There's still nothing tangible to send out as a message of optimism about the Constitution, but the powers that be are noticeably becoming more aware of the urgency. The number of warnings increases, some of them quite formal: watch out, the EU is starting to detach from public opinion, and the forthcoming European elections may take place against the backdrop of public indifference. There is urgent need to rally, to give out a different impression of Europe, to leave certain institutional battles to one side, as these are seen as nothing more than a power struggle between the various institutions (even if this perception is partly wrong). And more and more political leaders recognise that the only act which can get us out of this situation is the approval of the Constitution, which would generate big headlines in the newspapers, impact upon public opinion and create some stakes for the electorate. Without which, the citizens who are disappointed in Europe won't bother to vote, and if they do it will be dictated by internal national reasons, and our new Parliament will be more Eurosceptic.
A slogan for Europe? This "awareness of the urgency" was not shared universally, after the failure of the Summit of 13 December. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing himself first of all gave the impression of recommending patience and prudence, and today he recommends agreement on the Constitution by halfway through the year. In his speech to the young people of the College of Europe at Bruges (see our bulletin of 10 March, page 5), Pascal Lamy called for something to be done to stop the citizens from permanently losing interest in Europe. His European commitment has not weakened, "but it has changed", towards a draft which is "less philosophical, more political and concretely Europe". He rejects the ideas of the Eurosceptics, but nor does he share the position of those Federalists who are calling for "a federal Executive, with sole responsibility before a powerful European Parliament". Neither of these positions corresponds with his view of "the current needs of European citizens": what the Eurosceptics want would be economic and political suicide for Europe, and the Federalist extremists are risking "sacrificing improvements to be made to today's Europe". The image of Europe is one of the four "ingredients" Pascal Lamy sees as essential, because Europe "still has neither clarity nor political visibility". The question of the Commission's powers and other similar ones are certainly fundamental, but "that does not wash with the electorate". He suggested the following slogan: "The EU exists to ensure prosperity, stability and security to citizens and States, as they cannot each do so on their own".
Signals of flexibility. The feeling of urgency dominated Wednesday's debate in the European Parliament (see yesterday's bulletin, pp 5/6), and seems to be shared by most governments. Those who felt we could "live with the Treaty of Nice" have changed their minds, or are keeping quiet, at least. Nice bans all reinforced co-operation in the field of defence, which means a two-speed Europe, because a number of Member States will not give up on Defence Europe, and will build it outside the Union if they cannot do so within. Several governments have sent out signals of flexibility on the most controversial dossiers. I've spotted at least three:
majority voting procedure within the Council. The principle of double majority remains intangible (it is one of the most significant items of progress wrought by the Constitution), but the debate on percentages is still unfolding. The dosages are quite delicate. The following question must be answered: is it more important to stop the most populous countries from blocking a decision on their own, or to facilitate a "blocking minority" between the so-called medium-sized countries? Anybody with any experience of Europe knows that this is the wrong quarrel, because it is not size that determines national positions;
composition of the Commission. It has been deemed that for a certain number of years, the "One Commissioner per country" rule will apply. The timing and the details for moving over to a smaller Commission have not yet been fixed. The idea of not including these details in the Commission seems to be gaining ground;
distinction between two-speed Europe (bad) and differentiation (indispensable). The new Member States' grasp of this is getting better and better. The next Hungarian European Commissioner, Peter Balasz, said so in an interview "the key is keeping equal access for all. At the end of the day, it is just a difference in time…"), and the Slovakian observer to the EP, Loize Peterle, in a press conference ("I can support two speeds if they are enshrined in the Constitution").
These issues can no longer be allowed to block agreement. And these "hidden differences", which certain Member States are hiding behind overt differences? If these exist, they must be exposed. (F.R.)