Brussels, 25/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - Listening to citizens, encouraging genuine debate and, if possible, putting in place a “common choreography' for the next steps. At the meeting of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee on 24 January, Austrian Foreign Minister and Council President Ursula Plassnik was not prepared to give any more details than those on the Austrian Presidency's strategy or intentions over the next few months for finding a solution to the constitutional crisis in which the EU finds itself after the French and Dutch rejection of the draft Constitution. Members of the Parliamentary committee, chaired by Jo Leinen, tried everything to overcome Mrs Plassnik's reticence and discover how the Austrian Presidency planned to progress. “What do you mean in concrete terms by 'choreography'? What are your plans and have you spoken to Member States about them? When will Coreper and the Council become involved? Are you planning a special European Council on this issue before June 2006?” asked Alexander Stubb (EPP-ED, Finland), in vain. “We need more than a choreography,” complained the Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber, co-rapporteur, with Andrew Duff, on the reflection period on the future of Europe (see EUROPE 9113 on the plenary vote). Choreography was nothing more than an “artistic arrangement”, something “aesthetic”, when the debate on the Constitution and the future of Europe needed substance and a “conductor” to take control, he insisted. “So, what is the Austrian Presidency doing, in concrete terms, to drive forward the reflection period?” wondered Mr Voggenhuber, who also complained that Mrs Plassnik didn't say “a single word” on the proposals of the report adopted on 19 January in Strasbourg (parliamentary forums, citizens' forums etc) or on the suggested timetable: formal re-launch of the Constitutional process in the second half of 2007, with a Constitution coming into effect in 2009. Bronislaw Geremek (ALDE, Poland) also said that the Austrian Presidency should give a concrete response to the Voggenhuber/Duff report. “The Presidency has to concentrate on these points”, including the 2007-2009 timetable, he said. In defence, Mrs Plassnik stressed that the fact of not taking a position now on the Parliamentary report did not mean that she opposed it. Consultations were continuing with all the Member States and it was still too soon for the Presidency to make an announcement, she explained, adding that there was no “ready-made” answer to the Constitutional problem: the Austrian Presidency would explore the different paths proposed, but could not decide alone how the debate would develop. The Dane Jens-Peter Bonde, joint leader of the IND/DEM group, thought that things were clear and the solution “easy”: the Constitution was “dead” because it did not have the necessary unanimous support of Member States, and could only be brought back to life if France and the Netherlands decided to ratify it in spite of their peoples' “no” votes or if an inter-governmental Conference adopted a new text following a new Constitutional process. “The rules are clear (…). What you are doing, then, is illegal”, said Mrs Plassnik. Andrew Duff (ALDE, UK) stressed the need for national parliaments to be involved in the debate and the Constitutional process. “Encourage them to work with the European Parliament”, he told Mrs Plassnik.
Wolfgang Schüssel's recent statements on the European Court of Justice (ECJ) were also criticised by several MEPs. “No one, not even Chancellor Schüssel, has called the European Court of Justice into question. It is an institution which has contributed greatly to European integration. However, it has to be possible to evaluate the work of the Court and to discuss it”, replied Mrs Plazssnik (for more on this topic, see A look behind the news).