In favour of an indissoluble link. The European Parliament has approved EU membership for the first ten candidates with a majority of over 90% (a little less for the Czech Republic because of the "Benes Decrees" affairs). This is an exceptional score for a democratic assembly, which proves the extent to which MEPs are keen on welcoming the new Member States to their fold. It would be pointless to analyse the reasons behind the handful of "no"s and abstentions, which generally come from the extreme right or extreme left and which prove that the EP is truly representative of all political tendencies, even the most extreme. That is, it would be pointless except in one case - that of Jean-Louis Bourlanges.
The reasons for Mr Bourlanges' abstention do not in fact have anything to do with reticence toward any candidate countries individually, but they do pose a serious political problem, which gave rise to a debate in which European Parliament President Pat Cox, the Chair of the Institutional Committee Giorgio Napolitano, and the Polish Minister for European Affairs (and Convention Member), Danuta Hübner, took part. What Mr Bourlanges is recommending is a tactic to guarantee that Union enlargement and consolidation move forward and take place at the same time. What is he afraid of? That the new accessions are fulfilled on the foreseen date of 1 May 2004 without the EU Constitution being ready and without any guarantee that it will one day take effect. He therefore considers it necessary to link enlargement to deepening, that is, the Constitutional Treaty with the accessions, to connect them in an indissoluble way by submitting them, together, to parliamentary ratification and to referendums. In his opinion, this would not entail any delay in the arrival of the new Member States, fixed for May 2004, but such a tactic would make it necessary to complete work on the Constitution (Convention plus Intergovernmental Conference) in good time for a parallel entry into force. This is a tactic obviously dictated by deep mistrust of unanimous determination on the part of the current and future Member States to ratify the Constitutional Treaty. Mr Bourlanges considers some States will drop the Constitution as soon as enlargement becomes a reality. Without institutional reform, the EU would be diluted, would become a vast free trade area without economic cohesion or political personality. He sees the Constitution getting "lost in an enlarged Europe like a wadi in desert of sand".
A scathing response, and a saddened response. The response from the European Parliament President was unusually snappy: "How can we dare miss this historic and unique opportunity to put an end to division in Europe?" After recognising the fact that Mr Bourlanges possessed the quality of coherence recalling with some duplicity that he had, in 1994, voted against accession by Austria, Denmark and Sweden, Pat Cox reprimanded him saying: "sometimes, whatever the value of the intellectual or technocratic arguments invoked, one should look a little further than the end of one's nose and show proof of a certain amount of political vision, with just a touch of humility". The response from Ms Hübner, on the other hand, was that of concerned sadness rather than indignation. She believes that Mr Bourlanges "is not aware of the cost of his proposal" which "would delay reunification of Europe" because the timetable envisaged is "completely unrealistic". In her opinion, it is impossible for the Constitution to come into force in May 2004. Establishing a link with the accessions would simply mean putting off the date for accession.
The correct strategy. Giorgio Napolitano, for his part, felt that the French MEP was right to sound the alarm as "uncertainties over the timetable and the content of the final decisions of the Convention and above all of the IGC comprise unknown elements and are a cause for concern" (see our bulletin of 10 April, pp.7/8). This does not mean that he supports the "Bourlanges strategy" as he voted for assent: but he does recognise the risk of "fatal disassociation between the final moment of the enlargement process and adoption of the Constitution". I would tend to align myself on the position expressed by Mr Napolitano: the danger denounced is very real but one should fight it differently. After years of generous fighting, Mr Bourlanges gives the impression he has reached a phase of scepticism and disenchantment. He knows, however, that the European Commission has studied (see the "Penelope" project) the way to avoid the "no" or the "veto" by one single country from overturning the Constitution, and the Convention is dealing with this, its Chairman having already affirmed that such a hypothesis is unacceptable. Furthermore, the determination of some Member States to achieve a political and defence Europe whatever happens is increasingly obvious. If the Convention fails, it is a matter of acting outside the treaties (see this column of 9 April). "Space Europe" must be achieved, a colossal project in itself, indispensable for peace and stability on the Continent, without, however, giving up the most ambitious projects intended for those who wish and can take part. That is the right strategy to follow. (F.R.)