Two ways forward. The most recent developments of the “Constitution” dossier indicate progress in the so-called “two-phase re-launch” process, to which the speech made in Brussels by Nicolas Sarkozy, added visibility and sparkle (EUROPE 9262). But there are also alternatives; in particular, Jo Leinen is calling for a more concise version of the current Constitutional Treaty, in view of obtaining a swift approval.
Mr Sarkozy, as we know, sees the first phase consisting of a mini-treaty amending the current treaty, with the aim of introducing some constitutional reform to it, as well as some other elements, and the real fundamental treaty would then be negotiated after the European elections of 2009, with the setting up a new Convention.
On the other hand, Jo Leinen's orientation aims to keep some parts of 1, 2 and 4 as they are in the current treaty and to keep the provisions in part 3 that really do introduce something new, such as the principle of a European energy policy, provisions on terrorism, immigration, civic policy etc. These aspects correspond, according to Leinen's assessment, to around 17% of the articles and would be transferred to part 1; the remainder is not necessary because it takes up what already exists in the treaties in force. The constitutional treaty would in this way include 180 articles instead of the 448 articles in the current draft. This formula would allow for negotiations on the whole of the text to begin again and the slimmed down treaty could, in Mr Leinen's opinion, be applied in 2009.
The Luxembourg orientation. The “two-phase formula” has received a certain degree of support. The most detailed text from an official that I have ever had the opportunity of reading is the one published by the minister delegate for foreign affairs in Luxembourg, Nicolas Schmit (in a personal capacity, it has to be said) in the “Tageblatt” newspaper. He recognised that rapid approval of the constitutional treaty represented the most positive formula for a re-launch but in his opinion, it is not realistic. Jo Leinen's orientation is defined as “definitely attractive” by Schmit but he considers that it would compel some Member States to organise referendums. This is why Sarkozy's idea of a treaty that would reform the Treaty of Nice, appear to him to be “a way that has been adapted to enabling the EU to rapidly put an end to the current uncertainty”. Mr Schmit lists the provisions that would be “obligatory” in this treaty (which he refuses to call a “mini-treaty”): extension of qualified majority voting and co-decision of the EP/Council in legal cooperation and the fight against crime; “double majority” (countries and populations) for Council decisions; the election of a Commission president by the Parliament; a stable presidency of the European Council; implementation of a Union foreign affairs minister and the creation of a common diplomatic corps; an early warning system, conferring control to national parliaments over respect for subsidiarity; the right of citizens' initiative; the “legal personality” of the Union. This could be completed with provisions for funding the Union. This would mean, as we see, creating a substantial package. Then, after the 2009 elections, a new very representative Convention would be put in charge of a new fundamental text, called the Constitution or something else.
Expected developments. There are other less detailed positions. According to Romano Prodi, they need to “be based on a constitutional but very simplified draft”, which is understandable as Ms Merkel, being in charge of presenting the next June summit with a report based on “profound consultations with Member States” should take everyone's opinion into account; and Poland which has already announced that it intends to re-negotiate the current draft and produce proposals on this matter. I will, nonetheless, point out that Alain Lamassoure has indicated that the Sarkozy plan received a generally positive reception at the EPP bureau.
I would still like to draw some attention to the concerns expressed by Richard Corbett MEP in the hypothesis that Gordon Brown “a Euro-sceptic in disguise”, will represent the United Kingdom at the “re-launch summit” next June. And we are awaiting the result from the first congress of the European Green Party, which next week will be based on the theme of the future of Europe at the centre of its work, and we will see what initiatives Jo Leinen will take as president of the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee.
(F.R.)