The Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, the Vice-President of the Convention Giuliano Amato and European Commissioner Michel Barnier are seriously concerned at the prospect of delaying the relaunch of negotiations on the Constitution until the second half of the year. The President of the Parliamentary committee, Giorgio Napolitano, does not believe that agreement already exists between all Member States, within the IGC, on 95% of the draft Constitution. This arose from the meeting held at the beginning of the week by the committee (see our bulletin of 18 February, p.4), and of the follow-up given it by the "Institute of European Studies" of the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) in the form of a conference and debate with President Napolitano. The students, their professor Mario Telo and the Institute director, Paul Magnette, were thus able to talk to one of the main players in the constitutional debate underway "in hot blood". And it was worth it.
Based on this double discussion, here is my view of the current state of play of reflections in this field.
The dangers of delay. Giorgio Napolitano things that agreement on the current draft Constitution would be even harder to reach in the second half of the year than now, because then, the new Parliament and the new European Commission would be able to say that they are not bound by earlier compromises, and that they intend to discuss the draft from scratch. Michel Barnier believes that agreement before the European elections of June is "possible and necessary", because "we know all the problems by heart", and we should "avoid giving the citizen the spectacle of an endless quarrel". The agreement will be no easier in November than in April. Giuliano Amato thinks that "time passing fades or blurs the spirit of the Convention".
What Parliament could do. Given the dangers of a delay, several MEPs including Olivier Duhamel and Carlos Carnero Gonzalez, think the EP should formally adopt the draft Constitution approved by the Convention, to stop it being watered down by time and compromise. Mr Amato and Mr Barnier supported this idea.
Compromises suggested on "double majority". Inigo Mendez de Vigo suggested a sort of "revision clause": as the Nice regime will have to be applied for several years, a date could be set (in 2009, for example) to decide on a new regime, in the light of experience. This formula was supported by several MEPs, but rejected by others Andrew Duff said that in order to mollify the small and medium countries, the number of Member States needed for a majority decision could be increased (55% of the total instead of 50%), and the percentage of population reduced (55% instead of 60%). Richard Corbett suggested taking inspiration from the Ioannina formula, so that when a decision could be taken by Council using double majority, but which could have been blocked under the Nice system, the minority countries could ask for the negotiation to continue until agreement was reached. With or without a deadline? Opinions differ. Mr Barnier said that the Convention's method is the most efficient, the most transparent and the fairest, but he wouldn't die in a ditch for it, just as long as the Union's decisions are not made harder (a view I do not share).
Nothing was suggested on the composition and functions of the European Commission. For this I refer you back to yesterday's column.
Giorgio Napolitano's serious concerns. Speaking to the students, the President of the parliamentary committee said that "double majority" is not the only obstacle to agreement. He can see "other, more substantial difficulties", and "never believed that agreement exists on 95% of the Constitution". The final concessions offered by the Italian Presidency, notably to the United Kingdom, "contain ambiguities and uncertainty". He has even heard certain authorities affirm that the Constitution isn't needed, because "we can live with the Treaty of Nice"! His view is that we are seeing "a movement towards national positions" and wonders whether some governments don't see this Constitution business as "the last leap towards an idea they think is wrong, that of political European and supranationality". He added: "maybe I'm being overly dramatic, but I feel a real reversal of the Laeken spirit (i.e. more Europe), and the return to the logic of alliances between Member States, outside a framework of unity and solidarity". He can see the risk of a crisis which would not be the same as past ones, because it would relate to the very nature of Europe. In his view, the only hope is for "mass mobilisation at the European elections, but the absence of a Constitution could cause a crisis of confidence among the electorate". Too pessimistic, or just rational? We must all make up our own minds.
(F.R.)