Two tendencies. The symposium organised on Monday by the European Parliament on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Altiero Spinelli understandably paid tribute to his project of a European constitution, but at the same time looked forward to the future parliamentary debate on the new European treaty. Discussions did not turn to the way the ongoing intergovernmental conference, IGC, is unfolding (see our bulletin yesterday for the account of the ministerial meeting of Viana do Castelo by Helmut Brüls). MEPs and their eminent guests were keener to express their views on the new treaty itself, comparing it to the Spinelli project of 1984.
Two tendencies appear: one critical towards the new treaty, taking the view that it is not satisfactory and does not represent what Europe needs to bounce back; the other recognising that there are indeed gaps and insufficiencies but placing emphasis on the fact that this text has nothing final about it; it represents a “way out” of a crisis and obvious progress, and will be followed by other developments in European construction. Those taking the critical tack are, among others, Monica Frassoni and Johannes Voggenhuber from the MEPs, as well as Bruno Boissière on behalf of the European Movement, and Philippe de Schoutheete who has placed emphasis on the ambiguities of the text (which sometimes take the form of hypocrisy). MEPs who believe that, despite the gaps, the current draft is a significant move forward, include Inigo Mendez de Vigo, Andrew Duff and Jo Leinen (who chaired the work).
Power and its constraints. It was pointed out that Altiero Spinelli had managed to have a brave and ambitious text approved at a time when the EP had only very few real powers, whereas the current Parliament, whose powers have been greatly strengthened, no longer manages to be at the forefront of integration. I do not believe such criticism is fully justified. With its effective powers, the EP must take the reality of the political forces present more into account. Majorities, as we see each day, are the result of often difficult compromises. A wave of euroscepticism had crossed a large part of the European population, and has not been fully overcome. The composition of the EP reflects this reality. It is a positive fact that the most advanced ideas still have their keen followers and that they are gaining ground - but the rules of democracy must be respected and any move forward must take account of public opinion. Mr Mendez de Vigo recalled that Altiero Spinelli had spoken very negatively about the Single Act, which was a step backward compared to its constitutional draft. And yet, this Single Act meant true progress on the road to European construction. Jacques Delors stressed in his Memoirs that the Single Act launched an “era of dynamism” which allowed major federalist elements, precisely recommended by Mr Spinelli, to be accomplished. Mendez de Vigo recalled that Altiero Spinelli's very first demand was a Parliament with decision-making powers: - today, that is what we have.
Should ratification fail …Philippe de Schoutheete raised the possibility that the new treaty might not be ratified in all 27 member states. This would be the second failure of an overall project, which, in his view, leads one to state that the “time of the major treaties amending the powers and procedures of the Union is now past. We should accept the fact that the ratification process for this kind of text has become uncontrollable in a Union with so many members. We should therefore restrict ourselves to small treaties on specific points”. According to Mr de Schoutheete, the member states that are resolved to move forward should now express their will to use the strengthened cooperation form. If the country showing reticence was convinced that “construction would follow in any case, even without it, perhaps its reflection would be more balanced”. This remark obviously refers to all member states.
Jo Leinen expressed a more positive and determined position. In the case of failure, instead of giving up having a global treaty, it would be necessary to finalise it between member states that agree, leaving aside those who do not want a treaty. Another observer spoke of the impression he had that Great Britain is gradually sliding in the latter direction. Its “opt outs” are becoming more numerous - to the two very important ones that already exist (on single currency and Schengen), there will also be that on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, significant derogations in the legal field and dispensatory clauses in the field of foreign policy. The leadership is that of a “Norwegian regime” where participation is restricted in practice to the single market. Mr de Schoutheete was right to set this reflection in motion. (F.R.)