France is finally moving on the Constitutional Treaty. At the moment, quite logically, attention is focused on Friday's meeting between the 18 member states which have already ratified it, with Ireland and Portugal to attend also, and on the intentions of the presidency of the Council with a view to getting the debate back on the table between all 27. All of the information can be found in our bulletin; I will return to it next week. However, France's efforts to launch itself back into the institutional game remain in the shadow for the time being; in Paris, there is evidence of a certain reluctance, to avoid giving the impression of telling the others how it is to be done, and only the president of the Republic to be elected this spring will be able to take any clear stance for the future. This is all the more reason to say something in advance.
Alain Lamassoure's expectations. At a reflection colloquium held recently in Paris for the Institute of Security Studies headed by Nicole Gnesotto, the MEP Alain Lamassoure presented the orientation to be followed by Nicolas Sarkozy on this if he is elected president. It is true that that Mr Sarkozy himself had already outlined his views in a speech he gave in Brussels last September (see this column of our bulletin 9262), but in the meantime, events have caught up, and it is possible to move from general outlines to a more operational plan. As the idea of a further referendum in France on the text as it stands has been ruled out, the objective is a revised text including the non-controversial aspects. This would not be a mini-Treaty: Mr Lamassoure has categorically rejected this definition, because the objective is a substantial Treaty, with all the elements which would allow it to make Europe work. There are two conditions: not to reopen the debate on any aspects which are uncontested by any member state; and to respect the subtle balances achieved by the Convention (of which Mr Lamassoure was a member). All controversial elements, which relate mostly to the orientation and content of common policies, must be ruled out. “We don't need a pen (to rewrite the text), but scissors” (to cut out all elements of a controversial nature).
The drafting exercise could be finished within two or three months. The IGC (intergovernmental conference) to be given this task could be convened by the end of June this year, its text would be ready by the end of the year, the ratifications (taking careful care to avoid referendums) could be completed in plenty of time for the new Treaty to be able to enter into force in 2009. Europe would thus be “back in business” before the next European elections and would therefore have all the right conditions in place to tackle the exercises which await it, particularly reforms in the way the Union is funded.
Mr Lamassoure states that he has already worked on the draft text he would like to see in place. The name “Constitution” would go, due to its ambiguity. The first part of the current draft would remain as it is, but a few statements of principle could be dropped. The second part (Charter of Fundamental Rights) would not necessarily be included in the text; an article referring to it would be sufficient. In the third part, he would keep all elements which make the legal innovations introduced in the first part a reality: some thirty articles, according to Mr Lamassoure. This would give rise to a radically condensed treaty, stripped of the technical details, and something that everybody can read.
In the view of another member of the European Parliament who is taking part in the same seminar, Andrew Duff, Mr Lamassoure's plan is too simplistic. Mr Duff believes, amongst other things, that it is impossible to do without the third part of the Giscard draft as, in his opinion, it contains essential, and therefore indispensable, new ideas.
The draft written entirely by Pierre Lequiller. In the context of the relaunch of the debate in France ahead of the presidential elections, it is significant that within the national parliament (Assemblée Nationale), a draft which goes in the same direction, with additional nuances and which, above all, has already been fully drafted, has been developed. I speak of the Lequiller draft. Pierre Lequiller is the chair of the Delegation for Europe of the Assemblée Nationale and as part of his duty, he took an active part in the Giscard d'Estaing Convention. His document “How to break the deadlock: A Constitutional Treaty for Europe” is made up of three parts: an outline of the reasons and presentation of the draft; a useful overview of the stances taken by political leaders and figures of several member states; the complete text of the “Institutional Treaty of the European Union” on the basis of the draft Constitutional Treaty, with the changes and parings-down which would make it possible for all of the member states to adopt it swiftly.
