Strasbourg, 25/10/2000 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday, the European Parliament adopted two reports, tabled by French Socialist Olivier Duhamel and the member of the Partido Popular, Jose Maria Gil-Robles, in which they set out under what conditions they see the development of a "constitutionalisation" process of the treaties, and easier terms for "enhanced cooperation". Here are the main contents of the texts approved:
- "Constitutionalisation". With 395 in favour, 105 against and 42 abstentions, the European Parliament approved the path suggested by Olivier Duhamel, which is: - a) initiation of a constitutional process (beginning with reorganisation of treaties) during the Nice Summit, with the adoption of a declaration annexed to the Treaty laying down a mandate, procedures and a timetable for the commencement of the drafting of a Constitution for Europe; b) the unfolding of the process (during which the constitutional committee will dialogue with the Convention, attended by candidate countries) so that the Constitution may be finalised before the European elections in 2004, and then result, after assent from the European Parliament, in popular referendum (which would take place the same day in all Member States: amendment by Green members Monica Frassoni, Gérard Onesta and Johannes Voggenhuber adopted by 287 to 244 and 11 abstentions).
- Enhanced cooperation. With 408 votes in favour, 63 against and 57 abstentions, the Parliament approved the report by José Maria Gil-Robles practically without amendment (only adopting an amendment by British Labour member Richard Corbett specifying that the conditions to which enhanced cooperation is subject must be relaxed without endangering solidarity between Member States). The Parliament mainly states that: - reinforced cooperation must also cover CFSP and exclude the possibility of being employed in the areas where the Treaties provide for decision by majority vote; - at least one third of Member States must take part in strengthened cooperation; - the right of veto must be abolished; - the institutional unity of the EP and of the Commission cannot under any circumstances be challenged during the activation or the implementation of enhanced cooperation.
Olivier Duhamel pleads in favour of a European Constitution through a two-stage process
"Thank-you...thank-you Jacques, first...Jacques Delors. Thank-you Altiero Spinelli and Fernand Herman, thank-you all, from Vaclav Havel to Carlo Ciampi, from Joschka Fischer to Jacques Chirac, from Michel Barnier to Pierre Moscovici, Chris Patten to Costas Simitis, and passing over a multitude of current MEPs who, since 1999, have taken over the banner for a European Constitution. Thanks to all of you, a new idea is making headway on the European continent, that of a European Constitution". This is how Olivier Duhamel opened his speech in the debate on his report, stating: "Democracy is faring better in Europe, but, for its part, European democracy is sick. One European citizen in two did not vote in the June 1999 elections (…) One in two of my students do not know who Romano Prodi is, whereas they almost all know of Michael Schumacher and Monica Lewinski!". Today, we have "seven treaties", "hundreds of articles", "an inextricable muddle of standards and desires", noted Duhamel, adding: "the European constitution exists. I have never come across it. It exists: the institutions have been created (…) relations between them fixed (…) Nobody has ever come across it. No text is called European Constitution (…) Our Constitution is invisible, unreadable, unintelligible. In that sense, Europe still has no Constitution". Today, we must agree on an objective, on the "urgency of a European Constitution", without discussing its contents, said the rapporteur, suggesting "two stages, one rapid, the re-organisation of the treaties, the other gradual, the adoption of the Constitution".
These two stages need launching in Nice, according to Duhamel, stipulating: a) the re-organisation of the Treaties must be decided in Nice; that the Commission and Parliament tackle it from January 2001 already, that the Court issues its opinion in the spring, that the Council formally adopt the treaty in the summer, and that national parliaments adopt it; b) the second "stop-over" of the Constitution: the process must begin in Nice, "the European Parliament and Commission are available", a "renewed Convention could follow", and, when the process is completed, may the people have their say". "I dream of a European referendum where electors of all Member States debate the same goal: their Constitution (…) In 2004 at the latest, the European constitution could be adopted", Duhamel concluded, asking his audience not to nip this dream in the bud.
