Brussels, 27/04/2006 (Agence Europe) - By invitation of the committee on constitutional affairs of the EP, 19 representatives of organisations stemming from civil society debated the future of Europe in Brussels on 24 and 25 April. Many organisations see the reflection period really as a period of silence, 10 months after the reflection on the future of Europe was launched further to the French and Dutch "no" votes on the constitutional treaty. Most of them voiced their commitment to the European project and to the progress contained within the Constitution, some of them indicating the changes in content and form which they feel are necessary. "The reflection period is more like a period of silence in terms of the discussion with the citizens", said Henrik Kröner of the International European Movement (IEM). We get "the impression of general boredom and that people are waiting for the forthcoming elections instead of making a genuine effort to unite the citizens", said Patrick De Bucquois speaking on behalf of Caritas-Europe. "In this reflection break, it is the break that has been particularly stressed", joked Simon Stocker, director of Eurostep.
What should the objective of European integration be? The EU should be the site of a "prosperous social market economy", said Henrik Kröner, who believes that a reflection is required on the "future of the European social model in the face of globalisation". The representative of the education and civil society platform regrets the fact that Europe is "focused exclusively on economic issues" and calls for a "European association statute". "The main EU-level policy is liberalisation at all costs", complained Marc Gruber speaking on behalf of the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), referring to a "very high" concentration level in the media sector. Speaking on behalf of the European Form for the Arts and Heritage (EFAH), Ilona Kish would like to see "more than a common market made up of anonymous consumers". In the view of Mr Pavlolvic, of the Conference of European Churches, "the EU as a market is too limited". The representative of the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community recommended "a European framework for the risks posed by globalisation". "The services of general interest must be given their proper place", pleaded Georges Liénard of the European Humanist Federation. The organisation Friends of the Earth criticised the fact that human health picks up the tab for a "rampant economic policy". The EU must not be just an "agency open to globalisation, but also an instrument of development for a genuinely European path", said Bruno Boissière of the International European Training Centre chaired by Jean-Claude Juncker. Nicolas Beger, of the Human Rights and Democracy Network, spoke of a "problem of credibility" between the objects of the EU in terms of human rights violations which are occasionally perpetrated on its territory. The EU must be preserved as a "diversity of cultures" and a "mosaic of territories", said the representative of the defence organisation. "Learn to dream again!", said Jean-Claude Gonon of the European Association of Teachers.
Other than the citizens' organisations ATTAC and the European Alliance of EU Critical Movements (TEAM), most of the organisations regret the absence of a Constitution. Many of them criticise the fact that it is impossible to apply the European Charter of Fundamental Rights without it. The Permanent Forum of Civil Society presented a roadmap to get out of the crisis (EUROPE 9180), and "Democracy International" its campaign for a European citizens' initiative based on the right of petition contained within the Constitution (see EUROPE 9164).
British Liberal member Andrew Duff spoke out in favour of "confirming the consensus" obtained with the Constitution, adding that the vast majority of organisations present are not calling for the "renegotiation of parts I and II ". He went on to add the following about part III: "we cannot withdraw it, it is an integral part of the Constitution. Parts I and II are incomprehensible without any reference to part III". Nonetheless, he accepted the idea of establishing a "hierarchy", an idea which was not shared by Austrian Green Johannes Voggenhuber: "that would not be as easy as to decouple it". According to British Labour member Richard Corbett, there are other paths to be explored, such as "additional protocols added to the treaties". In his view, "we must keep all options open for the time being". "Extremely cautious", Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL, Germany) has no wish to "unravel the package": "we do not know whether a new Convention would get better results, or would keep what has already been decided on". For Spanish Socialist Carlos Carnero González, it would be "a good idea to carry out a pan-European consultation". A popular consultation would have " political consequences" but should not be binding, said Johannes Voggenhuber. Richard Corbett considers the idea of a "European referendum" as somewhat "simplistic": "it is a very good idea in theory, but the EU does not have the power to do it". German Social Democrat Jo Leinen explained that such an initiative would have to be "non-binding" EU.