In principle, Mr Lequiller recommends a real “political Europe”, with the involvement of all of the member states if possible, based on the eurozone if necessary. But this would take time, and presupposes that Europe has the legal instruments it would need in order to act effectively. In order to do this, the institutional treaty would have to be in place first of all. It would then be possible to convene a new Convention to define the policies of the Union: making economic and social governance a reality, implementing an immigration policy, defining a common energy policy, and so on. Without the institutional treaty, none of this would be possible. Of course, a few economic policy outlines which feature in the third part of the current draft could be taken up, if an agreement to do so arises under the consultations to be conducted by the German presidency over the next few months, and Mr Lequiller quotes, amongst other things, the legal basis for services of general interest and the cross-cutting social clause, and the reinforcement of Europol and Eurojust. The main thing, however, would be the work of the Convention to be created already in 2009, to develop a major democratic debate on the policies of the Union, including guarantees for public services, the basic rules for social affairs, the revision of the funding system, Europe's actions in the field of energy and also of culture, and the creation of an associated state statute. It would also be necessary to define more flexible revision details, keeping in place the obligation on all member states to ratify any changes to the institutional treaty, whereas for the adoption or ratification of provisions on Union policies, super-qualified majority could be brought in.
We can see, on the part of Nicolas Sarkozy, a candidate to the presidency of the Republic, the drafts are already specific, both in the framework of the European Parliament and that of the Assemblée Nationale. However, it must be emphasised that other member states are headed in entirely different directions. The relaunch of the French debate does not mean that positions are growing closer together. I will return to this issue at length.
The first indications of Segolène Royal. Meanwhile, over with the Socialist candidate, nothing quite so detailed has yet been prepared, or at least published, which is quite understandable, given that the Socialists were divided between the supporters of the yes-vote and supporters of the no-vote at the time of the referendum. However, Segolène Royal has given an overview of her opinions. She did not do this as part of the national election campaign, but during her meeting with Jean-Claude Juncker in Luxembourg, on 17 January (see our bulletin 9346). I quote from reports of her statement on that day (our translation): “I would like the French people to go to a referendum once again in 2009. My view is that this referendum should be held at the same time as the European elections. We need a Treaty which will allow the institutions to do their job. I would like to see a social plank and workers' rights to be taken on board in Europe. I am prepared to take political risks over this issue”. The timetable would be the one already under consideration: “roadmap” next June, agreement during the French presidency of the Council (second half of 2008), ratification early in 2009. But Ms Segolène Royal has said nothing about the contents of the text to be developed and then put to a second referendum in France. Her spokesperson Gilles Savary, a member of the European Parliament, said (Le Figaro of 26 January) that Ms Royal believes that the new Treaty should (our translation again) “take account - aside from the parts of the invalidated draft which enjoy consensus - of the social dimension of European construction, its economic and monetary governance and the challenges of the fledgling century”.
Observers probably feel that the theme of Europe is one which will play a great part in the election campaign in France in between the first and second rounds of the elections, and not before.
The inventive spirit of Philippe Herzog. We must also highlight the initiative of Philippe Herzog, president of the association “Confrontations Europe”, in favour of a new “Single Act”. Historically, the Single Act is the European Treaty which entered into force in July 1987, which Jacques Delors referred to as “my favourite treaty” (see chapter 7 of his Memoirs), because it is both the most concrete and the most simple: objectives, details, a timetable. This text gave birth to the great single market, to majority voting, to the co-decisional powers of the European Parliament and the possibility for “differentiation” in the involvement of the member states in certain Community actions (which allowed the birth of the euro, amongst other things).
Philippe Herzog, who is maybe the most inventive of all those involved in a reflection on Europe, suggests that we borrow the title and methodology of this. He admits that first of all, the “institutional reform” treaty must be developed, and defined before the end of 2008. But at the same time, the draft “Single Cooperation and Participation Act”, should be launched - preparations for which should start in the second half of this year. This treaty would borrow from the process favoured by Jacques Delors: firm commitments, binding objectives, a timetable. Mr Herzog will present it himself at a conference in Brussels on 6 February , and that will be when I shall return to this subject in detail.
(F.R.)