Speaking in Budapest last week before the EPP-ED Group of the European Parliament, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Chairman of the Convention that had developed the draft Constitution for Europe, logically described the essential content of this text and the progress that it brings along the road toward European integration. I have written “logically” because the EPP-ED Group comprises several new parliamentarians interested in hearing the master foreman of the enterprise. For our readers, however, the interest of the chairman's exposé lies above all in the indications given relating to the future.
Comparing the text approved by the Heads of Government with that which had been forwarded to them by the Convention, Mr Giscard d'Estaing confirmed that, in his opinion, almost all of the draft has been safeguarded “with just a few steps back and one step forward”. Among the steps back, he considered as an “unfortunate slide” the decision to index the number of European Commissioners to the number of Member States and not to that of the tasks to be accomplished, and recognised the improvement introduced concerning economic governance and the euro zone. Summing up the text as a whole and enumerating the essential progress compared to the current situation, he underlined all the results, all the tasks which just three years ago were described as impossible. As far as the future goes, he essentially took a position on the following aspects:
1. Ratification and entry into force. Despite some slowdown in the ratification procedures announced in some Member States, Mr Giscard d'Estaing reaffirmed that the date for entry into force should be set for 1 July 2006. For the countries where the choice between a referendum and a parliamentary ratification is open, he notes a preference for a referendum which, he believes, allows emphasis to be placed on the fact that the construction of Europe is a matter for the people to decide and that a constituent act must be approved by citizens. Without calling for a single date for all, he hoped that ratification would take place in a coordinated way as it is a common text that is to be ratified.
2. The only question to be raised. Recourse to a referendum naturally supposes that the key actors in political life demonstrate their sense of responsibility by not deflecting response for political reasons. The question to be posed is simple: Do you, yes or no, approve of the treaty establishing a Convention for Europe? The transparency of debates is the best antidote for euro-scepticism.
3. Early application. After ratification, the implementation of the provisions of the Convention will be gradual, and it will not be easy to explain this to the general public. “It will first of all be necessary to live with the institutions of the Nice Treaty, whose imperfections have been deplored (…). The new Parliament will not be elected until 2009 and the concessions made before the final agreement defer till 2014 the setting up of a restricted Commission College. One can foresee how impatient the public will become given the length of time required for a Constitution that they have approved”. This is why Valéry Giscard d'Estaing considers that the European Council “should remain open” to reflection on speeding up the process, and he welcomes the euro group's intention to bring forward application of the Constitution provision that allows it to have a “stable presidency for two and a half years”. He nonetheless stressed the importance of provisions that will enter into force as soon as ratification takes place: stability of the Presidency and nomination of the Foreign Minister. He went on to add that, at present, this implementation should be the subject of methodical preparation. He said he hopes the Dutch Presidency will begin this reflection during its term of office.
4. In case of non-ratification. On this tricky and controversial point, Mr Giscard d'Estaing said: “If a large majority of citizens of Europe and the Member States approve the Constitution, the problem will be for the States that refused to ratify it, and not for the Constitution itself”.
I attribute a clear meaning to this solemn and apparently vague phrase: The Constitution would remain valid for the States that have ratified it. Those that do not do so should seek a different formula for relations with the European Union (the agreement with Norway was, moreover, cited as an example of this on an earlier occasion).
(F.R.)