Three courses of action by EPP are controversial: Three elements of the European People's Party (EPP) Rome Manifesto, commented in this column yesterday, are far from receiving unanimous support. They are: a) keeping the constitutional Treaty as it is; b) the possibility of suggesting a particularly close partnership for some accession candidate countries, as an alternative solution to membership; and c) the requirement of fixing Europe's frontiers. On the first point, the hypothesis of a lighter constitutional Treaty (without the third part which essentially describes common policies) has many supporters, and is even gaining ground. Point b) encounters hostility from those who support Turkey's membership to the EU, and who believe the alternative solution is specifically intended for this country. Point c) is rejected by those who consider it untimely and politically clumsy to fix the frontiers in stone today when they could very well no longer be valid tomorrow as future political developments occur - why not allow oneself the possibility to one day change the status of Ukraine or Belarus? It is true that the EPP Congress has not really discussed all the details of its manifesto, and the convictions (and skill) of Elmar Brok and Alain Lamassoure have no doubt played a determining role in drafting the final text. Furthermore, during the debate in Rome, several discordant voices had been heard: Dutch representatives were sceptical about keeping the current constitutional text, Nicolas Sarkozy had spoken of the possibility of only keeping a “common trunk” of the text, and Silvio Berlusconi had criticised the euro (causing “disapproving murmurs”). The Rome Manifesto is nonetheless here and it expresses the voice of the Party that holds a majority within the European Parliament, which presides the Council of the European Union and which is (through its affiliated national parties) at the head of several governments. But it is not a definitive text - it still has ups and downs to contend with.
The main thing is that the debate has now begun, putting an end to what some observers had defined as a “siesta” rather than a pause for reflection. This “siesta” had nonetheless been characterised by the fact that several, sometimes significant, individual stances had been adopted, such as that of Belgium's Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt (in favour of a federal Europe) or that of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing (who advocates a constitutional treaty in lighter form). But, unless I am mistaken, the EPP was the first organised European political force to speak out so explicitly on the most controversial aspects. Initiatives are now coming in thick and fast, not only from political movements but also from other bodies, mainly local and regional authorities and the civil society, which both deserve a specific mention.
Three Heads of Government consider that … Let us for now keep to just three Heads of Government that have expressed their views clearly: Wolfgang Schüssel, Guy Verhofstadt and Romano Prodi, who has not yet taken up his post but whose appointment seems certain. The Austrian Chancellor told the EPP Congress that Europe “needs a hard core” and “cannot go on enlarging for ever”. Guy Verhofstadt, ,for his part, restated and specified his convictions in a passionate and ambitious text saying that “the idea of the United States of Europe is the only option”. Unless all Member States agree, Europe would then have two circles: in the middle the United States of Europe, a true “political core”, completed by an “organisation of European States”, which is vaster and less integrated (see our bulletin No.9177).
Romano Prodi explained what his vision was when speaking first of all before the foreign press in Rome and then in an interview with The Sunday Times, announcing his support for a simplified Constitution based on “major principles” and comprising the current first part, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and possibly the social protocol, but “without the technical aspects that people found so frightening”. The discussion on this revised text would be undertaken after the elections in France, with impetus from a group of countries including Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Luxembourg, which would form a “Europe Plus” with other Member States willing to take part. And Great Britain? “I believe it is difficult to include it with countries that are seeking stronger integration”. And the Netherlands? At this point, interpretations differ: the published text appears to exclude this country but, according to Mr Prodi's spokesperson, there is a misunderstanding, if not an “error of translation”. After which, the Prime Minister confided to a newspaper of his country that “Italy will stick to the euro”, recalling that The Financial Times had once announced that Italy did not intend to join single currency only to be proved wrong later. (F.R.)