EP rapporteurs against Mr Barroso. No sooner was the broad debate on the future of Europe underway than the first fight kicked off. One of the two rapporteurs of the European Parliament, the Austrian Johannes Voggenhuber (of the Green group), laid into the President of the Commission, José Manuel Barroso, in no uncertain terms, about his take on the problem of the Constitution. Essentially, he criticised him for having abandoned the draft European Constitution to its melancholy fate, by postponing any idea of relaunching it to a more favourable period, and adding that he feels that this attitude of resignation is shared by Tony Blair, President of the European Council. The German Social Democrat Jo Leinen, who is president of the committee on constitutional affairs of the EP, was subtler in the form of his words, but just as critical on the substance. He said that the Commission should not send out "ambiguous messages", giving the impression that the Constitution "will not be able to enter force for a long time and that this is unimportant to the functioning of the Union". He added the somewhat surprising assertion that in the absence of a Constitution, the Parliament should not give its agreement to the accession of Turkey and Croatia (see our bulletin at 9033).
All of this leads to the impression that there are two conflicting views:
1) Whilst confirming its commitment to the Constitution, the European Commission takes note of the fact that it will not be able to exist "in the near future" and calls for energy to be spared from "elaborating institutional scenarios". In order to regain the support of the general public, Europe needs to make concrete achievements and progress with an impact for the citizen, starting with the forthcoming financial perspectives, which are necessary for the smooth running of the Union. If, in the meantime, a solution can be found to break the institutional deadlock, "I will be the happiest of Europeans", said President Barroso; but for the time being, this is not the case. It is highly likely that this pragmatic stance is shared in London and in other capitals;
2) The rapporteurs of the European Parliament, the British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff, and Johannes Voggenhuber believe, on the contrary, that the Constitution should remain at the heart of the concerns of the institutions of Europe and that the majority of the population is favourable to it, and they have sketched out a three-phase scenario, with the ultimate objective of an improved text in 2009, which will be able to attract majority support, as the citizens will be closely involved with each of the three phases (see our bulletin 9033). It is clear that in the meantime, the normal management of the Union must continue and that the new financial perspectives are particularly indispensable, but both rapporteurs feel that the principle of "business as usual" is not enough: there is no "European spirit" and the Constitution is being put under an anaesthetic, which it may never wake up from.
Possible middle ground? Despite the fairly acerbic tone of some of those who took the floor, I have the impression that when it comes down to it, the two stances are actually not all that far apart. I am aware that by saying that, I may be seen as a wishy-washy European, trying to get everybody to agree. Too bad. I'm merely observing that: a) the vision of the two rapporteurs would lead to the ratification of the revised Constitution in 2009. They are, therefore, admitting that nothing is going to happen overnight; b) the requirement for the EU to function as normal in the meantime, and particularly the need for the forthcoming financial perspectives to be agreed very soon, is stressed by both camps. The real difference of opinion is on the procedure: either go down the Constitutional road immediately, or leave it to one side for the time being.
On the arrival point, Andrew Duff clarified, with a great deal of intellectual honesty, the business of the mythical "final European referendum", which certain visionaries see as the official approval of the Constitution for the EU as a whole, as long as the majority takes position in favour of it at European level. Instead, said Mr Duff, we should be talking about a consultative vote, to take place on the same day as the next round of European elections. If the overall result is clearly in favour of the Constitution, the governments of the Member States in which the No prevailed would have to do ask themselves whether they had the "moral authority and political legitimacy" to block the European constitutional progress. What this means is that they would have to do consider whether or not they should leave the Union.
The real difficulties lie elsewhere. For my money, the real differences of opinion have nothing to do with which procedure should be followed. They are nowhere near where the current row (which proves, if nothing else, that the reflection is underway and the debate is starting) tends to place them. I will save these for tomorrow, taking account also of Monday evening's speech by the president of the EP, Mr Borrell, the contents of which are unknown to me as I write these lines. (F.R.)
Plenary session of the European Parliament