Strasbourg, 18/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - Our report is intended to be an initial reaction to the crisis generated by the rejection of the Constitution, a crisis which is also an opportunity, Andrew Duff (British Liberal member) told the plenary on Wednesday afternoon, explaining: -an opportunity to reflect on what would be lost, particularly for the EP, "if we were incapable of saving the draft"; -an opportunity to react to "the cacophony of sounds emerging from the Council, some simplistic, some in breach of the treaty, some improbable politically"; -an opportunity for the EP to "fill some political space". Mr Duff would like greater collaboration with the national parliaments and finds it "fairly curious" that certain parliaments have shown reluctance on this point (see other article on the letter from the presidents of the German, Austrian and Finnish Presidents). In theory, Mr Duff pointed out, there are different scenarios; in practice, there are only two: -supplementing the interpretation of the treaty by protocols and declarations; -adopting more substantial changes to part III (on policies), in order to respond to the objections of the "no" countries. Even though there are differences on how to do this, "we are strongly united on the essence", he said. All of this crisis, all of these problems go back to one sentence, which was uttered by Jean Monnet, when he said that the goal of European construction was to bring people together, rather than just States, said co-rapporteur JohannesVoggenhuber (Green, Austria), who asked: do we want a Europe of Chancellories and the elite, or a Europe of people? In his view, the failure of the Constitution would be an "historic opportunity for the rebirth of nationalism". But the Constitution is not dead, even if it is only one step towards a genuine response to the concerns of the citizens, and for this reason, we are proposing a structured debate on the Union as a "res publica", a subject the fate of which depends on the citizens, he concluded (see EUROPE 9109). The report will be voted on this Thursday.
Speaking on behalf of the Council, Secretary Of State Hans Winkleri, also sees this discussion as an opportunity which the governments may not be ready for, but which the Parliament has the merit of calling for. Austria takes this debate extremely seriously: there must not be any "shortcuts, easy solutions or tricks"; we must do this in all seriousness and for the long term. On behalf of the European Commission, Margot Wallström said: -everybody wants a "constitutional settlement", but how do we proceed after the "no" returned by two countries? She did, however, note one encouraging sign: support for the "concept of the Constitution" has risen two points to reach 63% on average within the Union; -any new cooperation should be carried out within the framework of the treaty and not via a "hardcore" of States; -the Commission is opposed to a piecemeal application of the provisions of the Constitution. This is a question of respect: for those who have ratified it, for those who said "no", and for the democratic traditions of each Member State.
In this debate, said the president of the committee on foreign affairs, Elmar Brok (EPP/ED, Germany), we must clearly tell the electorate that the Constitution specifically contains provisions, the absence of which was criticised by the citizens (for more on the position of the Parliamentary committees, see EUROPE 9108). The president of the committee on civil liberties, French member Jean-Marie Cavada (ALDE), pleaded, amongst other things, in favour of: -a generalisation of qualified-majority voting; -extending the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice; -reinforcing the role of the EP as co-legislator, "once and for all".
During the debate, the spokespeople for the main political groups warned against drawing hasty conclusions from the reflexion period under way. Let us use the letter from the three presidents of national parliaments in a positive way, said Finnish member Alex Stubb, who was speaking on the half of the EPP-ED group. I "cringe" whenever I hear about a "core Europe", said Mr Stubb, who believes that anybody pleading in favour of such a solution actually wants to "put the brakes on integration". Let us continue the process of ratification, let us work towards having a Constitution in 2009, said Mr Stubb. (Within the same group, the former Belgian member of the Convention which drafted the European Constitution, Jean-Luc Dehaene¸ agreed that "time should be given to time"). We should keep our options open until 2007, put in British Labour member Richard Corbett, who went on to say: the majority of the Parliament would like to be able to keep the text of the Constitution, that we know that this will only be possible under certain conditions. Will we need to add protocols, revise a section of the text or the whole text, asked the spokesperson of the Socialist group. German Social Democrat Jo Leinen, president of the Constitutional committee, spoke along the same lines, warning that it would be quite wrong to determine today the results of a reflection which has not yet started. Among the possibilities, Mr Leinen referred to the one mooted by "my Chancellor" (Angela Merkel) of a protocol on the social dimension and the European identity to go alongside the Constitutional Treaty, asking: "why not?". The political groups are not, however, unanimous. Within the ALDE group, for example, Polish member Bronislaw Geremek said that we should not "declare the Constitution dead before we have listened to its chest", but that nor should we ignore "the side-slipping between a desire for the increased integration of the elite and the sensibilities of a proportion of society": the problem is a serious one, and it should be discussed within a " European context, the European public area", which could now arise. Of the same group, Jules Maaten of the Netherlands urges for a new text, preferably to be submitted to voters during the next European elections. “We cannot struggle along on the basis of the Nice treaty”, Monica Frassoni, Co-President of the Greens/EFA Group, said. She disagreed with Richard Corbett, telling him that one should not rule out the possibility of amending the text during a new constitutional process that could perhaps end with a referendum. Francis Wurtz said the text is obsolete and that a debate should be opened on what can replace it. Jens-Peter Bond, Co-President of the IND/DEM Group, also considers that the text is “dead” (for other reasons) and recalls his alternative proposal to elect a new Convention, the result of which would be put to a referendum. Brian Crowley, Co-president of the UEN Group, as conciliatory as ever, believes one should be able to reach consensus along the right lines, with “common sense”.
- - - - - - - - -