Brussels, 26/11/2004 (Agence Europe) - Members of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament of nearly all the EU Member States (apart from Sweden, Latvia, Malta and Cyprus) have taken a stance in favour of ratifying the European Constitution in a document entitled: "European Socialists vote yes". The debate of the French Socialists on the Constitution is not "Franco-French", MEPs say (including French Socialist Bernard Poignant): "The decision of activists from the largest French political force will have consequences for the whole of Europe" and the debate therefore concerns "the whole European Left", they say. To the two questions set out in the constitutional treaty - "Is it good for Europe?" and "Is it good for the Left?" - signatories answer "yes". First of all, because the treaty "strengthens the position of Europe in the global framework" and "its ability to act", and because it "also increases the democratic nature of the Union as a Union ruled by law" (mainly because it gives power of law to the Charter of Fundamental Rights). This treaty "is also good for the Left", signatories say, noting that there is "no back-pedalling concerning Community acquis" but rather "major breakthroughs for our idea of Europe" (social market economy instead of open market economy, full employment instead of high level of employment and, for the first time, the inclusion of the fight against social exclusion, promotion of justice and social protection, as well as solidarity between generations being included in the Union's goals). Signatories also notes the horizontal clauses of the Constitution on the promotion of equality between men and women, protection of the environment and consumers, as well as the guarantee (under Article III-122) of the conditions that allow public services to accomplish their missions. They go on to state that, without approval of the treaty, there will be no legal base on which to approve a framework law on public services. In their view, these examples illustrate the way in which the treaty strengthens the European social model. Furthermore, according to the results of a Sofres survey published on Thursday by Le Nouvel Observateur, 68% of Socialist sympathisers in France would cast a yes vote in favour of the Constitution, and 32% would not. We recall that the Socialist activists must take a stance on the Constitution on 1 December. In France, the Constitutional Council, called into the picture by President Chirac, noted that the European Constitution may only be ratified after review of the French Constitution because of provisions which, in one way or another, entail new delegations of sovereignty for France with the Union (especially extension of qualified majority). This revision, as President Chirac had announced, will be submitted to the French Parliament meeting in Congress early 2005.
Richard Corbett answers French Socialists Berès, Reynaud, Patrie, Castex, Ferreira,
Hamon, Laigniel, Lienemann and Peillon
British Labour member Richard Corbett, Co-Rapporteur (with Inigo Mendez de Vigo) on the Constitution, answered in response to the French Socialists who are against the Constitution, contradicting several of their arguments. "If one is opposed to the Constitution because it is supposed to be "liberal", then one should have opposed the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice!", he said in his letter. Also, while admitting that the Constitution can be "perfected", he warns: "In the case of rejection, the crisis thus provoked would take years to be resolved". Also, "the argument used by Pervenche (Berès) that we have time as the Constitution will not take effect before 2009, is wrong. It will come into force as soon as it is ratified (this being foreseen for 2006). Only a few articles provide for mechanisms for coming into effect at a later date". "Refusing the constitutional treaty simply because the president of the (French) Republic is in favour is childish", Mr Corbett continued. He was also highly critical of a "colleague from the French PS" who deplores the fact that several amendments to the Constitution have come from the British government. One can reject them for their substance, but condemning them because they are British is "almost a racist attitude", Mr Corbett said indignantly, recalling that the Blair government is a "government of a sister party".