The right formula. The European Parliament's Intergroup for "a Constitution for Europe" has found the right formula. The slogan it has chosen is not "no to the Treaty of Nice" but "no to the spirit of Nice". To reject the Treaty would in practice mean blocking accession negotiations and interrupting the debate finally opened on the future of Europe and, at the same time, giving up several positive aspects of this Treaty. To reject the spirit of Nice, on the other hand, would mean being opposed to the institutional regression that has been in the air in recent days, condemning the care taken by Heads of Government to complicate decision-making procedures (in order to reduce the risk of remaining a minority to a minimum), and refusing the possibility that the Commission might become a kind of Council secretariat. Alain Lamassoure, Jo Leinen and their colleagues of the Intergroup thus justified their formula: "this Treaty would not make Europe a Community political Union but a sort of permanent diplomatic forum". It is therefore indispensable to open the "constitutional workshop" while national parliaments discuss ratification - and the Intergroup has invited these parliaments "not to give their views on the Treaty of Nice without having all the guarantees they need regarding the European Council's determination to contribute to re-founding the Union".
The initiative of the Intergroup bears considerable weight, given the number of parliamentarians who support it and the clarity of its positions. Three fundamental choices are already set out in the appeal on 7 March: a) The Union should be headed by "elected leaders". Given that the Council and the European Parliament are already composed of elected representatives, this phrase probably refers to the Commission. b) The constitution of Europe must not be developed by diplomats but by a "convention of elected members". This notion must be clarified, as it seems to move further from other wordings where the term "elected" does not appear. c) The Member States not willing to follow the constitutional path must not have the possibility of blocking those that do want to move ahead.
The "big" debate is now official. The principle of the debate on the "future evolution of the EU" involving all components of society was officially confirmed by the declaration signed on 7 March by the current president (Mr Persson) and the future president (Mr Verhofstadt) of the European Council, by the president of the EP, Ms Fontaine, and by the president of the Commission, Mr Prodi (see our bulletin of 8 March, p.4). No-one can now claim they are not aware of its official status. What a long road has been covered in just one year!
An unpleasant affair. The Amato affair is not serious but it is unpleasant. The Italian Prime Minister announced last Thursday that he would not be running for the next legislative elections in his country. The reason given by the press is that he has a "European appointment" in mind. One daily was more specific: this appointment would consist of chairing a group of personalities entrusted by the European Council to reflect upon the future European Constitution. The reaction to this was scandalised astonishment from a certain number of capitals, so much so that Giuliano Amato explained on Friday this was simply an idea put forward by two Heads of Government (Chancellor Schröder and Prime Minister Tony Blair, it seems), an idea that had not yet been put to the others. Now that the press has spoken of it, the project has been buried, and we can put a cross on it, concluded Amato, who added: "I do not have the ambition to hold any official function. I have had all the posts I could have dreamt of. Life has been good to me. I am now going to devote myself to something that entails neither honour nor title, but which is useful. And I believe that contributing to the construction of a wide and undivided European left is a worthwhile task".
Why is this matter unpleasant? Because the "big debate" procedure has not yet been fixed and will not be fixed before the end of the year, at the Summit in Laeken. The ideas of the different Heads of Government are certainly not all alike. Entrusting one of them with the responsibility of leading reflection on the future Constitution, when he is no longer prime minister, would already be a choice. But in order not to poison the atmosphere, it is in no-one's interest to give the impression of having made such a choice before speaking about it to the others.
The Belgian Senate is right. Looking forward to its debate on the Treaty of Nice, the Belgian Senate felt it useful to have an analysis of this Treaty (which in itself is almost unreadable being made up of additions, deletions or changes in sections of earlier Treaties). It has called on Professor Franklin Dehousse, of the University of Liège, to carry out this analysis. So, we have a parliament that has at its disposal an explanatory document, thus making a political debate in full knowledge of the facts quite possible. Of course, it is not a "neutral" document: to the detailed and (almost) objective analysis is added a generally negative assessment, summarised in just a few words: "a great deal of extra complexity for small changes - a failure for the Community method". Be that as it may, all the parliaments would need a basic document of this kind. (F.R.)
European Parliament plenary session