The two reasons. The assertion by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing according to which the absence of a constitution is preferable to a bad constitution merits consideration, all the more so that it is shared by parliamentarians who were former members of the Convention (both national and MEPs), by the Italian Presidency of the IGC and by several governments. However, in the past, even the unquestionable creators of a united Europe accepted the principal of 'small steps' so long as the building process moves forward. This time, crisis is seen as preferable to a bad text. Why?
I believe that two reasons can be found for this attitude. The crucial first, is that the Constitution is made to last. VGE talks of a text valid for a half century. Thus, bad and improvised compromises such as those from the last night in Nice would be disastrous. Rather than ending up with texts created from reciprocal concessions by national interests and concocted between tired Heads of Government, without vision, pressure to conclude, it is better to postpone the lot. The draft from the Convention is a serious work, ambitious and made to last; the final text must remains as is.
The second reason is less formally proclaimed, but it is present in people's minds: in case of a failure, there would rapidly be new initiatives by the member states which see progress towards integration as crucial. Thus the European building process will not be blocked by the absence of a Constitution. This ambition, Belgium transformed it into an official position. The Parliament, by ratifying the accession of the ten new member states, passed a resolution forcing the government to play the role of engine in new European initiatives if the Constitution distances itself from the text put forward by the Convention (see bulletin of 6 December, p. 12). The Belgian Parliament's text is explicit: in case of an insufficient result from the IGC, there would be no other choice than to opt for deeper cooperation between the EU member states that share a desire to move forward towards closer European integration. The creation of a willing vanguard is explicitly cited. This resolution gained support from the majority, and if the Walloon Christian Democratic party abstained, it is because it favoured a stronger formulation; postpone the vote on new accessions until the end of the IGC, in order to assess the deepening of the EU before deciding over enlargement.
Why Belgium? It is not only a question of European idealism. Philippe de Schoutheete (for a long time the Belgian Permanent Representative to the EU, and presently advisor to the European Commission) wrote: since the children of Charlemagne started sharing his empire, for over a thousand years, French and Germans have regularly warred over territory which, today, is that of Belgium. Twice over the last century. It is a good reason for the Belgians to welcome any strengthening of the Franco-German couple: Belgium knows full well and is not frightened. I wrote in this section that it is necessary to understand the historic and psychological reasons for the British and Polish position towards the United States. The reasons for the Belgian attitude in favour of defence are weaker. If the IGC fails, it is normal that Belgium suggests other possibilities. For defence, it would be important of review the existing texts, as the Treaty of Nice does not allow for 'enhanced cooperation' in this sector. Questioned over the sectors where closer cooperation could develop, the Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, cited defence, as unavoidable, justice, asylum, immigration, taxation and certain social issues.
All the member states have a choice. Belgium is not isolated. Before the French Senate, Dominique de Villepin stated: France prefers a clear failure than a weakening of the ambition through an unwinding of the draft Convention. It is also significant that the Secretary of State for European Affairs of the Netherlands, Atzo Nicolaï, spoke of a common position within the Benelux. Also important is the fact that certain new members (Hungary for example) align themselves with a similar position, so much so that the possible initiatives to move forward would not be limited to the six founding states. Those that are reticent or hesitant argue that the EU, with Defence Europe and political ambitions, would change in nature. Of course it would! We must finish with the ambiguities. Some member states prefer to stick with the large market and economic cooperation? They have them and always will. However, at the same time, others will go further: as said by Michel Barnier, if the IGC fails, one day there will exist alongside each other the economic Europe with its large market and the political Europe with a few. All the member states have the choice.
(F.R.)