How is the “reflection period” on the future of Europe in general and the constitutional project in particular coming along? It is useful, from time to time, to take stock, even if there have been no earth-shattering developments. For the moment I will limit myself to five points.
1. Bitterness. The first point increases the bitterness at the current impasse: there is an increasing number of cases where the players on the European stage (institutions, governments and even some trade unions) regret that one or other of the provisions in the Constitutional Treaty is not available. To the well-known case of the services of general economic interest (the Constitution provides the legal basis for a specific European directive on this, recognises their significance for the European society model and dedicates public funding to its task of universal service) can be added the case of the European energy strategy (explicitly provided for in the Constitution), not to mention the fond regrets for a European Foreign Affair Minister and for provisions in defence matters.
2. The myth of an alternative solution is crumbling. The “No” prophets in France have no alternative solution. Laurent Fabius, after tearing apart the French Socialist Party, is currently promoting a left-wing grouping, bringing together the former supporters of the “Yes” and “No” votes.
3. Tony Blair is surrendering. The idea that the Constitutional Treaty was dead has gained ground in the United Kingdom. The leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron confirmed it. On the Labour side, Tony Blair threw in the towel. I have always believed that he was sincere in his stated intention of putting his country at the heart of Europe and that he did his best to achieve this end. But discouragement was clear in his recent statement, where he said in essence: in my country there is no alternative, either we distance ourselves from Europe and remain on the margins, or we are for Europe and are rejected by national public opinion. He has, then, given up on his dream, just as he prepares to hand over his leadership to Gordon Brown, a committed globalist, opposed to any further strengthening of European cohesion.
4. Two opposing positions from the East. Polish President Lech Kaczynski has explicitly called for the Constitution to be buried, in the interests of his country (because of the allocation of votes in the Council) and through political choice: he considers that the time is not ripe to move towards political union, neither to appoint a European Foreign Minister nor for a common Diplomatic Service. Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc Gyuresany has, on the other hand, said that the approval of the Constitution would be good for all European citizens and is essential for Europe.
5. Which relaunch? Among those who oppose the abandonment of the Constitutional project, opinions on the “how” of the relaunch continue to differ. In a very brief, and therefore necessarily rough, outline and limiting oneself to the three main tendencies, it can be said:
a) the most advanced position is that of the Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, who has unequivocally called for a move towards a United States of Europe: “Let us try to do it with 25. If that is not possible, let us create a federation with those who are in agreement” (with a preference for the countries of the euro zone, which the United Kingdom can join if it wishes). The essential points of this federation would be economic and social governance at European level, to create a common security and justice area, and a European defence considered as one of the pillars of the Atlantic Alliance;
b) the French government anticipates a two stage development: pushing forward first of all “the Europe of projects and results” in order to re-establish the confidence of the citizen and adopt whatever institutional improvements are possible with the current treaty, and put off until later the relaunch of the Constitution. The authorities would thereby avoid the accusation, at national level, of seeking to get round the referendum vote and could wait for the result of the 2007 Presidential election.
c) Germany rejects the French tendency which, in practice, would come to cutting up the Constitution by pushing some parts forward. The French tendency does not seem to take account of those countries which have approved the Constitutional Treaty - the majority - and it forgets that the project was the result of a balanced compromise which was only won with difficulty, and which cannot be pulled to pieces. Also, even if it hasn't said so openly, Germany does not want institutional compromises already reached to be questioned.
There exists a push for “procedural compromise” which also deserves to be spoken of. I shall do so tomorrow.
(F.R.)
European Parliament Plenary Session