What would happen if a Member State said "no". Etienne Davignon is in favour of the ratification of the Constitution for Europe. What's so surprising about this? I could stop here and just add his name to the "yes" list. But it's not quite that simple with the Viscount. He explained his "yes" last week, in his "inaugural lesson" of the 2004-2005 academic year at the "Centre of European Culture". He gave his answer to the question many people have been wondering about, but which has been officially side-stepped, which is: what will happen if any Member States do not ratify the Constitution? He gave a three-point answer: 1) he does not now; 2) the impact will be different depending on the category the Member State rejecting the draft belongs to; 3) whatever happens, the process of European integration will not stop. He divided the Member States into three categories. The first is that of the "Founding Countries". If one of these rejects the Constitution, that will mean that its commitment to Europe is no longer the same, and everything will change. The second category is for countries "which have never really made a choice": the United Kingdom, Sweden, maybe Denmark. When they take position on the Constitution, their choices will become clear. The third category, that of the countries of the latest wave of enlargement, who have to indicate whether their commitment is limited to accepting the acquis as it stands, or if they are also prepared to accept new developments. Whatever they decide, we will have to take this on board.
The continuing European process is safe whatever happens, because we are not faced with a "philosophical construction" calling for endless theological debates; for some Member States, progress simply means "doing what needs to be done". Rejecting the Constitution would not create "a stable situation in which nothing ever happens". There would be initiatives. If, for the time being, official circles aren't discussing it, this is because they are assuming that all 25 will go forward, using the additional options made possible by the Constitution. All the governments will be signing it in Rome at the end of the month; if it is then rejected by a parliament or a population, we will do something else without that country. Now is not the time to go into details; according to the Viscount, it would be inappropriate to start saying that certain things would not be possible for 25. If the situation arises, it will be dealt with. European unity will go forward no matter what.
The critique of the referendum. In terms of ways of ratifying, Etienne Davignon is no fan of the referendum. Instead of making the process easier, it complicates it and indeed adds an element of confusion. If a government invites the population to vote for the Constitution at election time, the vote becomes a judgement on the government: it's not the Constitution being approved, but the government's conduct. The Viscount feels those prejudiced against the Constitution make up around a quarter of all voters! They will say no to the Constitution to say no to the government. It's tough enough when you've got 25% already irritated by the referendum formula. But there's another problem on top of that.
The voters should not just have to express themselves on the content of the Constitution, but they should also be able to compare it to the situation which would arise from a "no" vote. They should be deciding whether the Constitution is better than the Treaty of Nice, because saying no to the Constitution would mean saying yes to Nice. For this reason, the Viscount cannot understand Laurent Fabius's position, which is that voting "no" would mean paving the way for a better Constitution to be negotiated. This is not true; noting no would oblige us to stick with what we've got now (with the possibility of subsequent progress for those Member States which voted in its favour). This would bear no relation to what Mr Fabius and the other French Socialists who supported him were asking for, for two reasons: a) the right-wing is in power in France, and this means that it would be Mr Chirac and his government who would negotiate what came next; b) all the Socialist parties of the EU are for ratification.
Unseen progress. But it's not just a question of realism and tactics. Etienne Davignon defended the Constitution in itself, for the progress it contains, stressing a few oft-neglected aspects, such as: a) granting the EU the "status of legal entity", which is "extremely important" (and he explains why); b) clarifying EU and national competencies (the citizens will have a better conception of "who does what in Europe", what the European institutions are responsible for and what falls to the national governments); c) the possibility for the Court of Justice to clarify those aspects which still appear contradictory or incoherent (and there are a few). Etienne Davignon also referred to the bits everybody talks up: extending qualified majority voting, reinforcing the powers of the European Parliament (with a few gaps, admittedly), etc. On the other hand, he criticised the lack of a flexible and workable procedure to revise the Constitution. However, the shortcomings do not detract from the basic point: Europe needs the progress this Constitution represents. (F.R.)