Brussels, 25/04/2003 (Agence Europe) - On Friday, the European Convention chaired by Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene tackled complex and interconnected issues such as: - Union membership, the possibility of voluntarily withdrawing from the Union, Treaty review procedure (including the future role of the Convention) and arrangements (including a European referendum) for ratification and enforcement. Briefly summarising the conclusions, Vice-Chairman Amato noted that all agreed on the need to "find a role for the European Parliament" in the forthcoming Treaty revisions. At present, there is no role for it and "this has got to change", he opined. Most Convention Members stressed that the future constitutional treaty will at any rate be ratified according to the rules in force, but Mr Amato spoke of the role of the national governments in ratification of a "constitutional" treaty, which had been raised by MEP Elena Paciotti. Such a treaty could not be adopted according to procedures used for an international treaty, and would therefore not require an Intergovernmental Conference, the Democratici di sinistra member said.
Mr Amato also noted that Convention Members in general seemed to agree it was necessary to simplify review procedures in future in certain areas of the Treaty but "without generalising" such simplification to the whole of the second part of the treaty. Commissioner Antonio Vitorino, also, calls for procedure in this part to be specific to each area covered and not globally. He suggests that Article 95 paragraph 3 of the ECSC Treaty could be used as a basis (whereby "appropriate amendments may be made; they must not, however, conflict with the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 or interfere with the relationship between the powers of the High Authority and those of the other institutions of the Community" (Articles 2, 3 and 4 refer to the ECSC missions and to the missions of its institutions and to the ban on entry and exist rights, restricted practices, etc.) Gijs de Vries, representing the Dutch government, said he found this suggestion interesting. John Bruton, representing the Irish parliament, also felt it would be difficult to make a reading "across the board" of the whole second part of the Treaty. He therefore took a stance in favour of "a more pragmatic if less elegant" procedure consisting of going through this part of the Treaty article by article. Bundestag representative Jürgen Meyer also underlined this difficulty as the second half also concerns "questions of political power". Although he thinks that the "technical" changes to the Treaty should not require the convening of a Convention, it is for this that he can hardly see any prospect of future revision without a Convention. The Convention should be the rule, but with greater flexibility for "low importance" revision, French Senator Hubert Haenel said. "It would be too much if the Convention had so little confidence in itself that it does not put itself forward as a method for the future", Spanish Socialist Carlos Carnero Gonzalez, MEP, exclaimed. Adrian Severin, from the Romanian parliament, proposed that each government should be able to call for review of the Constitution, and that, if a number of governments call for revision, then it cannot be refused.
As far as ratification of the future treaties is concerned, most Convention Members insisted on ratification by all Member States. This was the case of two British nationals, Peter Hain and Gisela Stuart. The British government delegate said that, if something else is envisaged for the future, then it could encourage parliaments or voters to vote against the constitutional treaty. "Europe has always gone forward as one", he warned. The House of Commons representative exclaimed that there seems to be a loss of confidence in the European vision, if one thinks that, with enlargement, we are not able to convince voters to approve the Constitution. "Politicians are persuaders", she insisted. This gave rise to a small debate with her compatriot Andrew Duff, MEP Liberal, who asked her whether she really thought that one could allow the veto of just one country to block the progress that is wanted by "everyone else". From the House of Lords, Lord McLennan of Rogart expressed astonishment that such an attitude could be shown by a "pragmatic Briton". He urged his colleague to have greater realism, and mentioned the ratification difficulties in the United Kingdom, especially for the Maastricht Treaty. Andrew Duff insisted, on the other hand, that the future of the treaty should be able to take effect before ratification by all Member States: a 5/6 majority should be enough, with the possibility for the minority to "catch up" the others or to have associate status, he said.
Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France) warned that, with 25 to 30 Member States, "no major decision can now be taken unanimously. If one requires this Treaty to be ratified by all Member States, then one might as well stop now. Out of the twenty referendums expected, one or two will be negative, and the anti-European oppositions announce the end of the Europe adventure if they win". The UDF member thus proposes ratification by a "supermajority" of 4/5 or 5/6 of the citizens representing the same percentage of citizens. Furthermore, he considers that, during the major revisions that would increase or reduce integration too much, countries that cannot picture themselves in this vision of Europe should be able to leave the Union. Also, noting that, with each enlargement, citizens choose each other mutually, he restated his request that the decision to open accession negotiations should be in the hands of governments alone. Dick Roche, from the Irish Parliament, is not at all in agreement. Unanimity, he insisted, is the only way to move forward. He asked Mr Lamassoure whether he really thought that France would leave the Union if there were a "no" at the referendum on the Treaty. He said he felt the referendum is a very good way to connect people, and to encourage them to greater realism, but he did not believe a "European referendum" is really needed. Referendum or no, all Member States would have to ratify on the same day, Hannes Farnleitner said, on the part of the Austrian government. He said the message would therefore be clearer. It should be up to each Member State to assess whether it should organise, or not, a referendum on ratification, MEP Lone Dybkjaer, Danish Liberal (and wife of former Social Democrat Prime Minister Rasmussen) said, coming from a country that has known considerable difficulty from popular consultation. French Socialist Olivier Duhamel took a firmer stance in favour of a European referendum, that he called VGE, or "votation générale européenne" (European general voting), coinciding with the initials often used in France for Convention Chairman, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. The treaties and the constitutions do not foresee such a referendum, but it is not banned. It should therefore be included in the Convention, he told his colleagues, saying: "there is no chance of having a European referendum if the Convention does not dare propose itself. If you please, dare". If the referendum is only held in some countries, voters will tend to "respond to the person that puts the question rather than to the question", saying ""no" to Chirac or to Rasmussen or others, rather than to the Constitutional Treaty".
