Plans for the re-launch of the Constitutional Treaty are growing in number, but no two are alike. This profusion shows that the “period of reflection” has borne fruit, but opinions on how to proceed differ. It is possible, with effort, to draw two conclusions:
there is a wide feeling of “nostalgia for the Constitution” (see this column in edition 9319);
a large section of parliamentary circles is of the opinion that the current project should not
be unpicked, that its substance should be retained. Last week's meeting of national and European parliamentarians proved this (see the report in edition 9321).
Three basic differences. The above two statements are positive, but, as soon as we move from general ideas to implementation, differences burst forth. The first basic difference focuses on what should be re-launched. Some say it is that part of the Constitutional Treaty which deals with principles, values and institutions, so that the EU can work better. Others feel it is mainly the policies and their content that should be implemented. And others again believe that the Constitutional Treaty was a balanced whole, and that this balance must not be upset by the removal of any points.
The second basic difference concerns the very nature of the operation. For some, we must get rid of the more controversial provisions in order to iron out differences, and thus make progress. Others, on the contrary, feel that instead of removing things, others should be added, in order to win the support of those who complained about gaps in the text: no social section, lack of economic governance, etc. The third difference focuses on what to do. Some are calling for a new Convention, emphasising that the first worked well and that it would be absurd to push parliamentarians, Community institutions and representatives of civil society aside, leaving the negotiations to diplomats. Others respond that a new Convention would, perfectly understandably, want to start from scratch, and that only an Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) could retain what has already been agreed as its basis.
The importance of the third section. Account should also be taken of the contribution from the universities. For example, Jean-Victor Louis, honorary professor at the Université libre de Bruxelles, challenges the view that the third section of the Constitutional Treaty limits itself to summarising the common policies as they stand. On the contrary, it contains “important innovations” and it is “difficult to separate from the whole”, which would be considerable weakened if it were removed. Giving up on it “would mean that substantial improvements on the Nice acquis would be lost”. This greatly decried section “plays its full part in the advances of the Constitution, not only through clear simplifications, but also through progress on the way to the Union of Law (status of legal entity), the Social Union and the European identity in the world”. Please consult Mr Louis' book to have this demonstrated (“L'Europe: sortir du doute”, Editions Bruylant).
Differences between States. There is a further crucial question mark: how many Member States would be opposed to the re-launch of the Constitution, or would not agree to a reduced Treaty? Some governments have already indicated their position, the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC), to be convened in 2007, must not re-launch the Constitutional Treaty but rather prepare the review of the Treaty of Nice. The Polish government does not hide that it feels the future voting system in the Council must not be the “double majority” put forward by the Convention, but the system decided at Nice.
As for parliamentary support, Jens-Peter Bonde, the leader of the Independence and Democracy group in the EP, says that those who took part in the meeting between European and national parliamentarians had been chosen from among the “Constitution supporters”: the 62% of the Dutch population which rejected the Constitution were not represented, the 55% of the French people who voted “no” had only one single parliamentarian to represent them (and the Swedes who opposed the euro were not represented either). The leader of the British Conservatives in the EP¨, Timothy Kirkhope, would perhaps not have said that “the Constitution is dead, it is an ex-Constitution” if he had not known full well that this was the opinion of his party leader in London.
Faced with this situation, should we prepare for a Constitution that will not be accepted by everyone and implemented by the countries that want it? The first test will be the “Berlin declaration” planned for the end of March, when a choice will perhaps have to be made between a banal unanimous text and an ambitious text which some governments will not sign. We are not there yet; but we never know.
F.R.