Brussels, 28/02/2003 (Agence Europe) - References to federalism and religious values in the future European Constitution were the focus of Convention debates on Thursday afternoon in Brussels, without there being any head-on confrontation between Convention Members. In parallel, many Convention Members urged for more reference to be made to non-discrimination, protection of the environment or to the social market economy. This question could be resolved by making the Charter of Fundamental Rights part of the body of the Constitution, although the representative of the British government is opposed to this.
Including a reference to religion was an idea mainly defended by the German and Italian sides, as well as by several Convention Members of applicant countries, with Poland in the lead. Most Convention Members are opposed to any such reference, mainly requesting that one keep to the working of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Speaking on behalf of the Italian government, Gianfranco Fini hoped that an explicit reference would be made to European Judeo-Christian traditions. In his view, this would not be detrimental to the secular nature of temporal power but would simply be a "photograph of reality" in Europe. Italian parliamentarian Marco Follini felt the preamble of the Constitution should refer to God, as the "boundary between what is a matter of conscience and what is a matter of State (…) should not hide what we owe to this heritage". Erwin Teufel, speaking on behalf of the Bundesrat, also felt there should be a religious reference in a Europe formed of three capitals: Athens, Rome and Jerusalem. German national Elmar Brok, one of the Christian Democrat MEPs, went still further, saying the Churches should be part of a structured dialogue, while Dutch national Hanja Meij-Weggen said it would be "wise to speak of this, but in the preamble".
The French were naturally among the leading opponents to this religious reference. Article 2 of the Constitution suits French Minister Dominique de Villepin as it is. Mr Villepin considers it would be wise "not to reopen difficult debates that were settled by the previous convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights". French Social MEP Pervenche Bérès had views along the same lines and stressed that the Charter already strikes a good balance and that Article 2 of the Constitution must be limited to defining "the role of temporal power and not spiritual power". According to Alain Lamassoure, it would be necessary to "specify the nature and the origin of the political regimes of Member States themselves", some of which are monarchical, others federal or secular. The reference to God should therefore only be hinted at in the text. The Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, was also pleased that the Praesidium had not included in the Constitution the reference to religious heritage. Europe does not have a single religion or a single culture, he recalled. References in the Charter are sufficient, Elio di Rupo, representing the Belgian parliament, said, saying one should not confuse things, as "the State is one thing and the Church is another". Turkish parliamentarian Oguz Demiralp expressed similar views, placing emphasis on the freedom of conscience and the principle of non-discrimination, which have been the "pillars of modern Europe" since the Age of the Enlightenment.
The notion of federalism was defended by a large number of the Convention Members, while others hope to keep to the concept of an "ever closer Europe" (although this does not please everyone, especially not the British). The representative of the Luxembourg parliament (and former MEP) Ben Fayot spoke on behalf of the Socialist/Social Democrat component of the Convention, recognising that his group was not unanimous over federalism. For some, he said, it is difficult to accept,
For others it corresponds to a "real situation", he declared, considering that it was above all a question of "vocabulary". MEP, Olivier Duhamel, from the French Socialist Party, stressed that "15% of Convention Members had submitted amendments to get rid of this word, the majority, therefore, support it". Valéry Giscard d'Estaing explained that the word that he had used "only refers to certain competencies" for which "management is federal, although the Union is not totally federal". European Commissioner Antonio Vitorino also pointed out that the Union exercised common competencies on a federal basis. Many convention Members, like the Belgian Foreign Minister, Louis Michel, considered that, "getting rid of the word federal hardly had any sense and would be a step backwards". Mr Michel also supported keeping a reference to the Union "which is continually narrower", in order to focus on "the dynamic character of European integration in the treaty". Gianfranco Fini would prefer this reference to the word "federal", believing that it was necessary to "go beyond the conflict between federal and confederate method" and therefore use the other term. Representatives from the Belgian Parliaments, Elio di Rupo and the Italian, Valdo Spini considered that if this term was dropped, the public would simply not be able to understand why. French Minister, Dominique de Villepin, believed that introducing the notion of "federation of Nations States" in Article 1 of the Constitution was testimony to the synthesis of the European project between a Union of peoples and a Union of sovereign States. According to the Spanish Parliamentarian, Josep Borrell, "We should cal a cat a cat" and not be afraid of reflecting the reality of the federal work of Europe. Andrew Duff (Liberal Democrat MEP) also thought the same, that the Convention should not be shy and had to be honest about the word ( the word under Thatcher was known as the "F-word": Editor's note). Irish government representative, Dick Roche, on the other hand, thought that the term, federalism, had connotations that did not exactly reflect what ht European Union was all about. German MEP, Elmar Brok and Portuguese parliamentarian, Alberto Costa, insisted that any federal conception of the European Union should go together in a strict balance with the States. Speaking on behalf of the British government, Baron Scotland of Asthal, thought that it was necessary to clarify what they meant by federalism, namely the objectives that Member States would be unable to attain alone. British politician (Conservative) David Heathcote-Amory was obviously vehemently opposed to the term. William Abitbol (Europe of Democracies and Diversities at the EP) always sarcastic, alluded ironically to the words "national identity", which he said was not a "legal concept" and ought to be replaced by the word "sovereignty". The French supporter of sovereignty asked "What is national identity, the baguette (bread) for some and the Tyrolian hat for others?"
Integration of the charter in the first Constitution Articles rather than in a protocol, was demanded by a number of those intervening, who also stressed that they avoid in this way revisions in the future text. Commissioner Michel Barnier indicated that to integrate the Charter into the treaty would give it some binding value. He, nevertheless, argued that it should be integrated into the second part of the treaty. Baron Scotland of Astahl was strongly opposed to such a possibility, underlining that the British government would only support the idea of a Charter on the condition that it was not binding..
In connection with the current international situation weighing on the work of the Convention (see the ideas expressed by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in EUROPE yesterday p 5), MEP from Democratici di sinistra, Elena Paciotti, was astonished 'like President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, she stressed) at the amendments aiming to get rid of the paragraph citing peace as one of the Union's objectives. She declared that the Convention ought to respect the will of the European peoples, which had just demonstrated that if wanted EU external action to be inspired by a refusal to make war. European Commissioner Barnier said that the situation gave a signal reflecting will and "not fatalism".