Ratifications: The issue of the Constitutional Treaty brings us, in addition to what was summarised in this section yesterday, some developments on ratifications. Firstly, Finland's decision to proceed very rapidly with its ratification through parliament was accompanied by important explanations from the Prime Minister. Matti Vanhanen, therefore, recognised that ratification in his country would not dramatically change the destiny of the Constitution but could have a positive impact on the atmosphere in the EU and also, in the long term, on the way ahead for re-launching the draft constitution. Ireland has not yet announced a date for its referendum (which may have to wait until the May 2007 elections) but Prime Minister Bertie Ahern vigorously confirmed his support for the constitutional treaty which is “the right choice for Ireland” and would “enable the EU to function more efficiently, more democratically, in a way that is easier to understand…and will confirm the nature of the Union and consolidate its acquis and strengthen its potential”. The Irish Minister for European Affairs Noel Tracy confirmed that the Irish government remained “totally committed” to the treaty and its entry into force as “we do not believe that a better agreement can be found at the current stage”.
Finland will soon be the 16th Member State to have ratified the Constitutional Treaty. Four states will be missing from the 20 countries, triggering the European Council's examination procedure of the situation. The Member States that have still not ratified are (as well as the two countries already mentioned): Sweden, Portugal, Denmark, Czech Republic, Poland and the United Kingdom.
In Denmark, the memorandum produced by the Social Democratic Party (currently in opposition) is an audacious one (see our bulletin No. 9195). It mentioned “stronger” European cooperation. It demands that national parliaments are not only immediately informed by the Commission about all of its legislative projects but that national parliamentarians are invited to the legislative debates at the European Parliament. It suggested other institutional innovations: Council decisions being made at qualified majority when “vital interests” are not at stake, even when current rules stipulate unanimity, participation of the CFSP High Representative (Javier Solana) at European Commission meetings and a common energy policy. This, we can see, are provisions in the Constitutional Treaty being mooted earlier.
A possible initiative by the European Parliament. The most spectacular development, however, may come from the European Parliament, if in its June session it approves the constitutional committee's proposal that calls for the European Council to invite France and the Netherlands to examine possibilities for resuming the ratification process (these are two countries that, as we are aware, rejected the Constitution through a referendum). The same draft resolution calls on the European Commission to asses the “cost of not having a Constitution”. We are able to see that Jo Leinen (who chairs the constitutional committee) is not short on ideas, even if the second idea had already been suggested at a press conference by Carlos Carnero Gonzalez.
France, at last. Because of its significance I'll now have a look at the developments mentioned in the French document on future Union enlargements, summarised in our bulletin No. 9195. I'll not be referring that much to the procedural indications on moving from one stage to another in negotiations but rather, on the part involving the EU's capacity for assimilating new members. First of all, the horrible term “capacity to absorb” or badly translated into French “capacité d'absorption”, which creates the impression of being engulfed and should be replaced by the “EU's capacity to assimilate” new Member States, which corresponds to the authentic French text for the “Copenhagen criteria” established in 1993. And if this concept is correctly interpreted in the document, it means that enlargements have to respect the Community acquis, including “common policies”. So, future accessions cannot be used as a pretext for eliminating the Common Agricultural Policy or the Regional and Structural Policy, which certain British authorities have affirmed on several occasions. These policies make concrete the concept of solidarity, the pillar of European construction. According to the French documents, the debate on enlargement is “closely tied to the debate on the future of common Union policies and how they are funded”.
I consider these affirmations as a valuable contribution to the debate on the Europe's future and character. Those who reject them will not participate in the normal phases of deepening and consolidating European construction but will inevitably find themselves in a “circle on the outside”.
(F.R.)