Governments would be wrong to consider that the Constitutional re-launch is their concern alone. The European Parliament is playing an increasingly vibrant role in debating the different formulas for “getting out of the crisis”, without pretending that it is going to please everybody by looking at a variety of ideas, even when some of these ideas appear to contradict each other (it's a bit like when it made its resolution in January).
Opposing positions. Now, different orientations are on the table at the EP. As I'm writing these lines, I am not aware of the most recent vote but the main orientations can be deduced. The great majority in the EPP-ED group and most of the socialists consider that the current Treaty remains valid, that it should be safeguarded and ratifications should follow. The president of the EPP-ED parliamentary group and the president of the EPP criticised the president of the European Commission for not having sufficiently defended the current draft, as propounded in his “Europe of results” theory. The president of the EP's Institutional Committee, socialist, Jo Leinen, made another step towards safeguarding the project, at the last plenary session, by calling on the two countries that rejected it (France and the Netherlands) to think about how they could vote on it again. Speaking at a Round Table chaired by Graham Watson and organised by the CERVED Association and the Liberal/Democrat group, Jo Leinen underlined three points: even France and the Netherlands now understand the need for a constitutional treaty; none of the 25 governments that signed it have asked for it to be modified; the current crisis is actually an opportunity, because it requires clarification of the objectives and nature of the Union.
On the other extreme, the Euro-sceptics, whether they are British, Polish, French or something else, affirm that the constitutional treaty is dead and they shouldn't be trying to bring it back to life.
Two fighting rapporteurs. The two rapporteurs from Parliament, Andrew Duff and Johannes Voggenhuber do not agree with these extreme positions. They are now convinced that the current text, as it currently stands, can never enter into force: it should be amended, and they should have the courage to say that now, instead of leaving the unspoken truth hanging there, which would leave us in no-man's land in 2007, after another year of useless reflection. In their opinion, the only effective way ahead is to quickly organise an Inter-governmental Conference (IGC) to discuss the amendments necessary, in the understanding that the essential gist of the draft, the fruit of a compromise agreed to by all Member States, is maintained. In this position, it is not the procedure that counts but rather, the reasons underpinning the two MEPs' position: a) too many governments are happy with the current impasse, which enables them to re-orientate the Community process in an inter-governmental direction; b) the goal of obtaining 20 ratifications for triggering the procedure for re-examining the situation by the European Council is a delusion because we'll never get there; c) everything that's been said about “subsidiarity” is a ruse for weakening European integration. Mr Voggenhuber believes that subsidiarity is a “nationalist concept in disguise”. The plenary debate is only taking place on Wednesday in Strasbourg. The two rapporteurs have already provided an insight into their arguments in a press conference, which was broadly summarised in our bulletin No. 9208.
A sharp-shooter. Other MEPs, not enjoying the certainty of being able to speak at the plenary, chose to give a synopsis of their views on the matter earlier. This happened last week when I was able to hear Pierre Jonckheer, the vice president of the Greens, present his formula, twice, which contains two points: content, limit the text to the first 60 Articles of the current draft completed with a clause on which “enhanced cooperation” is possible, more accessible and practical; procedure, organise a European referendum (namely, in all Member States) focusing on the desire to remain in the Union as defined in the simplified treaty. This referendum will involve mass consultation and will not be legally binding but if there is a “yes” vote, the simplified treaty will then be submitted to every Member States for a simple parliamentary ratification.
The illusion of a single position. This presentation (obviously incomplete) of the MEPs' different positions does not aim to take up a position in one way or another but to point out that Parliament is ceasing its search for an identity of illusory points of view (which would not even be desirable). If the positions in favour of a deepening of European construction prevail, it will then remain to be seen how co-existence between Member States that want to go forward and those who want a withdrawal of integration, is managed. For the time being, few political figures are prepared to recognise the incompatibility and draw the right conclusions. But how can a “two-speed Europe” and “differentiation” be avoided? (F.R.)