Leaders of EU member states are scheduled to meet in Brussels Thursday to discuss the future of the proposed EU Constitution. The proposal requires ratification in all member states to take effect and has already been defeated in public referendums in France and The Netherlands. Of the ten countries out of twenty-five that ratified the proposal only one, Spain, passed by public referendum.

The proposed constitution would shift power on domestic policy from states to Brussels and nearly eliminate democracy, as we know it, in Europe. Polls have shown the public against the proposal by wide margins. The minority Yes campaign seemed confused about the actual contents of the document. The typical supporter talked about specific policy preferences and lofty policy goals rather than the power shift and fundamental change in the system of government that the proposal was actually designed to achieve.

Now that the proposal has been democratically defeated, EU architects are concerned about what comes next. Some fear that it could take up to ten years to reformulate and negotiate a new proposal. Given the enlargement plans of the union, a new proposal would have to be approved by an even greater number of member states.

The solution to the problem is potentially not as complicated as it currently appears. Some politicians are already suggesting that the power of the EU should be restricted to only the business of the union. This would allow a much simpler constitution with clear boundaries between state and union powers. The problem of gaining acceptance would be greatly reduced with much of state sovereignty remaining intact.

The EU Parliament should be the only body involved in introducing and passing EU legislation and would thereby control the overall political agenda. The Parliament is composed entirely of elected representatives chosen by the people of their respective states for that purpose. The people would naturally be more inclined to accept this straightforward democratic exercise of power than the proposed shell game involving bureaucratic institutions and commissions.

A greater challenge for Europeans lies in the free movement and integration of citizens of member states, traditionally viewed as foreigners. Political traditions are related to the particular ways in which states addressed historic problems of economic class. While understanding class differences can contribute to the betterment of society, more recent experience indicates that class based politics has its limits – particularly when dealing with “outsiders” that are seen more as invaders intent on stealing jobs, polluting the culture, and burdening the welfare system than as fellow countrymen.

A solution to this problem has already been conceived and proven effective in the long run. The EU constitution should include a demand for compliance with a basic list of individual rights. Individual rights break directly through class barriers and insure that the fate of everyone is tied to everyone else. Lowering the standard of human rights for an outsider would set a precedent that establishes a lower standard for everyone. Thus, everyone has a stake in maintaining a high standard of rights for everyone else in order to maintain the same high standard for themselves.

Another problem facing the EU is its high level of unemployment particularly in its immigrant population. Individual rights guarantee individual freedom. A “foreigner” without a job should for example find basic rights sufficient to guarantee that it is relatively easy start a business and employ other “foreigners.” The segregation that might result may not seem ideal to some social architects, but it is a more productive form of segregation than leaving immigrants without jobs to burden the welfare system. Economic freedom generally acts as a stimulus, creating more for everyone rather than burdening the more limited production of a more tightly controlled economy.

The EU needs a system of checks and balances to assure that the union lives up to its requirements. The courts should ultimately be answerable to the constitution and therefore the judicial branch of the EU and of its member states must be independent of the legislature and general administration. The power of the judicial branch should be separate from the power of the legislature but equal in strength. It must be capable of striking down laws that are incompatible with the constitution and demanding change in laws that are too vague or contradictory to be applied.

What I suspect is my most controversial suggestion is the separation of an executive branch from the other two branches. Members of some far-left political parties have raised objections, particularly to the idea of a president heading an independent branch. It looks too much like the American model. I would like to share a personal view in response to that objection.

I would like to see a non-partisan head of the executive branch chosen on the basis of honesty, integrity, and administrative competence. The task is administration. There is already one branch of government that exists to deal with the political issues of the union – the legislative branch. As I have said above, it is the elected representatives of the people who should have the power to control the political agenda.

The administrative and bureaucratic functions of the union need leadership. The chief executive needs, among other things, to be someone who will faithfully carry out the policies of the union, who will report honestly and insist that all departments report honestly, and who will carry on the constant battle against corruption that is always part of any large system that exercises power and is given large sums of money to spend.

In order to make it possible for my expectations to be met, the executive branch needs independence. How can we expect faithful reporting, for example, if the primary function of the chief officer is politics or if survival depends on pleasing the politicians? We cannot. Politicians will generally not appreciate reports that demonstrate that their favorite legislation is frivolous, destructive, or confused. The ideal chief executive function would be independent of politics itself, and cannot be without independence from the branch of government whose primary function is politics.

Roger F. Gay