Brussels, 19/06/2006 (Agence Europe) - The outcome of the European Council of 15-16 June has divided the European Parliament, especially on the future of the European Constitution and EU enlargement. Those most disappointed with the conclusions on the constitutional process are the members of the ALDE and Greens/EFA groups, which provided the two rapporteurs on the period of reflection, Andrew Duff and Johannes Voggenhuber, who said before the Summit that limited amendment of the text was inevitable if it was to be saved and account taken of citizens' opinions (see EUROPE 9208 and 9211). Leader of the EPP-ED group Hans-Gert Pöttering thought the conclusions on the Constitution were a turning point because the content of the Constitutional Treaty remained on the table, allowing a feeling of confidence that a solution would be found before the 2009 European elections. The Presidencies over this period -Finnish, German, Portuguese, Slovenian and French - would have to assume great responsibility, he said in a press release
On the other hand, the leader of the ALDE group Graham Watson could muster little enthusiasm for the conclusions on the Constitutions and said in a press release, “Obviously, one or two more governments must change before the stranglehold of the dinosaurs on Europe's body politic is broken. Further delay on deciding the future of the Constitution serves nobody's interest, least of all that of the jobless and the victims of cross-border crime”. He was, however, satisfied with the decisions on transparency in the work of the Council, for which, he recalled, his group had long campaigned. French MEP Marielle de Sarnez, the group's deputy leader, was much more negative and said in a press release that for the UDF the outcome of this Summit was disquieting, and proved its inability to prepare the institutional future of the EU while, at the same time, continuing its dash forward on enlargement. “Far from being reassuring on its desire to give the EU strong, renewed and democratic institutions through a shorter, simpler Treaty on which the peoples could have voted in 2009 in tandem with the European elections, the European Council has contented itself with a vague date at the end of 2008,” she said.
There was similar disappointment from the Greens/EFA whose joint leader Monica Frassoni complained that the Constitution remained in limbo with the name for the reflection period changed to “period of analysis”. She felt the Summit's only meaningful decision was the one on transparency in the Council. Austrian Green MEP Johannes Voggenhuber was stronger in his criticism, believing the result of the Summit to be “an absolute zero”. “Citizens don't want less Constitution, they want a better Constitution,” he said in a press release, announcing an initiative in the autumn from MEPs of different countries and parties to improve the Constitution, in the face the inaction of Member States which were clinging on to the inter-governmental method which had already failed in Nice.