Strasbourg, 16/09/2004 (Agence Europe) - Several MEPs, noting that the ratification phase of the European Constitution will be the most difficult one, appealed for a joint ratification strategy on Wednesday night in Strasbourg. Without going that far, the Dutch Presidency insisted that it would follow the process closely, but the Commission declared itself against a supranational campaign which could be interpreted as propaganda, drawing criticism from some MEPs who accused it of being too timid.
The signing of the Constitution on 29 October at the Campidoglio in Rome is not the end of the story, warned social-democrat Jo Leinen, President of the constitutional affairs committee, who fears that the "European spirit" which enlivened the Convention and even survived the IGC risks being lost in "a certain populism and opportunism" - as shown by the current debate in France, he commented (see EUROPE of 15 September, p. 6, on Daniel Cohn-Bendit's comments). The President of the Council Atzo Nicolaï, while at the same time emphasising that ratification procedures are a matter for the member states, promised: we will ensure that all of this is discussed and that information is circulated. In the Council, we feel very much responsible for this issue, he insisted, announcing that the European Foreign Ministers would have it on the agenda of all of their monthly informal lunches, with a view to making concrete proposals for the European Council on 5 November. In the meantime, the Ministers for Communication would discuss the issue on 5 October in Amsterdam.
Commissioner Jacques Barrot for his part detailed the various information initiatives planned by the Commission, particularly through the PRINCE programme: more than one thousand public brochures not he Constitution, videos, information posters, debates in schools, seminars for journalists. However, while he advocated a dialogue on the issue between the Commission, Parliament and Council, Mr Barrot also said: the Commission "is not in favour of a general, pan-European campaign, which risks being counterproductive and being perceived as supranational propaganda".
The Partido popular MEP Inigo Mendez de Vigo, rapporteur (with the British Labour-member Richard Corbett, who noted the large number of national ratifications to be carried out by referendum) on ratification, was the first to express his surprise at the Commission's cautiousness. The European Parliament would not be neutral on the issue, said the Spanish MEP. An exercise in public relations "is fine", but the ratification campaign should be "political", said the British liberal Andrew Duff, who expressed his regret that the leaders of Europe seem to be "frightened by their own shadow on Europe". Who should advocate the Constitution if not the European institutions?, asked the Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber, who compared the Commission's attitude to that of a child who has lost his ball and stands rooted to the spot wondering if he can cross the road to retrieve it. The Constitution should not become "the plaything of domestic political grudges and wrangling" in the member states, nor the plaything of "nationalism and chauvinism", Mr Voggenhuber exclaimed. Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (PDS, Germany) thought that it would be auspicious if the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War (6 to 9 May 2005) were chosen as the date for the referendums planned in the member states. Ms Kaufmann would also welcome a decision to hold a referendum in her own country. Polish MEP Wojciech Wierzejski (Independence and democracy) sang from a different hymn-sheet, announcing: I am against the Constitution, there should be referendums everywhere, with campaigns for and against which are sufficiently well-funded. Citizens' concerns must be aired in the debate, warned Irish MEP Brian Cowley (UEN), who represents one of the countries where a referendum is planned. At the same time, he thought that the European parliaments should play a leadership role in the campaign and "give a fair and truthful account of what is in the treaty".
Alain Lamassoure (UMP) declared himself in favour of a joint ratification strategy in order to avoid the European referendum turning into "a national plebiscite". The countries which are holding referendums (twelve at this stage: NdlR) should therefore agree on: - a joint presentation of the question to be asked of citizens and of the explanatory memorandum (even though each country will clearly have "its own legal wording"); - a joint timetable: the best solution would be for all the referendums to be held on the same day, or otherwise the example of the accession referendums in the new member states should be followed, thereby
"starting with the countries known to be more in favour, to give it momentum"; - a clear approach to the issues of the Union's frontiers, a problem which no European institution has yet been brave enough to mention. In Mr Lamassoure's view, "it is impossible to submit the creation of a political Europe to the citizens without defining what we mean by 'Europe'" and he warned: "in several countries, including France, belonging to a political Union with no frontiers where the future composition would be left solely to the heads of government would be rejected. The Council should be aware of this when it has to give an opinion on Turkey". "A 'no' in just one country will bring the whole thing crashing down", warned UDF MEP Thierry Cornillet, who appealed for "the debate to be denationalised". He saw a need to "europeanise" the ratification process, and the institutions cannot remain neutral.