Strasbourg, 16/12/2003 (Agence Europe) - "Sadness and disappointment" are my feelings after the failed agreement on the European Constitution in Brussels on Saturday: the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi acknowledged this during Tuesday morning's debate at the European Parliament on the Summit/IGC of last weekend. The President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox, called upon the Member States to show "collective will" in the weeks to come, which was missing in Brussels, and the MEPs stressed the exigency of finding a solution, flagging up the deadline of the European elections of June 2004 (from 10 to 13 June): we need a European Constitution before the elections, they insist. The President of the European Council, Silvio Berlusconi, instead stressed the road travelled and the what has been achieved, and which must be preserved in the stage of the game now opening up for future presidencies, which must work "with neither fractures nor short-cuts" to complete the work started by the Convention and continued under the Italian Presidency. The Italian Prime Minister made no reference to the possibility of falling back on "pioneer groups" or "vanguards" to move European integration forward, an idea which has the backing of several MEPs, and was also mentioned by President Prodi.
Silvio Berlusconi pointed out that the Italian Presidency had committed to agree on a "high profile document, neither third-rate nor a compromise" at the IGC, giving the Union an authentic Constitution on the basis of the Convention's text in time for the European elections of 2004. We only had "60 days available", he noted. He explained that in order to avoid a third-rate agreement which would be incomprehensible to the citizens, he decided instead, having stated on Saturday morning that agreement was impossible, to conclude "a discussion which could turn into an argument". "We were really close to concluding an agreement", he said, adding: on Friday evening it seemed possible, due to the "considerable openness of certain countries who had previously seemed to cling to their firm positions", but the following morning, everything was up in the air. The "real failure" would have been a third-rate agreement, said Mr Berlusconi, who said that he had seen "firm willingness not to lose the heritage of negotiation" built up over the previous months. The "patient and meticulous" work, for which he thanked Foreign Minister Franco Frattini (standing next to him), and which, he said, allowed them to register agreements on 82 points which had started off as greatly problematic for the Member States (especially defence). We should take this "constituting work", without touching the "precious results of negotiation" obtained over the past months, said Mr Berlusconi, who said that he had given the Irish President the texts of the agreements already concluded, with "our best wishes for success".
President Prodi calls for courage in reflections, pointing out that "vanguards" are part of
the history of European integration
During his speech, Romano Prodi appealed to the MEPs to "put your political intelligence, your vision and your experience at the service of the first united Constitution", adding: "You are here because your citizens want you to be, you know what they think (...) Only Europe will give us the strength to maintain and develop our cultures, our local and regional traditions of which we are so proud. If we do not close round the union we have been building for half a century, we will lose our autonomy and our influence in the world. It is the Union that will lose them, but it is the Member States and the citizens who will really feel their loss". According to Mr Prodi, "last week, the European integration project stopped, and we missed a great opportunity". However, the consequences will not be disastrous, if we carry on doggedly in the footsteps of the Convention (Mr Prodi criticised certain Member States for using the Convention's draft "to take a step backwards" rather than forwards). After the break to proceedings in Brussels, where the European Council "as a whole failed to reach consensus", Mr Prodi warned: - "the collective acceptance of political liability is not enough. We now need to explain to the citizens how we can better protect their future. Alone or together? Divided or united?" He added: "the solution will be reached not by a series of vetoes, but by the coincidence of interests. The right of veto is not an expression of democratic goodwill". To get out of the stalemate, Mr Prodi feels that the forthcoming European Councils should tackle "the issue of our Constitution by adopting a realistic timetable, and an overall vision which we might have lost". He admitted that it would be "premature and possibly presumptuous to propose a perfect response at this stage". "Some people are thinking of a vanguard of Member States opening the way for more solid co-operation, a starting point for a stronger and more integrated Union. Solutions like this are part of the tradition of European integration. And (...) they usually pop up at the most complex and difficult moments. Today, we find ourselves in one of these dramatic moments. Reflections should therefore be enterprised with courage".
