Brussels, 27/04/2007 (Agence Europe) - Prime Minister Tony Blair is continuing consultations with a view to forming an alliance of EU member states in favour of a simple “amending Treaty” - instead of a European constitution - which would be limited to a number of institutional reforms and which would not require to be put to the people in a referendum. After receiving the support of the Netherlands' Jan-Peter Balkenende on 16 April (see EUROPE 9408), Mr Blair met Polish Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski, who would appear also to share London's view, in Warsaw on Friday. This, in any case, is what Mr Blair's spokesman suggested on Friday, when he spoke of a “large measure of agreement” between the two men. The Czech Republic is also on the same wave length as the UK: on Thursday, the parties in Prague's coalition government formally approved their position, under which “the new European treaty should not include 'quasi-constitutional symbolism', for instance the words 'constitution' and 'EU foreign minister'”. The United Kingdom, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands are also calling for the Charter of Fundamental Rights not to be an integral part of the future treaty.
In Berlin on Tuesday, Mr Blair also met Chancellor Angela Merkel who will chair the European Council of 21-22 June, during which Mr Blair hopes agreement will be reached on the key elements of the future treaty (see EUROPE 9411). No information on this meeting has filtered out, but London and Berlin are agreed that the inter-governmental conference (IGC), which will debate and approve the text, should be called “as quickly as possible” after the June summit, as is also stipulated in the questionnaire that the German presidency last week sent the 26 partner countries.
This questionnaire is part of the bilateral consultations (at “focal point” or Sherpa level) which the presidency began on 23 April and which will last until 4 May. The 12 questions are:
1) How do you assess the proposal made by some Member Sates not to repeal the existing treaties, but to return to the classical method of treaty changes while preserving the single legal personality and overcoming the pillar structure of the EU?
2) How do you assess in that case the proposal made by some member states that the consolidated approach of part I of the Constitutional Treaty is preserved, with the necessary presentational changes resulting from the return to the classical method of treaty changes?
3) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states using a different terminology without changing the legal substance, for example with regard to the title of the treaty, the denomination of EU legal acts and the Union's Minister of Foreign Affairs?
4) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states not to include an article relating to the symbols of the EU?
5) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states not to include an article that explicitly restates the primacy of EU law?
6) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states that member states will replace the full text of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by a short cross reference having the same legal value?
7) Do you agree that the institutional provisions of the Constitutional Treaty form a balanced package that should not be reopened?
8) Are there other elements which in your view constitute indispensable parts of the overall compromise reached at the time?
9) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states concerning possible improvements/clarifications on issues related to new challenges facing the EU, for instance in the fields of energy/climate change or illegal immigration?
10) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states to highlight the Copenhagen criteria in the article on enlargement?
11) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states to address the social dimension of the EU in some way or the other?
12) How do you assess the proposal made by some member states applying to opt-in/out provisions to some of the new policy provisions set out in the Constitutional Treaty? (hb)