The European Parliament has done all in its power about the reflection on the future of Europe in general, and of the Constitution in particular. As the positions of the political groups and of the various national groupings are a considerable way apart, the EP has not, up to present, been able to indicate a direction to follow, and it has, quite logically, left all the options open. Furthermore, the objective of its debate this week was to define the method and structure for this reflection. Trying to define the results of this reflection now- as some members of the European Parliament seemed to be trying to do- would be a pointless exercise. What is the point of inviting the national parliaments and civil society to a joint reflection, only to present the results of it before it even starts?
A broad range of viewpoints. There are no criticisms and no regrets, therefore, but simply the observation that the opinions on the future of the Constitutional treaty within the EP differ just as much as those voiced by the Member States (see this column in bulletin 9107). They go from the view that this text is dead to a willingness to retain it unchanged, via intentions of modifying it radically, or to keep just a few parts of it. A reading of the comments put forward by parties to the debate are enough to leave anyone confused. Everybody lays emphasis on the bit they prefer, declaring themselves pleased to have gained satisfaction. For example, Jo Leinen, president of the Parliamentary committee on constitutional affairs, was able to state: "all attempts to declare this historical draft dead have been rejected, as has that of postponing the current compromise". In the view of the president of the European United Left, Francis Wurtz, on the contrary, it must be acknowledged that this draft is dead in the water, and that the debate is now focusing on what should replace it. But according to rapporteur Andrew Duff, there are only two possible scenarios: completing the ratifications of the current draft, whilst reassuring those who rejected it by dint of interpretative declarations, or to make substantial changes to part III, the one which raised the most reservations. Personally, he and his co-rapporteur Johannes Voggenhuber are in favour of the second formula. However, the Socialist "shadow rapporteur", Carlos Carnero Gonzalez, has included a willingness to keep the current text largely as it is among the essential elements of the approved resolution. In any case, until it knows what the results of the reflection will be, the Parliament has said that the Constitutional Treaty must enter into force no later than 2009. This seems more like a bet than a forecast, but the sentiment behind it is much to be applauded.
Safeguarding cooperation with the national parliaments. It is not only a result of the reflection which is uncertain. Even the procedure seems to have been called into question, in one of its essential elements, by the letter of the parliaments of the three countries which will share the Presidency of the Council of the Union between now and mid-2007, Austria during the first half of this year, Finland for the six months following and Germany in the first half of 2007, and which have, in practice, rejected the idea of being associated with the European Parliament in a series of parliamentary forums, aiming to define common orientations and to formulate "recommendations" for the European Council (see our bulletin 9112). Hubert Haenel, president of the "delegation for the European Union" of the French Senate, said on Wednesday that this procedure represents "a sign that the national parliaments have become aware of the fact that they can only genuinely co-operate with the European Parliament, in a constructive way, if this cooperation is carried out on an equal footing", adding: "this means that the initiatives to be taken and the subjects to be dealt with must not be defined by the European Parliament alone, and that the national parliaments will, first of all, have to meet, exchange their ideas and define the broad outlines of a position common to them, before they meet their colleagues from the European Parliament". The idea that the national parliaments are able to define common orientations on the future of the Constitution is an audacious one: rather, they run the risk of arriving at divergent choices. But we must avoid procedural quarrels, whilst preserving a climate of efficient and pro-European collaboration, as was established between members of the national and European Parliaments during the Convention. This climate is a vital bequest, which must absolutely not be squandered, particularly for the correct application of the principle of "subsidiarity".
In conclusion, then, it is a positive thing that the European Parliament has taken initiatives to give content and sense to the reflection on the future of Europe and of the Constitutional Treaty, by setting the example for those governments which appear deadened to the subject. But we must be aware that nothing has been resolved yet, and that the direction to be taken in order to save the Constitution remains completely open. (F.R.)