The European Parliament is divided. Things are starting to move in the reflection on the crisis in Europe and the relaunch of the Constitution, and it is not surprising to note that the prime mover is the European Parliament. I'm not saying that it is the source of the most reasonable or of the newest ideas; various stances give rise to a certain amount of confusion, even those subscribed to by the most illustrious. However, in this initial phase, the main thing is that stances are being adopted, and that projects are being put forward.
The starting point was the press conference given by the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, in which he said that the resumption of the constitutional process would not happen overnight, calling on the European and national authorities to concentrate on the concrete achievements the citizens expect. Several members of the European Parliament criticised him for this, and many of them did not pull their punches, saying that this was the final nail in the Constitution's coffin, and would lead back to the so-called "small steps" pragmatism, without an overall vision or any ambitions for the future. In response, the two rapporteurs of the EP, Andrew Duff and Johannes Voggenhuber, sketched out a radically different project, based on the almost immediate resumption of the constitutional debate, getting all of the citizens involved in it this time, to end up with a new text in 2009 to be submitted to a simultaneous consultative referendum in all the Member States. This plan was, however, rejected by the president of the constitutional committee of the Parliament, Jo Leinen, and by the whole of the Socialist group. Jo Leinen and the spokesperson for this group on institutional affairs, Richard Corbett, said that the possible renegotiation of the Constitution was one of the options, one of the possible results of the reflection getting underway; it could not be decided now, but only once this reflection was over. For the time being, they feel that the priorities should be the forthcoming financial perspectives, the confirmation of the revised European model of society and the reform of the common agricultural policy. On first sight, it is not easy to tell the difference, in terms of procedure, between this position and that of Mr Barroso, which proved so unpopular a week before.
At the same time, in the constitutional committee of the Parliament, the main committee competent on this issue, the rapporteur for the committee on foreign affairs, Elmar Brok, put forward his own point of view, and this was different again (see our bulletin 9042). Alongside several very interesting ideas, I was struck by three aspects: a) the Constitution should not be revised until after it has entered into force. How can the current text be applied if two countries have rejected it? b) once it has been revised, the new draft must be approved by double majority (of population and of States), at a referendum held simultaneously in all the Member States. It is not clear how it would be legally possible to impose such a text on a country which rejected it at such a "simultaneous referendum"; c) in case of blockage, a group of Member States could repudiate the existing treaties and build a new Union. But the current treaties would remain in force for all Member States which do not repudiate them.
As we can see, the ideas still require further detail and clarification, and the rapporteurs of the constitutional committee must decide whether they will stick to their project, despite the disapproval of their president.
France's choice. Whilst the debate is underway at the European Parliament, the governments have generally not had much to say, with one exception: France. Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy explicitly said that he was " in favour of a vanguard or pioneer group", explaining: "this is a necessity. No country should be excluded, as long as it is prepared to sign up for more integration". This was how he summed up, in two sentences, the speech he made on 23 September before the "UMP Convention on Europe", in which he invented nothing new, indicating that the end point would be "what I would call a federation of nation States", which would be subject to a specific treaty covering: an economic and monetary Union with coordination of economic policies; an area of security for the citizens; unified defence; a common policy for research and innovation. He concluded: "in my view, Europe power is a given; political Europe is a necessity, social Europe a requirement". His choice in favour of a vanguard, a pioneer group or a hardcore (the three formula referred to) seems, therefore, clear. On the other hand, Nicolas Sarkozy recommended a joint initiative between France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain and Poland, in other words the "large countries", leaving the medium-sized and small ones to one side. This proves, if nothing else, that he has not read the history of European construction. To date, the other governments have been a lot less forthcoming. (FR)