The greater the uncertainties over the Lisbon Treaty coming into force, the greater the number of people who recommend an alternative to compulsory ratification by all member states. What kind of alternative? Making it possible for member states that so desire to move faster down the road to integration. This is nothing new. It was foreseen in the Penelope Project, a partial alternative to the draft Constitutional Treaty developed by the Convention. It was then taken up by several leading lights. The more neutral term “differentiation,” so dear to Jacques Delors' heart, still has its supporters, and other alternatives have been voiced. According to Joschka Fischer “As a preventative measure, a procedure must be introduced in the next two years to enable resistant member states to withdraw from the Lisbon Treaty and to enable the others to move forward.” The radical formula has become semi-officialised. Giorgio Napolitano, President of Italy and former chair of the European Parliament's institutional affairs committee, has called for urgent and essential common reflection on a formula “guaranteeing the entry into force of treaties when they are ratified by member states representing a large majority of the population of the EU, or making a country's permanent membership of the EU conditional upon ratification of the EU treaties that country has subscribed to”. Napolitano says that in some member states, “there has emerged deep reluctance and failure to understand what the European integration process actually involves, and the fact that integration involves countries restricting their own national sovereignty and handing over real power on some issues to supranational institutions”. He explained: “United 'Europa' must not be taken hostage by the right of veto and blackmail. Giving up on its most ambitious projects must not be the price to be paid for increasing the number of member states”. A significant detail here is the fact that Napolitano made these statements at a meeting with Felipe Gonzalez, chair of the “Reflection Group on the Future of Europe”. It was his way of urging the Reflection Group not to ignore the question he raised. (F.R/transl.fl)