Last Thursday's colloquium celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the approval by the European Parliament of the "Spinelli Constitution" (see our bulletin of 6 March, p.5) brought back something of the atmosphere of that far-off 14 February 1984 in Strasbourg for nearly three hours, and allowed those taking part physically to feel just how wrong the concept of the European adventure as a purely economic enterprise is. Already in the 1980s, the initial impetus had largely evaporated and, as far as public opinion was concerned, the EEC was just a common market to the advantage of business, based on power struggles between the Member States and between the institutions. Idealism was forgotten or neglected. Against this backdrop, Altiero Spinelli and his colleagues managed to re-launch the wider objectives, and the "Delors decade", so rich in results, was born.
Don't impede the Commission. Arranging for the colloquium to be attended by several of those who worked directly with Altiero Spinelli, MEPs Giorgio Napolitano, Monica Frassoni and Graham Watson tried to get this spirit back. The atmosphere was abrasive, given the mud that's been thrown at the European idea over the years, and those taking part noted that in several aspects, the Spinelli draft pre-empted the "Giscard Constitution" which is now subject to approval by the Member States. It contains indications which could help to get over some of the difficulties which are holding up the conclusion of the Constitutional process. A few examples? The Spinelli draft put the European Commission at the centre of the institutional structure, indicating the essential principles (autonomy from the governments, commitment by each Commissioner to defend the common interest), but it didn't say a word about its composition and how it works; these were questions to be answered by the institutions at a later date, rather than impeding them in a Constitution with ambitions to be valid for half a century. Dedicated readers of this column will understand how comforted I am by the idea of reaching a conclusion on this that is similar to Altiero Spinelli's.
Double majority in utero. As for the decision-making procedure in Council, majority voting was the general rule, with an option for exemptions if a "vital interest" of a Member State is at play; but the existence of this kind of interest must be recognised by the Commission and the derogation transitional (ten years). "Double majority" (of States and of population) was not provided for, but was already "in utero" in the provision whereby the Constitutional Treaty would enter into force upon ratification by the majority of the States representing two-thirds of the overall population. "Today's risks refer us back to this wisdom", said Mr Napolitano, adding that we should maybe think- if the IGC covers itself in shame by rejecting the Constitution- about the provision for the text to be sent directly to national parliaments for ratification, leaving governments out of that particular loop.
Involving national parliaments. Monica Frassoni prefers the path of the European Parliament to that of the Convention, which leaves me dumbfounded. I think that the involvement of the national parliaments in preparing the "Giscard Constitution" was a huge success, proving that if the Member States' MPs are kept informed and directly involved in the work, their behaviour is positive. Those who were members of the Convention are now taking some of that previously default European spirit back to their parliaments with them. For Constitutional undertakings, we must not return to the jealousies and scepticism of yesterday. When it is ratified, we need to be able to count on definite and assured support in national parliaments, which have the final say. And this can only be done by getting them involved from the outset. Furthermore, Jean-Paul Jacqué stressed that Altiero Spinelli was a "realistic revolutionary", predicting in 1984 that the entry into force of the Constitution could not be left "in the hands of a single reluctant country". Maybe Mr Spinelli himself did not believe that his draft would meet with the approval of the Member States; but this matters little, because what's the situation today? That 90% of its institutions and anticipations are taken up and, for the most part, accepted. Professor Jean-Victor Louis, however, observed that several aspects remain open, especially that of the excessive rigidity in the "Giscard Constitution", which, unchecked, would bring it to a halt. He feels that there are still several unanswered questions.
Giorgio Napolitano's conclusion was that the Constitutional process opened 20 years ago by the Spinelli draft must now be concluded: the Constitution absolutely must be approved, despite the question marks which subsist on its implementation.
(F.R.)