Brussels, 13/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - In view of the contradictory ideas mooted by various Member States to get out of the EU's constitutional impasse, it is up to the European Parliament to take a clear view in Strasbourg next week, explained the two rapporteurs on the period of reflection (structure, subjects and framework for assessing the debate on the future of Europe) to reporters on 13 January, British Liberal Democrat Andrew Duff and Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber (see EUROPE 9108 for vies of other EP Committees). The two rapporteurs admitted there would be a bullfight next Wednesday on their idea to preserve the areas where the constitution makes progress and take account of the French and Dutch 'No' votes, namely the option of deciding at the end of next year whether to partially revise the text of the constitution to improve it - but this option was not agreed upon in the vote at the EP's Constitutional Committee. The battle will focus on point 26 of the draft resolution. As worded by the Constitutional Committee, it simply observes that in theory, a number of options are available to the EU, ranging from dropping the idea of a constitution to continuing to try and ratify the current unamended text, via clarifying and enriching the current text, restructuring and/or amending it with the aim of improving it, or a complete rehaul. Duff said the rapporteurs were aware their approach was not the same as that of the EPP-ED or PES, but they were also aware that many members of the EPP-ED and PES groups agreed with the idea of 'careful renegotiation' of the constitution. He said the European Parliament would have to 'fill the political space left by a paralysed and confused Council'. Voggenhuber said that their suggestions for a roadmap for a great debate going beyond borders and involving all stakeholders (through 'parliamentary forums') had been given astonishingly strong backing on the Constitutional Committee but there might be conflict on what to do in 2007 at the end of the reflection period. Voggenhuber warned that people who think that at the end of the reflection period, it would be possible to bring back the same text should be aware that they would be inheriting a tempest because it was not possible to ignore the desire of ordinary people and simply sit back and wait for them to get smarter. Voggenhuber said that in his and Duff's view, it would have to be decided in 2007 whether it would be possible to continue with the ratification process because consensus had come about in the meantime - he stressed that there could but would not necessarily have to be a revision of the current text - or whether some parts of the Constitution should be revised without touching its 'constitutional core'. Voggenhuber said it would also be necessary to check whether it would be possible to submit the outcome to a referendum, and asked whether the EP would have the courage to launch a big democratic offensive. He said the current period saw the danger of nationalism winning out over the aspiration to create a democratic political area shared by all Europeans. Duff said the constitution was 'not a corpse' but needed more than cosmetic surgery.
The two MEPs harshly criticised the contradictions emerging among Member States. Duff said Chirac wants the constitution to be adopted piecemeal but Sarkozy wants a concentrated version, Bot and Straw say 'the text is finished', but Schussel does not agree with any of them and the future Finnish Presidency does not agree with Schussel. Voggenhuber added salt to the wound, saying that after its defeat in the referendum, the French government now wanted to be a pioneer. Voggenhuber said that like Duff, he was encouraged by the attitude displayed by both Schussel and Plassnik in various interviews. Duff said that in his view, the Austrian Presidency might have the historic opportunity in a moment of crisis in the EU to establish for the first time an alliance between Council and Parliament. Asked about Angela Merkel's idea of adding a social protocol to the Constitution, Duff said that he had not yet heard anyone in France or the Netherlands saying they agreed with this idea.