Different views common objective. The Heads of Government feel that there is no point asking now what will happen if certain Member States don't ratify the Constitution, because they are worried that if they do this, they will stir up reactions to rejecting it, particularly in countries where the decision will be taken by referendum (see this column of 13 January). But others take a different view, saying that the time is ripe to talk about it. In particular, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and Mario Monti took position late last week. Their ideas on the substance of the problem differ, but they are united by one consideration: both, if they are listened to, want to increase the odds of the Constitution's being ratified in the reluctant countries. The goal is in no way to separate the Member States which want the Constitution from those which do not, but on the contrary, to avoid any rupture by increasing the chances of unanimous ratification. Come at from this angle, even the Heads of Government can understand their proceedings.
Two plans, two Europes, according to VGE. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing points out that ever since Robert Schuman's initiative of 9 May 1950, the European countries have been separated into two groups. The first shared the objective of integration, of which the ESCS was an initial phase (VGE sums up the spirit as follows (our translation): “pooling coal and steel resources to make the re-armament race impossible”), the other rejected the views of Jean Monnet in favour of the creation of a vast free-trade zone with no, or very limited, political ambitions. These two views have coexisted for many years, with two parallel achievements (EEC and EFTA). Then started the wave of accessions to the EC, which, however, “did not dispel the ambiguities and contradictions between the two approaches, which were simply transferred to within the system”. Having stressed and described the profound differences between the two visions, VGE asks the fundamental question: “how does the European Constitution position itself compare to these two plans?” Having chaired the Convention which wrote the Constitution, he feels able to bring a precise answer: “the Constitution quite clearly comes under the heading of the first view, but it avoids crossing any lines which would make it unacceptable to proponents of the second”. The Constitution makes the first plan, which VGE calls “the European Europe”, governable, whilst remaining unobjectionable to those who favour “the European area”. There is, therefore, no reason why all the EU countries cannot approve the Constitution without having to give up their preferences. In order to continue along this path, VGE sees the spectre of “the historical perspective: that of a strong European Europe with its own identity, coming within a peripheral European area”. These definitions are new, but the plans are the same as VGE previously described them: “powerhouse Europe” inside “area Europe”.
The link between Constitution and EU membership, according to Mario Monti. The former European Commissioner clarified his view of things, as already described in this column on 13 January, especially on points which were met with a vague reception. He feels that before the referendum rounds start, a decision should be made that if any Member State votes “no”, then a second referendum should be held to ask the following question: “do you want your country to continue to be a member of the Union by adopting the Constitution, or would you like it to leave?” The link between the Constitution and membership of the Union (this is the point various observers had previously been a bit unclear about) thus becomes clear, “the aspiration of staying in the Union will necessarily involve adopting the Constitution”. The second referendum would only be held once the Constitutional Treaty has been ratified by “the vast majority of Member States”. The announcement of this procedure would be “a good way of encouraging people to think seriously”. For example, Mr Monti predicts that in the United Kingdom, business circles would come down strongly in favour of the “yes” vote, “because the consequences of leaving would be catastrophic for the country's industrial and financial sectors”.
Mario Monti believes in his plan and its ability to overcome the inertia of the Heads of Government. He adds: “It would be useful for the founding countries to help at the birth of the new Europe by taking up my proposal. So could the Luxembourg Presidency. Or the constitutional committee of the European Parliament”.
These two texts prove that things are moving in Europe and that optimism and a willingness to act have not yet been extinguished. [NB: The Valéry Giscard d'Estaing article and Mario Monti's interview were both published in “Le Figaro” of 29 January.] (F.R.)