Pat Cox criticises "interference" of Ecofin Council in budgetary powers of European Parliament
At the start of the session, the President of the European Parliament, Pat Cox repeated the points he had raised at the opening of the Brussels European Council (transatlantic relations and the fate of the prisoners in Guantanamo, and the chances of Russia finally adhering to the Kyoto Protocol). But most of all, to the warm applause of his colleagues, he spoke of "concerns of a parliamentary nature" which he had expressed about the IGC.
In budgetary matters, he pointed out, the Parliament supported the balanced result of the Convention, whereas he "wholly rejects the undue, unwarranted and unacceptable interference" of the Ecofin Council, which is an "attack upon the budgetary Treaty of 1975" and a step backwards. If what is at the back of the Ecofin Council's mind when trying to rein in the European Parliament's budgetary powers is that the MEPs tend to increase their expenses gradually, then it should take note of the figures, which show that since the inter-institutional agreement on budgets of 1988, Parliament has shown "considerable restraint", said Mr Cox: for what it is worth, Parliament's expenditure has risen by 21 billion and Council's by 33 billion...
More generally, Mr Cox said that he had warned the IGC that the allocation of seats in the European Parliament should not become a "last minute bargaining chip". Mr Berlusconi said that at the IGC this was virtually not discussed: the small countries wanted 5 seats instead of 4, and the others agreed, he said. "We are not a kind of globalised congress of the people rubber-stamping" everything that is put in front of us, he said. To break the deadlock, he voiced his hopes that the Member States would find the "collective will" once again, which was doubtless what was missing in Brussels.
Bitterness about failure, but goodwill to start work again soon under Irish Presidency - Pros
and cons of "pioneer group"
The disappointment of almost all MEPs (apart from the sovereignists) at the failure in Brussels was palpable, as was the conviction that the necessary "time for reflection" should not go on too long- thus the appeal to the Irish Presidency to take the dossier up as soon as possible, to conclude it before May 2004. MEPs from all sides asked that at least the agreements reached be consolidated: Elmar Brok (CDU) feels the Foreign Ministers should start in January (see Berlusconi/Prodi views on this ). Others, such as Monica Frassoni, Inigo Mendez de Vigo, Andrew Duff, Dick Corbett and Pervenche Bérès, although in agreement, asked for verification of exactly what the agreement on these celebrated 82 points, cited by Mr Berlusconi, consists of.
The failure of the IGC is not the failure of the Convention, said EPP-ED group President, Hans-Gert Pöttering, pointing out that one of Europe's characteristics has always been its capacity for compromise. He believes, and he is not the only defender of this position, that the solution is not to be found in a hardcore of pioneer countries, but is a resolutely joint effort. The work of Ministers Frattini and Antonione at the IGC was very serious, said Enrique baron, president of the Socialist group, but the Community spirit is what is missing (he blamed the Aznar government; my country was in the van of European construction, but now it is lagging behind, he said). Silvio Berlusconi compared Europe to Gulliver, but Enrique Baron finds it more apposite to compare it to Italo Calvino's "Cavaliere dimezzato": an economic power, but a political dwarf. Graham Watson, chairman of the Liberal group, had some harsh words for Mr Berlusconi. Mr Watson spoke of the personal failure of the President of the European Council, who turned up at the IGC ill-prepared.
That said, a delay is better than a bad agreement, but we must not drag our heels: after a brief "post mortem", the IGC should meet again (and conclude) under the Irish Presidency. Mr Watson trusts Bertie Ahern's abilities as a negotiator. "A failed preamble for the enlarged Europe" is how the chairman of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left, Francis Wurtz, sees the result of the IGC, repining the re-emergence of the "old ideas about a hardcore", instead of looking for a common project in which all the citizens recognise themselves. Whatever the results obtained in other fields (which, she feels, are not entirely above reproach), Monica Frassoni, co-chairman of the Greens/FTA group, feels that she will remember the Italian Presidency most of all for its failure on the Constitution text. Ms Frassoni was critical of the method as well as the result, and blamed the system of the "confessional", which did not explain the substance of Silvio Berlusconi's much-vaunted compromise proposals on the eve of the final phase. But the blame must be shared, and Ms Frassoni also criticised those who did not want any part of double majority in Nice.
