The speech made in Bruges by Mr Joseph Borrell, the president of the European Parliament (summarised by our Editor in Chief Helmut Brüls in EUROPE 9287), represents indispensable reading in the copious dossier on the Constitutional re-launch. He has not come up with just any kind of magic formula: from his very first words, Borrell announces what colour it's going to be, “I haven't got Plan B in my pocket”. It will be up to the next president of the European Council, Angela Merkel, in June 2007, to present a “road map” for re-launching the Constitutional project, taking into account the opinions of all governments. The president of the Parliament's examination of the possible scenarios is done with lots of energy, political courage and in clear terms, by highlighting all the good intentions as well as the shortfalls and difficulties. Thanks to him it is possible to see things more clearly and to understand what obstacles remain and what useful orientations there might be available for following this road. This is a significant contribution to the ongoing reflections and deserves some comment.
For a “Copernican revolution”. Borrell has grasped the idea that the College of Bruges' current “promotion” takes its Name from Nicholas Copernicus”. Furthermore, the book of the great astronomer, that revolutionised the concept of the solar system was entitled, “De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium”. And in remembering this, Josep Borrell gave his speech the following title, “De revolutionibus Europae”, it's almost the same, in the context of “the revolutions of Europe”. Revolutions that are first of all necessary in our mode of thinking. He told the young people present, “Believe me, Europe is no longer the centre of the world, I've just come back from China and India and I am even more convinced of it. Soon, we will represent only 5% of humanity”. This is an observation that I have often recalled in relation to the madness in believing that the remedy to all the difficulties in the developing world, where people are still suffering from hunger resides in the destruction of European agriculture and the opening up of the borders of this little portion of the world and humanity to the agricultural products of the USA, Brazil, China, Australia, Argentina, indeed, Canada and New Zealand, by reducing world food availability and by penalising exports to poor countries.
Mr Borrell spoke about it in a more general perspective: Europe can still play a great role but by taking into account the emergence of the new giants. The essential aim of his Bruges speech was, nevertheless, the “challenge of the constitutional crisis”.
Pursue ratifications. Mr Borrell was very severe in regard to Member States that have not yet ratified the Constitutional treaty (there are seven of them) and do not intend to do so. He mentioned Denmark and the United Kingdom, while indicating that there were others and pointing out that most ratifications took place in 2005. This year they occurred in Belgium and Estonia; Finland should be added to this list by the end of the year. Given the fact that Romania and Bulgaria's ratification of their act of accession was accompanied at the same time by ratification of the Constitutional treaty, and that at the beginning of next year they will be part of the Union by 1 January 2007, the Constitutional treaty will have been ratified by 18 out of the 27 Member States: exactly two thirds! This is the main reason for not stopping. But the president of the Parliament cited other reasons: all Union citizens have the right to have their say; an even greater number of ratifications will strengthen the possibilities of saving the most important part of the current draft; governments that have signed the text, that means all of them, should not go back on their word.
I don't believe that the president of the EP has any real chances of getting a hearing on this point. Too many government and figures (even those who are in favour of signing the treaty) are convinced that the current draft is dead to be able to overcome remaining misgivings. Moreover, why not say so? Some governments are delighted about the possibility of challenging certain aspects of this project that they don't like and are happy at seeing it blocked. This is the case of the United Kingdom and also Poland. The authorities of these countries do not reject the principle and idea of a fundamental treaty (which is called the Constitution or something else) but they want to renegotiate it. I don't see how this situation can change.
All scenarios currently being discussed contain difficulties and counter-indications.
Mr Borrell has reviewed these scenarios. Maintaining the current text with additions (a social protocol for example) clashes with the impossibility (or almost) of submitting the same text to the people of the two countries that rejected it.
As to the formula of a reduced treaty, it risks breaking the balance that had been achieved with some difficulty between the interests of the different Member States, as it implies the re-negotiation (at least momentarily) of a significant number of provisions. There has been talk of a mini-treaty limited to institutional reform. But, according to Mr Borrell, “institutional reform is the big question to which an answer has been needed since Maastricht and Amsterdam”. Its objective would be “the new institutional structure: a European Minister for Foreign Affairs, the extension of qualified majority voting and co-decision, the election of the president of the Commission by the Parliament”. I would also add double majority to this list (States and populations) for majority decisions at the Council. Institutional reforms separate from other aspects of the project would be opposed by several countries and open the door to national demands that would in practice finish up with a new overall negotiation.
The solution consisting in getting rid of the third part of the draft raises problems of balance that are even more accentuated as they imply the abandonment of essential innovations, such as the formal recognition of services of general interest and the legal basis for the common energy policy. According to Borrell, this would “not only be difficult at a legal level but also a sensitive issue in a political context”.
As for the idea of saving the innovating aspects of this third part, how could unanimity be found on the points that should be saved? This would be opening up to new negotiations on everything. The same for the limited re-negotiation of some of the controversial aspects, as it implies not only a new global re-negotiation but also new ratifications everywhere! Mr Borrell underlined the necessary details and pointed out that between the beginning of the work of the Convention and the signing of the Constitutional treaty, two and a half years have passed, to which the ratification period would also have to be added...
The hypothesis of staying with the Treaty of Nice would have the “probable'” consequence of Member States that consider it indispensable to advance and go forward, would be acting on the margins of the treaty through “reinforced cooperation” outside the Community framework by ignoring the role of the European Parliament (and also, I'll add, that of the Commission, the essential element in then Community method).
My conclusion: those who support one or other of the mentioned formulas should take into account the counter-indications as well, and recognise that there is no ideal formula yet: it will at least have to be perfected by taking into consideration the comments made by the president of the European Parliament.
Shortcomings of the “Europe of results”. Mr Borrell also made a few critical remarks on the formula of the Europe of results. He recognises that it is obvious that concrete results from Community activities are indispensable (they are certainly not lacking, even if they are too often neglected or unjustly played down) but he also denounces the danger, for certain governments, that this formula hides the intention of it leading to the subsequent abandonment of the Constitutional project, when in fact, according to a Eurobarometer results 61% of citizens are in favour of a European Constitution.
Institutional reform is indispensable and urgent. Obstacles to the concretisation of large-scale European projects, sought by all, could, in many cases, be eliminated or overcome by greater efficiency in the institutions and decision-marking procedures. The president of the Parliament made specific reference to the energy sector and a coordinated policy for immigration. In these fields, and in others, “we do not really create an image of efficiency or a real common political will”. The examples cited by Borrell are eloquent (even if personally I do not agree with his idea at all that the EU needs 20 million immigrants over the ten year period between 2010-2020).
Mr Borrell concluded from this that “the Europe of projects, called for by many to re-establish confidence, cannot be reduced to an ensemble of sector-based projects that fail to tackle the fundamental objectives”.
Importance of the current project. I consider that the considerations made in the Bruges speech, as well as other positions and initiatives taken and which our bulletin regularly covers, confirm the meaning and importance of the current Constitution Treaty. I would like to cite the formula take up by Jean-Claude Piris in his study [See our “European Library” 17 October, annexed to EUROPE 9287, which already provides an outline of the legal track Mr Piris puts forward for getting out of the crisis]: the draft Constitutional Treaty “a fundamental text is destined to remain whatever its ultimate destiny”. The French version of this study will be published before Christmas in a supplementary chapter on the possible scenarios for getting out of the crisis. This will be a different and very qualified contribution to the debate.
(F.R.)