Brussels, 21/10/2005 (Agence Europe) - Andrew Duff, British Liberal Democrat, and Johannes Voggenhuber, Austrian Green, the rapporteurs of the European Parliament on the period of reflection after the process of ratification of the European Constitution was interrupted, laid out for the press on Friday the proposals they will put to the Constitutional committee in Strasbourg next week, ahead of a plenary vote planned for December (see EUROPE 9028, 9033 and 9042). "This Constitution is not dead, it just needs to be improved", and this is what the majority of the French and Dutch who rejected the Constitution are asking for, said Mr Voggenhuber, who pointed out that in surveys, 83% of the Dutch and 72% of the French who said "no" to the referendum want the text to be reworked. These "no" votes were not a "no" to Europe, and the concerns expressed are in fact a reflection of the conflicts we experienced within the Convention which drew up the Constitution, added Mr Voggenhuber (who, like Mr Duff, was a very active member of the Convention). One of the proposals of the two rapporteurs, who suggest that this "period of reflection" should be used to hold "Parliamentary forums" between members of the European and the national parliaments, and the first of these forums is due to take place in Spring 2006, to allow members of the French and Dutch parliaments to explain the negative result of their referendums. This will allow the forum to make detailed recommendations to the European Council of June, which will be held under the Presidency of Austria, on ways of breaking the deadlock. The Constitution is "in intensive care", said Mr Duff, who then asked whether everything should be abandoned, or whether we should wait for something to happen? No, we must try to make the most of this possibility decide whether "or not we really want to live within a constitutional democracy", pleaded Mr Duff, who feels that we must "trace a brave yet judicious path" in order to save the draft. "It is now the hour of the Parliament (...), which must not lag behind disorientated governments" (and ones which are scared of having to hand over a bit more sovereignty), added Mr Voggenhuber.
The other main proposals put forward by the two rapporteurs are to hold further Parliamentary forums on the main future-orientated questions: what is the objective of European integration? Where are the boundaries of the Union? What is the future of the European economic and social model? What should Europe's role be in the world? They also call upon the Member States to organise "Citizens' Forums" at national, regional and local level, with the help of the Commission, on jointly-agreed subjects. Will there be a new Convention? This possibility has not been ruled out, replied Mr Duff, adding: "people have also talked to us about three or four wise men, or five wise women, I don't know who these people are, I haven't heard any names mentioned".
Mr Duff and Mr Voggenhuber have also proposed that the revised Constitution be put to a consultative referendum in all the countries of the Union at the same time, before the European elections of 2009, and call for all efforts to be made to ensure that the Constitution can enter into force during the year 2009. We are proposing a consultative referendum because a binding referendum would be unrealistic and would call for changes to the constitutions of many of the Member States, Mr Voggenhuber explained. Mr Duff went on to add that this referendum may be held before the Member State sign" the final constitutional regulation". This would be a "revolutionary approach, but it could work", he said.
When asked about the negative reaction expressed by Jo Leinen, president of the Constitutional committee, who thinks that their proposals are premature and pre-empt the result of the period of reflection, the two rapporteurs were reasonably optimistic about the welcomed that would eventually be enjoyed by their report. Our work was not easy, but our report has become more "flexible", and I believe that the majority will approve it, said Mr Voggenhuber, objecting to the "timidity of our president". Mr Duff said that he was not convinced by Jo Leinen's approach (or by that of Elmar Brok in his report for opinion).
Mr Voggenhuber also attacked the Commission's "Plan D", which he described as a gesture "of enlightened absolutism" towards the citizens, who have been called upon to state their wants and objections on around 30 subjects, a kind of "tutti frutti" list.