Brussels, 22/09/2005 (Agence Europe) - The British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff and Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber, rapporteurs of the European Parliament on the role of the Parliament during the reflection phase called for by the European Council of June after the process of ratification of the European Constitution was interrupted, have criticised the UK Presidency and the Presidency of the European Commission for their inertia in the crisis. In the middle of this "crisis of confidence, the European institutions are weak", said Mr Voggenhuber, speaking to the press on Thursday. The Commission seems to have "its priorities elsewhere", and is not playing its "traditional function, which is to seek to be a mediator in a crisis"; "no great political initiative", therefore, is to be expected from it, said Mr Duff, referring to the press conference held by President Barroso on Wednesday (EUROPE 9030). As for the Council, it seems to have "fallen asleep", and we should perhaps be talking about a "siesta" instead of a reflection pause, he joked. It is clear that he feels that until the row on the financial perspectives has been resolved, we should expect "nothing exhilarating or positive" from the Council. I would even say, continued Mr Voggenhuber, that the Constitution is now being given an "anaesthetic" from which it is unlikely ever to wake up. "The post of gravedigger for the Constitution has been advertised, and there have been a lot of applicants, including, unfortunately, the Presidents of the European Council and the Commission", said the Austrian Green, adding: "last June, Tony Blair was visibly grateful to the French (for their "no" to the Constitution: Ed), and called on us to cease our institutional navel-gazing, and yesterday, José Manuel Barroso said that life goes on, it doesn't matter". "With friends like that, the Constitution doesn't need enemies", exclaimed Mr Voggenhuber, protesting: "Barroso does nothing at all. There is no European spirit in the proposals he has made. All he talks about is better regulation, subsidiarity, business as usual". Mr Duff said: I have much respect for President Barroso, whom I've not seen since the summer, and I hope to encourage the Commission to help us to find a solution. Mr Voggenhuber, who pointed out that he, together with Mr Duff, had been rapporteur on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, said: we are a bit like "Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, and we change roles in front of every windmill, to share out the blows between us!".
“Johannes and I would like to save the Constitution, relaunch it, try to use this crisis to improve it", said Andrew Duff. After the French and Dutch "no" votes to the Constitution, "we cannot turn up with the same text again ", said Mr Voggenhuber (who, like Mr Duff, was a very active member of the Convention). He feels that what is going on with the Constitution is, in fact, "the echo of conflicts within the Convention, where the majority, which did not want part III (on the policies), failed to get their way". For this reason, said Mr Voggenhuber, we now want to propose not a kind of "interim Constitution", but "perhaps the definitive Constitution" (see EUROPE 9028 on the debate within the constitutional committee which showed, amongst other things, that the EPP-ED and Socialist groups do not feel that at this stage, the European Parliament should go as far as the rapporteurs would like).
Mr Voggenhuber sketched out the procedure in three phases which he and Mr Duff propose: 1) first phase: European dialogue with the parliaments, political parties, social partners and the citizens.
Mr Voggenhuber admitted that they were going into "largely unknown terrain" and that, amongst other measures, "citizens' forums" would have to be organised, and partners found. This debate, which will be hosted by the European Parliament, must be genuinely European and concentrate on "what we have in common", despite differences of opinion on the Constitution, in order to be able to hold an Assises meeting next year with the national parliaments, at which a preliminary draft Constitution consolidating the existing consensus will be proposed. This initial inter-Parliamentary conference should allow us to express ourselves as a "Parliamentary democracy", said Mr Duff, adding: Johannes and I would like to present concrete ideas to the Austrian Presidency, ahead of the European Council of June 2006 (which will, in principle, be held on 16 and 17 June: Ed), to sum up the situation left behind by the Summit of June 2005 (we hope to tie our work in with the programme of the forthcoming Austrian Presidency, said Mr Voggenhuber). This dialogue is only just starting, noted Mr Duff, indicating that he would be in Rennes next weekend to take part in a "French centre-left colloquium"; 2) second phase: this time, a new Convention will tackle differences of opinion and discuss future issues (which were skirted round by the Convention chaired by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, even though the French and Dutch referendums showed that people want to deal with these questions, Mr Voggenhuber insisted): what is the objective of the EU, what are its borders, what is the future of its economic and social model and its foreign and security policy? This phase should lead to the drafting of a "definitive" treaty, said Mr Voggenhuber ; 3) third phase: in order to take account of the criticism levelled by the citizens, which refer mainly to part III of the Constitution, the European Commission will be called upon to "rework this part" and to present a "special legislative programme" for June 2009, to coincide with the next European elections.
When asked about the possibility of a European referendum on the Constitution, Mr Duff said that they should be talking instead about a "consultative vote", so as not to tread on the constitutional traditions of certain countries. If there is a referendum on all the Member States at the same time as the European elections, the result would not be the same everywhere, he admitted, but added: the countries whose citizens may say "no" should then ask themselves "whether they have the moral authority or political legitimacy to block the constitutional progress of all the others". We should face the fact, he added, that in France and the Netherlands, the campaign for the "yes" was "ill-prepared" and "not terribly exciting".