The Italian Presidency has had to work against a difficult backdrop, said Christina Muscardini (Alleanza nazionale), who pleaded for discussions to be re-started soon, and who did not accept the solution of a several-speed Europe. "There are no citizens mourning, or who even noticed" the Constitutional failure, said sovereignist William Abitbol with his usual sarcasm. He feels that a Europe of twenty-five is in its infancy and it would be premature to give it a Constitution. But although we do not have a Constitution, we do have the Académie Française, he added, a reference to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's election to the ranks of the "immortal" (as members of the prestigious French literary academy are known). We are seeing the return of nationalist illusions and small acts of selfishness, said Italian Radical Marco Pannella, who also criticised the "blackmail" of a country such as France, which is "used to be the only country always to do business with Europe, and doesn't want to pay like everybody else". We must base ourselves on "the Europe of our Parliament", said Mr Pannella, adding: "we are not even masters of where we meet, we are prisoners of Strasbourg".
The IGC's failure was not displeasing to a small number of MEPs, such as British Conservative Jonathon Evans. The lack of unanimity reflects very real differences, he said, asking his colleagues to "move away from the introspective Constitutional debate" to look at the real problems. Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said this, and I subscribe to it, said Mr Evans. Charles Pasqua (UEN) went even further: he feels that as generous as it is, the "rocambolesque" draft Constitution was condemned to failure, because it does not take account of political realities, and we should thank Spain and Poland for having said out loud what others were thinking quietly to themselves. Let us take consolation from this, said the smiling Mr Pasqua: the Convention's draft is not immortal, but its President is (another reference to the Académie Française). The failure of the IGC did not bother Jens-Peter Bonde, Chairman of the Europe of Democracies and Diversities group, overmuch. He repeated his please that whatever the text of the Constitution, the citizens of all countries of the Union may have a say on it via referendums. Fausto Bertinotti (Rifondazione comunista) did not take delight in Europe's setbacks, but he feels the IGC failed because they went about it the wrong way: of the form (because the people and civil society should have been consulted), and on the substance (because market Europe was given priority).
Calls for Convention to be convened
"We don't want to play this down", said the Chairman of the Constitutional committee, Giorgio Napolitano, who thinks the work should be re-started immediately, toeing the Convention line and without losing the negotiation heritage acquired. Mr Napolitano would, however, like to know a bit more about what the Italian Presidency would have liked to do to reach a result: what was the avoided compromise, he asked. The Irish Presidency has a limited mandate, which it should interpret as broadly as possible, he said. Who is more able to help the Irish Presidency than the Convention, asked British Liberal Andrew Duff, who feels that the Convention should be convened in January. Elmar Brok (CDU) agrees: we must not lose momentum, but look for a decent result for all (no "hardcore", he insisted). Some were pleased at the failure, as it is a reason to relaunch the idea of a "hardcore", noted French Socialist Pervenche Bérès, who thinks this would be a new dividing factor. Carlos Carnero (Socialist, Spain) thinks so too, and pleads for greater fidelity to the Convention's text, which, in his view, is "good for the citizens". Yes, there is a crisis, said Klaus Hänsch (SPD): we need to look it right in the eye and reject "business as usual". "Business as usual" cannot in any case continue, said Dick Corbett (Labour, UK), because the current Treaties are no longer enough and must be changed: so we must get back to work as soon as we can, without re-opening the debate on what has been decided. It is the common spirit we should get back, said Inigo Mendez de Vigo (Partido popular), without creating vanguards or pioneer groups, which would be a "punishment" to the others. Along the same lines, Othmar Karas (ÖVP) criticised the absence of real European Statesmen, with courage, willingness, and confidence. Europe "is never finished", he said, but it can make progress if it refuses unanimity and nationalism. Philippe Morillon (UDF) says one thing is clear: the results of the last IGC are proof that no progress is possible in an intergovernmental framework. If an agreement is not possible before European elections, he commented, "misfortune does serve some purpose - we shall have an interesting subject for the electoral campaign". Markus Ferber (CSU) said the failure of the IGC should mean a number of questions must be asked: - What do the 25 countries of the enlarged Europe have in common? What are the tasks and the financial framework in which one must act? At the moment, is not consolidation more important than enlargement? the Bavarian member asked.
