Those who complain about a lack of ideas on the relaunch of the Constitutional project should be pleased. For a number of weeks, initiative has followed initiative. The “pause for reflection” is no longer the soporific siesta that Guy Verhofstadt complained about. It is now beginning to produce its first results, often with an unexpected feeling: the feeling of nostalgia for the Constitution. Jo Leinen drew up a first list of all that the Constitution would have achieved, and that today we wish it had, and he called for a study into the “political cost of the non-Constitution” (see our edition 9268). At first sight, it is quite heavy.
German involved. In the context of this new ferment, Nicolas Sarkozy was skilful enough to “shoot first”, anticipating France's position should its citizens choose him as President; and he did so taking a stance on difficult and controversial issues. I will refer to two: a) in his opinion, the Constitutional project is dead - some parts will serve as a model for the future, but it will never be ratified in its current form; b) the frontiers of Europe have to be defined, there has to be a list of countries which could become full members, and another of countries which would be offered privileged partner status; he would put Turkey in the second list. I commented on the Sarkozy plan in this column (edition 9262). A further point has been added: the first discussion in the Bureau of the EPP (European Peoples' Party), followed by Alain Lamassoure's comments to the press. Immediately submitting the Sarkozy plan to the EPP is a significant move. It is a plan that sets out ideas, guidelines, but also one that is operational with a timetable and procedures. It will be up to the German Presidency of the Council in the first half of next year to formulate proposals on the relaunch of the Constitution. Paragraph 47 of the June Summits conclusions says “the Presidency will present a report to the European Council during the first semester of 2007, based on extensive consultations with Member States. This report should contain an assessment of the state of discussion with regard to the Constitutional Treaty and explore future developments”. The Sarkozy plan already shows the path to be followed, with, as the first step, the rapid negotiation of a mini-treaty to “re-establish the decision-making powers of the EU, … to rapidly give the Union effective working rules”. The mini-treaty would pick up some parts of the Constitutional project, which, in his opinion, are not controversial. This course of action presupposes that the future Presidency, whose responsibility it will be, agrees, even more so since Mr Sarkozy has set out a timetable: “Our aim should be to begin drawing up the mini-treaty in 2007, under German Presidency, and to complete ratification in 2008 under French Presidency, so that it can by applied from the next European elections, in 2009”.
Mr Lamassoure said that Mr Sarkozy would not have been so precise if he had not had the impression that the German government, for the most part, agreed with his course of action, involving both having to give up the Constitutional Treaty and the launch of the mini-treaty.
Reactions awaited. I do not believe that, in the guidelines mentioned, we should see any intention to create a sort of Franco-German management. The initial debate within the EPP is open to all shades of opinion in the party, and, anyway, the French elections are still to come. Everyone is preparing his/her future role, and everyone will have his/her say. The EPP is powerful, but it is not alone. For the moment, the official position of the European Parliament is that ratification of the Constitutional Treaty should be continued, with a view to obtaining approval equivalent to four fifths of Member States, which would open the way for re-examination of the issue by the European Council. Who still believes in this? Not Mr Sarkozy, because he says that the French and Dutch will not be asked to vote again on a text they had previously rejected and “we know that, among the States which have yet to decide, several have no intention of ratifying it”. It is for this reason that he recommends a new very broadly-based Convention, which could meet after the 2009 European elections to prepare for the EU “a reference text (let it be called constitutional, fundamental law or whatever) which seals the fundamentally political dimension of European integration” which retaining “the conceptual advances of the draft Constitutional Treaty” already approved by all governments.
We now wait for other political heavyweights to speak with similar clarity. Jo Leinen has done so, arguing, too, for a simplified text which would leave to one side the third part of the current Constitutional project and should come into force before the end of 2009. But, he was speaking in his capacity as chairman of the EP constitutional committee, not on behalf of the Socialist Party.
(F.R.)