For his part, regarding enhanced cooperation, Jose Maria Gil-Robles made the distinction between those who see in it a life-belt for the possible sinking of European construction and those for whom it risks leading to a veritable "directorate" of a few States. In this latter case, we would be moving towards an increasingly less democratic and transparent Europe, a kind of self-service, he warned, noting that the Social Protocol (to which the United Kingdom signed up when Labour came into power: Ed.) demonstrated that participation of all Member States was "technically feasible and politically recommendable". Having said that, the rapporteur is in favour of the abolition of the veto and the lowering of the quorum necessary to organise enhanced cooperation, while stressing that it had to be ensured that it was a question of "Community" forms of enhanced cooperation.
Among the MEPs who spoke, the Green member Monica Frassoni said that the new Constitution should already take effect in 2004: two years of work should suffice, she said. One of the MEPs who noted with most enthusiasm the growing support for the idea of a Constitution was Francois Bayrou (French, EPP): we want a constitution so that Europe is a "democracy", he declared. Portuguese Socialist, Mario Soares would have preferred moving to a Constitution immediately, without going through intermediary stages, and Reinhard Rack (Austrian, EPP) referred to his "cautious yes" to the suggestion of holding a referendum on a European Constitution. As for British Conservative Lord Inglewood, while recognising that the idea of a European constitution was contentious, called on his compatriots not to dismiss it out of hand, as it was a proposal worthy of serious debate.
According to Moscovici, Parliament as a whole cannot vote on enhanced cooperation - Door is
open to "Convention" procedures for Constitution
Council President Pierre Moscovici regretted that the Parliament had, during this debate, renounced discussion on the report on the breakdown of seats at the Parliament (Dimitrakopoulos/Leinen Report), and he said he considered the Gil-Robles report to a large extent echoes the concerns expressed in Biarritz on enhanced cooperation. However, while he understands the hope expressed by the rapporteur that the "institutional unity of the Parliament and of the Commission" should not be affected, he considers it difficult to foresee more than EP procedure for consultative opinion, at a time when enhanced cooperation begins. He cannot see how the Parliament could be fully entitled to give its stance when "probably half, or perhaps even two thirds of Member States are not engaged in any enhanced cooperation". This is a "true question of principle", he said. Regarding a European Constitution, Mr Moscovici felt, unlike Mr Duhamel, that one could envisage "arrangements for its drafting only once we know what we want to put in it". In his view, things will become clearer in Nice, and "depending on the results of the IGC we shall be able to examine how appropriate it is to open new worksites". Regarding the Convention method, Mr Moscovici commented: "Why not? It is true that this solution has shown its worth concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights".
Michel Barnier supports views expressed by Rapporteur Duhamel
European Commissioner Michel Barnier went further than Mr Moscovici concerning the role of the European Parliament in enhanced cooperation, saying that he could accept assent by the EP "for the first pillar". Furthermore, he reacted very warmly to the proposals put by Mr Duhamel, saying he was very much in favour of his ideas. "I shall fight to give legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights", he assured, adding, regarding the "stages"traced out by the rapporteur: - a) a "reorganised" treaty. The University Institute of Florence has proven that it is legally possible to gather into one single and coherent text, with a small number of articles, a fundamental treaty, said Mr Barnier- b) European Constitution. The word "does not frighten me", he said, adding that he is personally available to take part, with passion, in this work. He did specify, however that the Commission does not encourage the convening of another Intergovernmental Conference before the next enlargement. After Nice, the Commission will have its contribution to make, mainly concerning governance, stressed Mr Barnier, who expresses the hope that the European Commission, in liaison with the other institutions, will pave the way for this process with a report, after Nice. The Duhamel Report contains many very interesting ideas, he felt, stating above all that it will be necessary to "consolidate" the idea of holding a referendum. This adds to the Union the political and democratic dimension, the citizen dimension, that it needs, declared Mr Barnier, who feels Europe must not be built clandestinely, by an elite. He said the silence must be broken.