On 21 May, the European Parliament constitutional affairs committee will approve its draft resolution on the “roadmap for the Union's constitutional process”, and the plenary session will vote on 6 June. The draft report by the two rapporteurs, Enrique Barón Crespo and Elmar Brok, is both ambitious and reasonable. It is ambitious right from its title, because it bears the adjective constitutional; and it is reasonable because it takes account of the opposition or reservations expressed in some member states about the draft Constitutional Treaty drawn up by the Convention.
Retaining the content. The adjective constitutional has been retained (although most member states are happy to get rid of the term “constitution” and adjectives deriving from it), but it is used to refer to a process. The EP is not asking for the new treaty to be constitutional, but that it is part of the process that will one day lead to a European Constitution. It can be seen, it is clear, yet it is flexible. The resolution is explicit in its call for “the content” of the Convention's Constitutional Treaty to be retained, because it enhances democratic control, improves transparency and strengthens citizens' rights. This content is a compromise, that's true, but it “meets the needs of the European Union in its current stage”. The text stresses: the outcome of future negotiation must be “based on the content of the Constitutional Treaty, possibly under a different presentation”, but taking account of “the difficulties that have arisen in some member states”.
Essential points. In concrete terms, parts I, II and IV must be retained, while part III must retain the institutional improvements, notably the extension of Parliament-Council co-decision making (86 areas instead of the 37 at present), and, irrespective of part: recognition of the values on which the EU is based; the legally binding force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; the active involvement of citizens in the political life of the EU; clarification of the respective competences of the European Union and its member states; respect for the principle of subsidiarity; and the role of national parliaments. The EP will not accept any diminution of democracy, transparency or efficiency, or any loss of citizens' rights. I have not noticed any explicit reference to the new way of calculating the qualified majority in Council.
Parliament would accept that the new negotiation takes place within the IGC (intergovernmental conference), but it sets two conditions: that the EP be “must be fully involved in the IGC at all levels, at least to the same extent as during the 2003-2004 IGC”; and that, during these negotiations, the EP maintains close contact with national parliaments, and also the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and civil society.
For the rest, the draft resolution: accepts the timetable set (IGC convened as quickly as possible, concluding its work by the end of the year, with ratification in 2008); calls on member states to consider coordinating their ratification procedures, so that all ratifications can be completed simultaneously; reserves the right to bring forward more detailed proposals when giving its formal opinion (which is required) on convening the IGC.
The most controversial point. The first exchange of views in the Parliamentary constitutional affairs committee, on Wednesday, suggested that around two thirds of committee members back the thrust of the Barón Crespo-Brok report, with reservations coming largely from British Conservatives, some Polish MEPs and Jens-Peter Bonde. On one point, however, discussion was keen: the new areas to be introduced or to be set out, in line with the principle of a “Treaty plus”. The report puts forward six: sustainable development and combating climate change; solidarity in the field of energy; migration policy; improvement or adaptation of the “European social model”; combating terrorism and the dialogue between civilisations; common mechanisms concerning economic policy in the eurozone (while safeguarding the role of the European Central Bank in monetary policy).
We are witnessing an increase in national requests: several parliamentarians want to add areas to the list, or to remove some from it. It would seem things got to the point where Jean-Luc Dehaene suggested giving up the list and retaining only the first two points, on which there was unanimous agreement. An avalanche of amendments must be allowed for on this section.
(F.R.)