Emphasis should, I feel, be placed on a number of elements covered during the European Parliament's debate on the draft Constitution (amply summarised in yesterday's bulletin, pages 5 to 7, and in the following pages of today's issue). They are:
1. The solemn nature of the appeal made by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing not to change the Convention's draft. VGE has, quite naturally, been stating since July this year that we should not move away from the current text. But he expressed this view even more firmly and explicitly when speaking before the EP. He said the draft "goes as far as it possibly can given the political, social and cultural constraints of Europe today. It represents the overall package of what it is possible to achieve in the Europe of 2003". By seeking to go still further, we run the risk of greater divide in Europe: "This is an unacceptable risk that no-one has the right to run". A more ambitious draft would not win unanimity, and a weaker draft, though satisfying some, would disappoint others. In both cases, ratification would be compromised.
Not without malice, VGE completed his appeal with an invitation to the EP to call for any proposal of amendment to the current draft to be made public and to be made available to the public and to the press. This would mean the end, within the IGC, of secret negotiation between governments and a refusal of the destructive "do ut des" practice.
2. European Commission open to acceptance of current text. As predicted, Romano Prodi reaffirmed that, according to the Commission, "some aspects of the current draft clearly show that the compromise reached is incomplete or insufficient and that the result obtained so far cannot be final". He cited the gaps that the Commission will suggest the IGC fills, through extension of the majority vote, the creation of an instrument for the coordination of national budgetary policies, and abolition of "second class Commissioners". If Mr Prodi had simply announced that the Commission would be suggesting such changes, the incompatibility of his position with that of the Convention chairman would have been striking (and a cause for concern). However, he went on to add that, if "considerations of realism suggest the problems mentioned should not be tackled just now, then the Commission is ready to note this with serenity and realism". He pointed out the Commission's fallback position: "one must foresee mechanisms that allow things that cannot be decided today to be decided tomorrow". The Constitution review procedures should make it possible to act swiftly and effectively if current provisions prove insufficient. The main thing is that the Constitution should not be blocked or inflexible.
Some commentators place emphasis on the divergence between VGE and Mr Prodi. For my part, I prefer to stress the elements that make convergence possible
3. Italian Presidency is firm regarding the aim and the deadlines for the IGC and also cooperation with the EP and with the Convention presidency. The Italian Vice-Prime Minister Gianfranco Fini and the Foreign Minister, Franco Frattini, took firm and clear stances on three essential points of the work of the IGC (see this column dated 3 September): a) aims: The presidency will be against the pillars and balance of the current draft being questioned. On the few points left to be discussed, it will reject "compromises on the cheap". The IGC will represent the "ideal pursuit of the Convention"; b) deadlines. The final agreement should come about before the end of the year and the signing of the constitutional treaty before the European elections in May, so as not to "disperse the constituent accumulated heritage and to allow citizens to vote in knowledge of the Constitution"; c) cooperation. Not only the Commission and the Parliament are to take part in the work of the IGC but Mr Fini also thought it desirable for the chairman and the two vice-chairmen of the Convention (VGE, Mr Dehaene and Mr Amato) to attend.
4. MEPs support VGE's direction, with reservation regarding the future European Commission. In addition to the individual positions taken by MEPs, the spontaneous reactions from the House were eloquent. VGE's call to avoid the risk of making substantial changes to the current draft were applauded at length, as was the whole of his speech. The list of gaps to be filled drawn up by Romano Prodi was considerably supported on one point: his criticism of the solution found for the composition of the future European Commission. This comes as no surprise to me and I have nothing to add to what I wrote in this column yesterday.
Now it is essential for us to know what the positions to be taken by the Member States within the IGC are. Some signs mainly coming from Central and Eastern European countries seem worrying but they should certainly not be over-dramatised. At the same time, support of VGE's position is firm, mainly from the six founding countries. We'll wait till things are taken up in greater depth. (F.R.)
European Parliament Plenary Session