Berlusconi and Prodi clash over significance of IGC achievements at this stage - Berlusconi gives indications on various (rejected) proposals concerning double majority and cites (oral) declaration by Presidency
In response to MEPs, Silvio Berlusconi refused all pessimism repeating what he has often said: "We must always be optimistic. I have never seen pessimists really reach any concrete results". Recrimination serves no purpose, he insisted with emphasis on the fact that "Europe must not be divided into a Europe of first and second divisions" as, he continued, this "would cool down the enthusiasm" of the ten future Member States. These States, he noted, account for a "large number of Europeans", a young Europe (and also "a large market for us", he noted) at a time when "the old Europe needs to be made a little younger". To those who criticise the Italian Presidency, Mr Berlusconi responded by citing parts of a declaration on the results of the IGC which note agreement between "a large majority of Member States" on points that could henceforth be considered as "undeniably taken on board" (Ed.: The declaration cited was in fact an oral declaration made by Silvio Berlusconi after Saturday's lunch in Brussels, not annexed to the conclusions of the European Council). If talks were not successful despite all their "patience and determination", then, Mr Berlusconi exclaimed, he thinks no-one else could have done it better and that this is formally acknowledged by one and all. He insisted that he had tried every possible way to have double majority accepted but had to fall back on other formulae: - first of all extending the Nice system until 2014 to apply double majority from 2015, to which some said "yes" and others said "no". Then (the formula welcomed by those who first of all seemed more "closed") majority decision in 2008 either maintaining the Nice system, if it works, or amending it. But no agreement was reached, he said. During the final press conference (see below), Mr Berlusconi stated that another proposal put forward in Brussels, that of increasing Germany's number of votes in Council which was rejected by the Germany, did not come from the Presidency but from another Member State (Ed.: Spain). There were other proposals, also rejected, he said, citing that of "recognising large country status for Poland and Spain by attributing two Commissioners and four extra MEPs to them".
At this point, Romano Prodi broke in with a warning saying one must be careful not to waste all the work done at the IGC in Brussels by describing some results as "acquis". He said there was no consensus and no "total acceptance on the part of everyone". All the more, "nothing is agreed until all is agreed", he added, urging for the problems still on the table to be recognised.
Mr Cox: no different grades in Europe - Mr Prodi: "no to a first and second division Europe" but
"we do not want to send the whole of Europe into the second division"
The three presidents were able to express their views once more in a joint press conference. According to Pat Cox, the general wish is now to carry out "calm reflection" (this is not a feeling of "calamity") and to see Europe move forward "as one rather than divided into a Europe of different axes". This, he recognised, was the message he would send on to the Irish Presidency. He said they must examine last weekend's texts closely.
Romano Prodi admitted that the IGC in Brussels had left a bad taste in his mouth. The failure in Brussels is not a "negligible" event but rather something that calls for reflection, he insisted, repeating that they must not damage the good work done by making some agreements qualify for consensus too soon. He added that he had noted the document cited by Silvio Berlusconi. As for the "pioneer groups", he said no-one wants a first division Europe and a second division Europe but that neither do they want to send the whole of Europe into the second division. In his view, there should be "gestures", initiatives without one having to speak of specific proposals. On this hypothesis (evoked by Jacques Chirac on Saturday at a press conference: see our Special Edition, pages 4 and 5), Silvio Berlusconi said he had not heard the French President say anything during the sitting on this matter, and Chancellor Schröder told the IGC he was opposed to a two-speed Europe.
Furthermore, Romano Prodi called for the institutional debate not to be confused with that on the Union's Budget (see p.8 on the letter from six countries - Germany France, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Austria and Sweden - that wish to put a ceiling on the Community budget). One can still do everything with only "0.10% of GDP" but Member States that advocate such a ceiling must clearly say what spending should be removed from the Community budget, and they must explain this to their citizens. In answer to questions on this, Silvio Berlusconi recalled that Italy, while being the "third net contributor" to the EU budget, has not signed the initiative of six Member States.