Most Convention Members call for EU withdrawal clause to be accompanied by strict conditions
What will the divorce procedure for the European Union be? The metaphor was constantly evoked during the Convention debate on Friday morning, regarding membership to the Union and the withdrawal clause allowing a State to pull out of EU membership. A large number of those taking the floor called for such a clause, proposed in Article 46 of the Constitution, together with strict conditions. In this sense, many Convention Members urged in favour of proposals, especially from France and Belgium, supported by Commissioner Antonio Vitorino who suggests that the withdrawal clause should be strictly limited to exceptional circumstances, during future amendments to the Treaty, and subject to a unanimous Council vote.
The withdrawal clause proposed by the Praesidium opens up greater possibilities than that proposed in the Commission's "Penelope" project - a little like a "procedure of divorce in two years" recalled the chairman of the sitting, Giuliano Amato. Nonetheless, he recognised that "some Member States hope it will be more restricted". He raised the question, on the other hand, of how relevant it was to apply the Vienna Convention on the value of Treaties as it is, allowing for withdrawal without the agreement of the other Member States, an idea put forward especially by the British Convention Members.
The large majority of Convention Members are in favour of including a withdrawal clause, not only Euro-enthusiasts but also the sceptics behind Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde. Danish Parliamentarian Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PES) "likes" Article 46 which allows the public to be told there will be withdrawal from the EU. Marta Fogler, representing the Polish parliament, stressed the importance of this clause for candidate countries at the time of referendums, like other Convention Members from the future Member States. The representative of the Lithuanian parliament felt that such a clause, although she herself feels it has mainly symbolic value, is a key symbol of "freedom" for countries that have long been deprived of their freedom, like hers. French Socialist Pervenche Berès, MEP, was, however, radically opposed to the clause allowing withdrawal, which "is not a good solution" for resolving the question of enhanced integration between Member States that hope to move forward in defence and social matters especially.
If there is a withdrawal clause, Member States "must not be able to pull out of EU membership for just any reason", Pascale Andreani said, speaking on behalf of the French government. In her view, it is necessary to give the procedure a strict framework, mainly by adopting a decision at the level of the European Council and by negotiating agreements between the Member State that wishes to pull out and the others. Such a position is defended by the representatives of the European Parliament, Alain Lamassoure (EPP, France) and Anne Van Lancker (PES, Belgium), as well as French Senator Hubert Haenel for whom it is out of the question for the EU to "become like Piccadilly Circus" where people just come and go as they please. The possibility of "unconditional" departure would be too great a threat for the stability of the euro zone or for EU borders, Anne van Lancker noted, like Gijs de Vries, on behalf of the Dutch government.
Along the same lines, Commissioner Antonio Vitorino expressed the hope that the clause would be connected to a "solemn moment, like constitutional amendments". He suggested that withdrawal should respond to the same conditions as EU accession and be negotiated by the whole of the EU and not by each Member State individually. Negotiations would be conducted by the Commission on the basis of a Council mandate, like membership negotiations. British Liberal Andrew Nicholas Duff, MEP, presented proposals supported by a large number of Convention Members and the Vice President, Giuliano Amato, who said the Treaty should specify relations between the three categories of State: member and associate States or States that have pulled out.
Divergence, however, is appearing over how appropriate it is to vote withdrawal by unanimity, an idea supported mainly by Finland. Lamberto Dini, speaking for the Italian parliament, said he felt it should be possible to vote on withdrawal by majority vote. British parliamentarian Gisela Stuart affirmed that, if review of the Treaties can be adopted by qualified majority, then the possibility of pulling out of the EU must be maintained (see above).
Representing the Hungarian government, Péter Balazs tackled the question of the criteria for accession to the European Union appearing under Article 44. The term "European countries" allows the "bold" candidatures of the southern Mediterranean countries to be set to one side, but does not resolve the problem of seven countries of the former USSR. In his view, it is therefore necessary to adopt the Copenhagen criteria as they stand - "clear, short and generally known".
Michel Barnier calls for Convention Members to support recognition of "territorial cohesion" in the Treaty
Regional Policy Commissioner Michel Barnier responded to the call made by Convention Members who urged for the specific nature of the outlying regions to be recognised in the future Treaty. He recalled that Article 299 of the current Treaty is already devoted to these regions. We must examine these issues in a "lucid and objective way, and compare what can be compared", he advised, while proposing that the notion of economic and social cohesion should be extended to that of "territorial" cohesion for the regions that suffer lasting disadvantages (such as low population density), especially the northern and mountainous areas. He called on the Convention Members for their support.
Neighbouring countries: linking cooperation aspects to respect of fundamental rights
During the debate on the new EU neighbours on Friday morning, many Convention Members like Sören Lekberg (Swedish parliament) and René van der Linden (NL parliament) felt it necessary to clearly endorse in the Treaty relations between the European Union and the Council of Europe. A majority of those taking the floor rallied to the idea of clearly linking the cooperation agreements to respect of fundamental rights and democratic principles, Giuliano Amato noted after the debate. Josep Borrell, representing the Spanish Parliament, mainly pressed along these lines citing the example of the Chilean Foreign Minister, who recently stressed the importance of the "democratic clause" included in the association and free trade agreement concluded between his country and the EU. "It has to be said that cooperation between the EU and the countries around it is based on safeguarding common values", Josep Borell insisted. Speaking on behalf of the Hungarian parliament, Jozsef Szajer introduced a specific idea, calling for EU cooperation with the neighbouring countries to place emphasis on the question of minorities, like the Hungarian minorities spread out over various third countries.