The orientations being outlined for the next negotiations of the new European treaty are not to everyone's liking. I presented the orientations of the governments in as neutral and objective a way as possible (EUROPE 9417) and I then summarised the European Parliament's draft resolution (EUROPE 9420). To complete the exercise, I will now look at the criticism and reservations surrounding the risk of the treaty representing a retreat from the initial goals and a compromising of the Community acquis. Reservations, in fact, with regard to the simplified treaty formula, began as soon as this idea was mooted. The history of principled objections can be summed up in a reference to two emblematic figures: Guy Verhofstadt in connection with political reservations, and Jean-Victor Louis for those involving institutional and legal reservations.
Guy Verhofstadt's political objections. In his speech on 31 May 2006 to the European Parliament, the Belgian prime minister said: “We can opt for a pick and choose approach in order to save the most seductive elements in the constitution. But what will these key elements be? Every member of the Council will choose their own priorities. For some, it will be subsidiarity, for others, expansion of the European Parliament's competencies” and so forth. If, after lengthy negotiations, the EU27 reaches a compromise we will be able to ask ourselves whether “ratification in one or two years' time will have much chance of succeeding”, at least for renouncing most of the innovations that have provoked such reservations: the longer presidency of the European Council, the European minister for foreign affairs, “bridging clauses”. In his book/manifesto, “For the United States of Europe”, Guy Verhofstadt called for a “political Europe” in which participating countries could move forward, with the others being excluded from the new project.
It should be emphasised that other formulas based on strengthened cooperation were also based on the same principle of excluding reticent countries.
Jean-Victor Louis' institutional and legal objections. The analysis contained in his book “Sortir du doute” proves that Part III of the Constitutional Treaty is not limited to a summary of the existing treaties - it also contains important innovations and cannot, in his opinion, be disassociated from Parts I and IV. It is often affirmed that Part II can be put aside by keeping the existing treaties it encapsulates. Mr Louis does not agree with this and explains that “coexistence of Parts I and IV with the Treaties in force is impossible”. At the same time, getting rid of Part III would mean that, “substantial improvements on the Nice acquis would be lost”. Louis also says that the idea of only leaving the aspects of Part III that have not provoked reservations in France and the Netherlands, is impractical. In his opinion, “it is an illusion to believe that the points with which French and Dutch citizens did not find a problem, will not create problems elsewhere…Inevitably, demands will be made to reopen the debate on sensitive points”.
Mr Louis also recalled that having a Europe of different levels of integration would involve, “duplication of the institutional framework…which would lead to exceptionally heavy structures”. He pointed out that in the case of Economic and Monetary Union, “the institutionalisation of the Eurogroup (namely an Ecofin Council where only Eurozone representatives have a seat and their own decision-making powers) was impossible” because member states that are excluded from it do not want decisions to be taken without their participation. This remark is in his opinion also valid for other fields where 'strengthened cooperation' is envisaged”. The creation of such “cooperation” outside the Treaties appears to him to be even more dangerous because it “short circuits the institutions and subsequently gets rid of the Commission's power of initiative, as well as possible intervention from the Court of Justice” and contains a real risk of “fragmentation of the legal order of the Union”.
Two examples should be added to the specific case of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing who, as father of the Constitutional Treaty project (although he is rejecting paternity for Part III, for which his request to heads of government for an additional deadline for rethinking its implementation was in vain) is still in principle loyal to the intangible nature of the text that was signed by all member states.
Evolution. The situation then started to evolve in the sense that today, demands for revision of the draft Constitutional Treaty, are generally accepted. Governments agree, even if all are adding their conditions; the Commission president recognised it (see below); the European Parliament is preparing to vote the same way (but the battle within it on conditions and modalities still needs to be fought).
It is therefore correct to say that reservations and opposition do not refer to the principle of revision, but to the observation that things are going too far in the direction of a renunciation of the treaty contents worked out by the Convention and signed by all member states. According to some observers, Angela Merkel's “questionnaire” was in itself symptomatic of an excessive decrease in ambition.
Sounding the alarm. A look at all the different positions is impossible in this way. That's why I am going to use the method of taking a figure who speaks on behalf of the concerned and dissatisfied: Jacques-René Rabier, who was a close collaborator of Jean Monnet, the director general for press/information at the European Commission and creator of the Eurobarometer. He sounded “the alarm” to Guy Verhofstadt in relation to “a Europe that currently appears under threat of destruction or at least of decline”. Some of the orientations in the German presidency's questionnaire addressed to all governments (published in EUROPE 9416) are in Rabier's opinion worrying, and he cites the triple suppression planned of: Union symbols; primacy of Community law; the text of the Charter of fundamental rights (replaced by a reference). According to Rabier, this trend risks transforming the Union “into a free-trade zone with a few coordination rules defined at unanimity”. He believes it indispensable that Guy Verhofstadt, Jean-Claude Juncker and Romano Prodi and others, as well as MEPs organise “resistance” to these dangerous orientations.
Other positions go in the same direction: there is one that does not call for keeping the Constitutional Treaty as it is but which claims to keep its contents, its substance in the sense of a Treaty+ instead of a Treaty-. See EUROPE yesterday, for example, on Jo Leinen (who is, nonetheless, partly linked by the conclusions that the constitutional affairs committee that he chairs will be reaching).
José Manuel Barroso and Romano Prodi speaking frankly. The European Commission president was very explicit in his meeting with the Belgian newspaper, “Le Soir”. He declared that “the Commission and I have always supported the constitution. But let's be clear: we will ratify a treaty that is not the Constitutional Treaty. It will be drawing from the latter but it will be different. It's the only possible way ahead. Everyone has understood, even though it has taken some time for some of them, as if the truth were heresy! But nothing rules out the possibility of certain more ambitious aspects later on”. This does not, however, mean that we now resign ourselves to a retreat. Barroso said that “certain ideas are being mooted: re-nationalisation of certain policies, introduction of reservations about the internal market…It will be necessary for the Commission to say whether there will be a step backwards on certain acquis of European construction. I am keen to say it”.
At almost the same time, a head of government, Romano Prodi developed a particularly firm and clear position by announcing that he would be expressing the same ideas, with additional elements, in the speech he would be making on 22 May to the European Parliament. In his speech on 2 May to the Portuguese parliament, he said: “Vetoes and cheap compromises need to be done away with. Let's move forward with those that want to, with a two-speed Europe if necessary. It is not obligatory to all move forward together at the same time. I want this but I am aware that it is not always possible. There are risks of involution and we should not underestimate them…My country is not prepared to accept anything or sign up to any old compromise”.
Amato group's project is ready. Meanwhile, the Amato group's project has been devised. I would like to point out that the group is chaired by the vice-president of the Convention, Giuliano Amato: the other vice-president of the Convention Jean-Luc Dehaene, Michel Barnier, Chris Patten, the vice-president of the European Commission Margot Wallström, the European commissioner Danuta Hübner, Mendez de Vigo MEP, as well as other figures such as Mr. Vitorino, Mr Martony, etc. The group had asked the European University Institute of Florence to work out a draft that takes the same shape as a traditional treaty but which safeguards the contents of the Constitutional Treaty (with amendments); a provision that makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding; two protocols that amend the Treaties currently in force to include the innovations planned for the third part of the Constitutional Treaty. The Amato group is expected to formally approve this text at the beginning of June in view of sending it to Angela Merkel.
(F.R)