Separate the text in two. At the current stage, “the reflection period” on the future of Europe and the constitutional relaunch has not allowed for any uniform orientations or possible compromise (see this section yesterday). However, alongside the positions taken by political leaders, the effort made by the former President of the Convention responsible for the Constitutional Treaty, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, should be highlighted, as a way of finding a solution. It would consist in separating the current draft in two: parts 1 (constitutional provisions) and 2 (Charter of Fundamental Rights) from part 3 (common policies and how they work). The first part would be ratified in each Member State according to its own rules, including possible referendums. The other part, however, would be subject to new negotiations and submitted to ratification at the national parliaments, as referendums could not be justified due to its essentially technical contents.
On 28 February, in a speech at the London School of Economics, VGE therefore called for the debate on the “really constitutional” two parts to be relauched, both of which had not raised much protest (the Charter of Fundamental Rights is even “a demand of the European Left”. He explained that “the third part could then follow a parliamentary itinerary which is better adapted to its legal nature”. He also recalled an idea of one of the founding partners of the American Constitution, “”the role of the Constitution is not to decide on the outcome of debates but to put into place institutions that allow debates to take place in an efficient and democratic way”. On another occasion VGE underlined that he had never wanted part 3 to be included in the treaty.
Positive reactions. No country has officially supported this thesis. Most Heads of government are waiting to put forward their orientations at the June Summit before giving decisions on a “road map” that could lead to the relaunch of the constitutional treaty in 2007 during the German presidency and after the elections in France and the Netherlands. In the meantime, the formula mentioned above is doing the rounds in certain academic milieus. Yves Mény, president of the European University Institute in Florence declared that it would be impossible to make the French have another vote on the current text (“they would think they were being tricked”, or to re-negotiate what had already been approved by more than half of all Member States. He concluded that, “the ideal would be to just keep the two first parts, as it is the third that has been rejected. We would then be able to get the French parliament to vote on the first two parts, on the condition that all political tendencies clearly explain to the French people that the part they rejected had been well and truly thrown out”. Nathalie Lhayani wrote in the periodical of the “Confrontations Europe” association, presided by Philippe Herzog, that “the best option would undoubtedly be to keep parts 1 and 2 and to implement them as soon as possible. Ideological divergences are still too polarised for relaunching part 3”. I could mention other contributions that go in the same direction but is this a realistic political option?
The “Giscard solution” is based on two principles: a) by getting rid of part 3 from the constitutional treaty, the will of the French people (which mainly voiced its opinion on this part, they considered too neo-liberal and pro-globalisation) will be respected; b) the role of a Constitution is not to indicate the nature and political orientations to follow, which should not be set out once and for all but ought to be determined or periodically modified by the results of national and European elections:
Political contra-indications. There are, however, some strong political contra-indications:
1. Two Member States at least, the United Kingdom and Poland, are now opposed to the very principle of a Constitutional Treaty that would strengthen the Community institutions in the direction of a political Europe. Developments are possible as sincerely pro-European forces exist in the these two countries but as long as the two main British political parties are led by Gordon Brown and David Cameron, the probability of a turnaround are very slim.
2. How can one explain to citizens of Member States that have already ratified the Constitutional Treaty that they have to start again? These countries are now the majority and represent more than half of the EU's population. Moreover, in France the Euro-sceptics would denounce the manoeuvre as attempting to exclude part of the treaty they previously voted no on, from a mass verdict.
Tomorrow I will try and draw some provisional conclusions from this exploration.
(F.R.)