Brussels, 04/10/2005 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee reacted very strongly to the presentation by European Commissioner Margot Wallstrom of the Communication the European Commission will be adopting on 12 October on its 'Plan D' (D for democracy, dialogue and debate). They were highly critical of the Commission's lack of involvement in the reflection process following the breakdown of the ratification of the European Constitution, asking what is the point of a reflection process that does not look at institutional issues in the European context. The Commissioner for Inter-institutional Relation and Communications Strategy didn't see how 'too much institutional engineering' was going to help connect European citizens with Europe. Debate on the working document by British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff and Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber, EP rapporteurs, confirmed that there is not yet any consensus among MEPs about how the reflection process should proceed (see EUROPE 9028 and 9033).
Inigo Mendez de Vigo (EPP-ED, Spain) said what he was concerned about was the fact the Commission has no political plans. If there is no political leadership from the European Council, it is for the Commission to say 'Here's the political plan'. If nobody knows what to sell, Europe will flounder, he said. Echoing this sentiment, Monica Frassoni, Co-President of the Greens/EFA group, said the idea of going back over the content of EU policies and abandoning the institutions was not good because it would lead to confusion. Why not withdraw the services directive and REACH if we start looking at contents, she asked. Jens-Peter Bonde, Co-President of the Independence and Democracy group, said there could not be a Plan D without transparency in the way the Commission works and without inviting opponents of the Constitution to express themselves, otherwise it would be Plan M (M for Monologue). Jean-Louis Bourlanges (ALDE, France) slammed the gap between the charming babble of the Commission and the fine mess we find ourselves in. He added that everyone was aware that institutional references are vital and the Commission should remember that the European Union will be ungovernable if it does not give itself the resources to govern. The Commission does nothing, it's just a reflection of the contradictions among Member States, said Bourlanges, threatening to use a censure motion against Margot Wallstrom and the entire Commission and its Plan D, D for Departure - your departure, he bellowed. We cannot afford to wait, said Andrew Duff, asking whether the European Commission thinks the Constitution can come into force without any basic changes? (The Commissioner did not reply.) Johannes Voggenhuber said it was important to know what was hidden behind the key phrases of Jose Manuel Barroso and Tony Blair, adding that the problem could not be solved with an ungovernable Europe. The institutional structure is essential, said Jo Leinen (German Social Democrat), President of the EP Committee, who spoke of his own experience and the need to raise awareness among political parties, which were not involved in the debate, if the aim of Europeanising the democratic process was to be achieved.
There's sadness at losing the dear child of the Constitution at a time when the European institutions are not dealing with big projects, regretted Margot Wallstrom. She said the Commission agreed with the idea of not trying to anticipate the Constitution or select and implement some of its institutional aspects, adding that extending the Nice Treaty (or a revised version of it) was not a long-term solution. But she said time was not yet right for presenting new institutional engineering again because there was the danger of operating to save the Constitution and falling back into the debate about reform of the institutions. She admitted that the debate, which should not pre-judge the outcome of the reflection period, should articulate the ideas contained in the European project and institutional issues, but should start with political content. She said the Commission was involved in confidence raising measures, and it was better for the Commission to listen better and explain better. This was the aim of the Communication on Plan D, suggesting that future national debate, while respecting 'regional specificities' should be arranged according to three major topics - the economic and social development of Europe; feelings about Europe and the EU's job; and the Europe's borders and its role in the world. The Communication will be divided into three parts - stimulating wider debate; getting citizens involved in the democratic process, and creating tools to stimulate dialogue on European policies.