Strasbourg, 25/10/2005 (Agence Europe) - In Strasbourg on Monday, the spokespersons for the European Parliament's two biggest political groups, the EPP-ED and the PES, welcomed the draft resolution by British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff and Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber on the reflection period' structure, areas of discussion and framework for assessing the debate on the European Union, but challenged the approach taken by the two rapporteurs, criticising them of deciding in advance what the outcome of the reflection should be on how to get out of the deadlock over the European Constitution (see EUROPE 9054, p.3). At the meeting of the European Parliament's Constitutional Committee in Strasbourg in the evening of 24 October, Finnish MEP Alexander Stuff (speaking for the EPP-ED Group) and British MEP Richard Corbett (speaking for the PES), said the report drafted by their colleagues was much better than the first drafts, but needed further changes before it would be accepted by the majority. This view was shared by German Social Democrat Klaus Hansch, but not by French Socialist Pervenche Beres, who backed the rapporteurs' approach (as did Co-President of the Green Group, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, in no uncertain fashion). The Socialist Group does not speak with one voice here, and neither does the ALDE group (Andrew Duff's), since French MEP Jean-Louis Bourlanges was very categorical saying the rapporteurs were right but they'd be right tomorrow, not today.
Andrew Duff said their suggestions aimed to stimulate and steer the debate towards a political choice, going beyond the European Commission's Plan D, which includes some sensible technical proposals but ran the risk of ending up in a sterile, nebulous, inconclusive debate. Johannes Voggenhuber was much more scathing about the Commission's Plan D, saying it was propaganda and would not improve the atmosphere the way it should. He said it was down to the European Parliament to seize the initiative, particularly because the politicians in various countries were about to be changed, with new people arriving who had nothing to do with the previous constitutional process. The Constitution can be improved, he said, on request from the population.
We are reaching some sort of compromise, but we are not there yet, commented Alexander Stubb, asking the rapporteurs whether they weren't going a bit far, killing all options other than revising the text? I really do like the report, he said, but asked whether it was not a bit early to talk about a consultative referendum on a new Constitution in five years time? Richard Corbett echoed this, saying that all options had to be open at this stage in the reflection and debate, but the Duff-Voggenhuber text tends to one conclusion. The British Labour MEP, Corbett, said what people are worried about these days is the background, the context, not the text. He said the context was what would be talked about at Hampton Court - the European social model, budget issues, globalisation, etc. German Social Democrat Klaus Hansch said the Duff-Voggenhuber text might send the message that the Constitution was bad and we need a better one, but no governments have said the Constitution is dead and it is not for the European Parliament to say so.
Pervenche Beres said that the EP should not ban itself from saying something has to be changed in the constitutional text, adding that none of the experts interviewed by the Constitutional Committee recently said that the Constitution could see the light of day the way it is (after the French and Dutch 'no' votes). What do we do with it then?, asked Beres - answering that it was too soon to say that is possible because there had not really been any time for reflection and governments wouldn't be doing anything. She said one had to try and understand what happened in France and the Netherlands and not simply explain to people what they didn't understand. Daniel Cohn-Bendit said one should have the guts to say that with this text we will not be able to convince sceptics. He said the simple fact of listening to people during the reflection period would not suffice to get clarity unless people are offered something clear, and that's when there'd be results. The Duff-Voggenhuber text has the advantage of setting out an agenda, he said, asking MEPs whether they thought that after the Polish elections, the Kaczynski brothers would be taking any initiatives. We'll have two brothers in Poland, he said, Fabius over here and Tony Blair in the middle, not to mention the big coalition in Berlin.
Jean-Louis Bourlanges (ALDE, France) made his views clear. Is this the right moment to do what the rapporteurs want? He added that Pervenche Beres had said no to the Constitution, says yes to the rapporteurs. He said he disagreed with Beres, but said he liked her (he liked her more before and still likes her a bit now).
According to the UDF member, it is now time to begin the debate, mainly because not all countries have given their views yet. The situation will be very different depending on whether the majority of those who have not yet taken a stance say “yes” or “no”. Even if one partially amends aspects of the Constitution, this does not provide protection against the risk of “another no-vote” from those who have already said “no”, he warned.
Like other MEPs, German Social Democrat Jo Leinen, Chairman of the parliamentary committee, stressed that France and the Netherlands have to say what they want, after voting “no” to the Constitution.