Commission's political choice. There are still some interesting developments on the Constitutional Treaty, which makes for a few periodic and timely updates. Following the “observations” made in this section (EUROPE 9185), the European Commission has put forward its contributions to the June Summit. Without going back into too much detail on the two documents comprehensively discussed in our bulletin 9189, I would like to stress that the Commission made a really political choice. It took into consideration the fact that the draft Constitution could be re-launched at the summit next month because the first year of reflection demonstrated, above all, the lack of any agreement on what way forward: for some, the current draft is dead; for others, it needs saving in the shape of a watered down version. There are even those who believe that it should be kept as it is in an effort to preserve the balance stemming from it. Faced with this situation, the Commission proposes:
extending the reflection period in an effort to deepen the debate and define a way forward that would enable Europe to resume the Constitutional path in 2008 or 2009;
take, in the meantime, an initiative of constitutional importance. In spring 2007 (fiftieth anniversary of the Treaty of Rome), Heads of governments and the Presidents of the European Parliament and Commission are expected to approve a political declaration representing a solemn commitment on the nature and objectives on which Europe seeks to build;
given, however, the fact that Europe cannot remain inactive while awaiting the institutional meetings, launching a series of concrete and efficient tasks corresponds to citizens' expectations and proves to public opinion that Europe is acting in the interest of everyone. The Citizens' Agenda highlights the nature and direction of the initiatives envisaged in which the Commission will be engaged itself.
Logical plan, mixed welcome. This plan contains a certain logic because it responds to two essential observations (it's still too early to take to the constitutional road; it is, all the same, necessary for the EU to shift) and President Barroso courageously pointed this out. And yet, it received a mixed welcome. Certain political forces at the European Parliament supported it in the belief that highlighting citizens' immediate expectations was justified and that for the constitutional aspect, they, for the time being, needed to limit themselves to proving that the draft constitution has not been abandoned. Other MEPs, however, believe that the Commission should fight for the Constitution by any means necessary and counter any return to the inter-governmental method. In their opinion the reflection period is incapable of producing any efficient formulas. It is true that Parliament itself, by taking a stance at the beginning of the year on the reflection period, did not succeed in defining a common approach and left all options open.
The business community criticised the Commission from a different angle: for not being sufficiently firm in proposing a strategy on growth and jobs, which should be its main aim. According to UNICE, concrete decisions on growth are more important and urgent than those on relaunching the constitutional debate. This is not an opinion shared by other forces in civil society.
Juncker, reflection and audacity. Senior political figures also established different positions. I'll mention Jean-Claude Juncker as he is the President of Eurogroupe and by far the most experienced politician in the European Council. He considers (see bulletin 9193) that even the Commission's timetable is overly optimistic: we will be unable to “establish something” on the Constitution before 2009 or even 2010. This is experience speaking. But the length of time required for gaining a response demands something in the meantime and Mr Juncker goes further than the Commission: firstly, “we produce a profile of the EU's accomplishments”, which is absolutely crucial (because people no longer know or understand what a united Europe has achieved, such is the falsity and lies of the negative image too often pedalled), and secondly, setting out new objectives that even go beyond the Constitutional Treaty. Mr Juncker explicitly referred to a “European army” which lead me to comment on his rejection of having a pioneering group that would take this initiative. He said that everything should be done together by all Member States and added, “only if such an attempt fails should we think of having a hard core”. This is also the opinion of others discussing the matter; the objective of “differentiation” is to avoid having other initiatives blocked due to a handful of refusals. I do not think that Mr Juncker, although wanting to be positive, thinks that a European army will be created by the 25.
(F.R.)