Political debate is considered incomplete. A break of several weeks. After which, by the end of August, the IGC (intergovernmental conference, with participation from MEPs and Commission members also) will resume its legal work to finalise the new European treaty, pending the intervention of political decision-makers in September. It is still difficult to assess whether finalisation of the text can be achieved by government representatives (or “sherpas”) and jurists alone, or whether some arbitration at the ministerial and possibly head of government level is necessary. The declarations made by political leaders during the opening of the IGC and above all their confirmation of the very tight timetable show that they are determined to consider that the mandate defined in June by the heads of state and government requires no further political negotiation.
The Portuguese EU Council presidency has said it will “ensure that the jurists do not raise too many questions that could open the door to further political discussion”. Even Poland has said (on the procedure for majority voting) that it seeks clarification, not changes. The European Parliament and the Commission, which had criticised or regretted some aspects of the summit's mandate, acknowledge that it is necessary to accept it and support it. The president of the Commission, Mr Barroso, has taken up a concept already developed in this column: the current draft must not be compared to the draft Constitutional Treaty, but must be assessed in relation to the existing situation. According to this criterion, the progress made in European construction is obvious from several points of view. Action must be taken to give this concrete substance (and Eurosceptics of course can restlessly pursue the other line).
A complicated situation. Although the essential political direction mentioned is shared by all institutions and by all member states, it will be brought together in a unanimous text by October. And then it will be the moment for national ratification. In principle, modifying treaties (i.e. aimed at amending certain articles of the Treaties in force) may be ratified by parliamentary procedures without the need for referendums. But things are more complicated in reality. In Ireland, the referendum will be compulsory. In the Netherlands, the decision will be taken by the State Council after the text has been scrutinised. In France, it will be necessary to amend the national constitution. In other member states, such as Portugal and Denmark, the situation has still not yet been clarified. The perplexities of the referendum procedure are not due to the fear that the project may be rejected by any of the peoples. On the contrary, after everything that has been discussed and explained, possible rejection would simply mean that the people concerned does not intend to consolidate European construction or recognise its political ambition. And, quite naturally, the member states that wish to rekindle this ambition would be able to take it forward among themselves. In this case, any “no-votes” would be a useful element of clarification or simplification for the future.
This, however, is theoretical construction. In reality, the text of the amending treaty does not lend itself to referendum because, as it is, it makes incomprehensible reading. The vote would not be determined by the effective content of the treaty but by other reasons. When the jurists resume the work, I shall devote my comments specifically to this aspect, explaining why a text of this kind cannot be the subject of a simple “yes” or “no” question. Citizens should be asked about their will to make European integration move forward, and whether they wish to continue to be a part. How?
The case of Poland. Poland can perhaps be taken as an example. It has come to our knowledge that one of the political forces that make up the government majority (under the leadership of Deputy Prime Minister Roman Giertych) will campaign against the new treaty because it would, in his view, entail German domination over the EU, and over Poland in particular (see our bulletin No.9470). At the same time, results of surveys show that the Poles are increasingly in favour of European construction and of their country's participation in consolidation. This is a case in which the referendum would be useful and the question put to citizens would not be, in fact, on a text which is incomprehensible but on the will to unite Europe and to take part. If referendums are foreseen, the peoples concerned should be invited to answer a similar question, with explanations setting out the objectives and the significance of the new treaty, with each political force then campaigning in full clarity either for or against.
I am just waiting to prove that, in the case of the new treaty, a vote on its literary content would only be a semblance of democracy, falsely resorting to the voice of the people. (F.R.)