OPINION:The Lisbon Treaty places fundamental human and civil rights at the heart of the European Union, writes Tony Brown
JUST OVER six years ago, the European Convention commenced its work. I found myself in Proinsias De Rossa's office in the European Parliament building in Brussels at the start of 15 months of intense but positive political activity.
The convention was a unique experiment, resulting in a consensus on the values, goals and institutions of the EU which, today, provides the substance of the Lisbon Treaty and the prospect of a union capable of meeting the pressing needs of its states and citizens.
The uniqueness of the convention lay in its membership. Its 200 members and alternates came from 28 countries - 15 EU states, 12 candidate states and Turkey. It comprised elected representatives - MPs and MEPs - from almost 90 political parties across the spectrum, from Jorg Haider's Austrian Freedom Party to the surviving communist parties. Turkey's Islamist AKP party was represented after its election victory.
A slight centre-right majority reflected the most recent election results across the continent.
Among the national MPs, 90 were from government parties and 56 from opposition groupings.
Evidence of the importance attached to the convention's work in the national capitals was given by the presence of a former president, two deputy prime ministers, nine foreign ministers and 11 other ministers.
The Irish delegation was genuinely representative, with Ray MacSharry - and later Dick Roche - and Pat Carey from Fianna Fáil, John Bruton from Fine Gael, Proinsias De Rossa from Labour, and John Gormley from the Greens.
These facts are important. The Lisbon Treaty has its origins and draws much of its detailed content from the debates and agreements in the plenaries, committees, group meetings and personal interaction of the convention. The political families of Europe - Christian Democrat, Socialist, Liberal, Green, Eurosceptic - were fully engaged.
The smaller countries fought together for the explicit recognition of the equality of all member states. The proponents of "Social Europe" made significant gains. The reality of an expanding union was exemplified by the choice of a Romanian minister to speak for the Party of European Socialists in the final signing ceremony.
The European Convention was asked, in the Laeken Declaration, to address the expectations of Europe's citizens. Highlighting key policy areas such as cross-border crime, combating poverty, migration and asylum and climate change, the declaration argued that citizens wanted a common approach to "transnational issues which they instinctively sense can only be tackled by working together".
The second plenary session of the convention in March 2002 took up this aspect of the Laeken mandate. In a long debate, a virtual agenda for the EU emerged which set the scene for the work ahead and which, looked at today, showed the essential continuity in the substance from the convention to the Treaty of Lisbon. It highlighted issues, ranging from shared values and equality of the states, to the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
It underlined institutional transparency and accountability and the importance of subsidiarity and the role of national parliaments.
It pointed to the urgency of enlargement; globalisation; the environment; and co-operation on defence, security, and policies to deal with migration
Through an intensive process of debate, compromise and ultimate consensus, the European Convention managed to produce a draft which went beyond the narrow focus of earlier treaty changes and addressed key issues of public concern. In its treaty form, it provides a clear statement of the nature, objectives, competences and structures of the EU. It positions the EU as a community of values. It defines the European social model.
It places fundamental human and civil rights at the heart of the union. And it provides the means for the achievement of an open and accountable union.
That content has evolved, and substantially survived, through the IGC of 2003/2004, the reflection period following the French and The Netherlands referendums of 2005, and the Merkel initiatives of 2007.
So that, after six years, the European Parliament report on the Lisbon Treaty can argue that, despite a shift in method and process, "the agreement to the treaty of every single government in the union demonstrates that the elected governments of member states all consider that this compromise is the basis on which they wish to work together in the future..."
What it does not, and cannot, do is ensure that these important issues will be successfully addressed. Nor does it, of itself, produce political outcomes.
The Lisbon Treaty, which is built on the foundations laid by the convention's diverse gathering of political forces, provides us with a focus for the serious debate on Europe's future which we so badly need in place of our typical confrontations.
It also offers the prospect of building a firm and workable connection between Irish political realities and those of the enlarged and globally challenged EU.
This unique opportunity must be grasped.
...
Tony Brown was adviser to Proinsias De Rossa MEP in the European Convention, and is a member of the steering committee of the National Forum on Europe