on military
issues. And the text calls for a “European Armaments, Research, and
Military Capabilities Agency” to coordinate defense technology research,
encourage harmonization of arms procurement procedures, and ensure
interoperability of defense equipment throughout the EU.4
Almost all of the changes in the constitution represent compromises between
member states who favor greater EU integration and those who prefer to keep the Union
on an intergovernmental footing in which member states can better guard their national
sovereignty. Also evident in many of the provisions are compromises between big and
small states. Critics contend, however, that the constitution does little to simplify the EU.
They point out that some changes would not take effect until 2009 or 2014 and that the
4 For more information, see “The CER Guide to the EU’s Constitutional Treaty,” The Centre for
European Reform, July 15, 2004; and “What the EU Constitution Says,” BBC News, June 22,
2004.

CRS-6
creation essentially of two EU presidents could generate rivalry and confusion. In
addition, skeptics assert that many of the most difficult issues that are often the source of
gridlock — such as foreign policy and taxation — will remain subject to national vetoes.5
Implications for the United States
Many experts assert that passage of the EU constitution would have positive
implications for the U.S.-EU relationship because certain provisions — such as the new
president and foreign minister positions — are designed to promote an EU able to “speak
with one voice” on foreign policy issues. Such an EU would be a more credible partner
for the United States in tackling common challenges such as terrorism and Middle East
instability. Supporters of this view also note that efforts to encourage a common EU
defense policy and the proposal for “structured cooperation” in the constitution seek to
improve European defense capabilities. A more militarily-capable Europe, they argue,
could shoulder a greater degree of the security burden with the United States.
Conversely, some contend that a failure to ratify the constitution could inhibit EU
efforts to be a more effective U.S. partner because EU attention would likely remain
focused on internal reforms rather than on external challenges. The difficulties with
ratifying the constitution have also sparked renewed discussion of a “core Europe,” in
which a vanguard of EU members would drive further integration. If such a “core
Europe” developed that did not include the UK or other economically liberal or pro-
Atlanticist states, some say that this could increase U.S.-EU tensions. Several U.S.
analysts also worry that voter rejection of the constitution could slow the EU membership
aspirations of Turkey and the Balkans, which the United States strongly supports.
Other U.S. experts who worry that a larger and potentially more united and more
confident EU may seek to rival the United States are more sanguine about the potential
demise of the EU constitution. They contend that a more unified EU would likely lessen
Washington’s leverage on individual members and could complicate U.S. efforts to rally
support for its initiatives in institutions such as the United Nations or NATO. These
skeptics remain concerned that parts of the constitution that promote greater EU defense
coordination could lead to the eventual development of EU military structures that would
duplicate those of NATO, be financially costly, and weaken the transatlantic link.6
U.S.-EU trade relations are unlikely to be significantly affected by the constitution,
which does not alter the roles of the European Commission or Council of Ministers in
formulating or approving the EU’s common external trade policy. Although EU rules
allow the Council to approve or reject trade agreements negotiated by the Commission
with QMV, in practice, the Council tends to employ consensus and will probably continue
to do so regardless of the changes in EU voting procedures.
5 “A Deal on a New EU Constitution,” The Economist, June 26, 2004; Interviews of EU officials.
6 Steven Everts and Daniel Keohane, “The European Convention and EU Foreign Policy:
Learning from Failure,” Survival, autumn 2003; Eli Lake, “The U.S. and a United Europe,”
United Press International, June 10, 2003.