Resuming the debate” “” “

“The European Parliament reaffirms its commitment to reach, without unjustified delays, a constitutional solution for the future of Europe that may reinforce parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, sanction fundamental rights and strengthen the capacity of the Union to act in an effective way both at home and abroad”. While the heads of state and of government were grappling with the EU budget for the period 2007-2013, a clear signal has been sent out by the European Parliament for the resumption of the debate on the Constitution, interrupted by a decision taken by the European Council of Ministers in June, following the double French and Dutch “no” to the Constitutional Treaty. PARLIAMENTARY ForumS AND DEBATE AMONG CITIZENS. On 15 December the commission for constitutional affairs of the European Parliament approved a draft report drawn up by the MEPs Andrew Duff (United Kingdom) and Johannes Voggenhuber (Austria), which maintains the “need to provide [Europe with] a Constitution by 2009”. The report assigns “a propulsive role” to the European Parliament – explains Andrew Duff to SIR – to stimulate and structure the debate between the EU institutions, involving the national Parliaments and citizens themselves”. It urges the setting up of various “parliamentary forums”, followed by “forums of citizens”, conducted at the national level, within the first half of 2006, to collect views, criticisms and suggestions on the text of the Constitution. On the basis of this input, the debate would then return to the seat of the EU in the course of 2007, to “decide how to move forward towards reaching approval of the Constitution”. FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER: ALL OPTIONS OPEN. The Duff-Voggenhuber report, approved by a very large majority in the commission (22 votes in favour, 2 against, 1 abstention), will be submitted to the vote of the EP in the plenary session in Strasbourg in January. The text assumes particular importance for two reasons: first, it tends to galvanise a process for the re-launch of the Constitution, through an inter-institutional and democratic process; second, it leaves all options open: “Abandonment of the constitutional project; follow up of the process of ratification at the national level; clarification and partial modification of the current text, signed on 29 October 2004; complete re-writing of the Constitutional Treaty”. “It’s clear – explains Duff – that we are favourable to the Constitution, but it’s also true that something new needs to be invented. We cannot pretend to submit to French and Dutch citizens the same text they turned down by referendum a few months ago. We can only hope that the weak points of the Constitution will emerge from the debate we intend to create throughout Europe. These will then have to be modified, though holding fast to the essential and shared principles and reforms” of the EU. OBJECTIVES AND FRONTIERS OF THE eUROPEAN UNION. The work of the two MEPs also took its cue from the recognition that the “pause for reflection” decreed by the European Council has so far produced no result. During the six months’ British presidency of the Council, the question was never in fact addressed; the summit of 15-16 December finally postponed any discussion to the Austrian Presidency, i.e. to the first half of 2006, though without making any precise commitments. In the meantime the European Commission has adopted so-called “Plan D” (democracy, dialogue, debate): the report approved in the parliamentary commission takes note of this, but invites the Executive “not to limit itself to a strategy on communication and to demonstrate a decisive capacity for political leadership, so as to help the Union to overcome its current constitutional difficulties”. The report suggests that Parliament itself should publish “European documents” on each “of the great questions that the EU must tackle. These could be used as European schemes” on which to base the public debates on the Constitution. The report also lists some “priority questions” for reflection at the continental level: “What are the priority objections of integration? How should the frontiers of the EU be defined? What role ought to be played by Europe on the world scene? In the light of globalization, what is the future of the European economic and social model?”. A WIDE-RANGING REFLECTION ON INTEGRATION. The competent commission – whose work must now pass to the scrutiny of the 732 MEPs – maintains that “it’s not possible to continue to enlarge the EU, after the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, on the basis of the Treaty of Nice”. It thus underlines the need for clear ideas and projects, both on the political, and on the institutional, socio-economic and financial side, as well as in terms of defining the identity of the EU. It’s also essential to involve “all citizens in European construction”: hence the appeal made by the report to member states to organize forums for citizens, public meetings supported by the mass media, that would be able to provide a forum to local and regional authorities, political parties, social partners, civil society, and the world of education and culture.———————————————————————————————————– Sir Europa (English) N.ro assoluto : 1439 N.ro relativo : 88 Data pubblicazione : 21/12/05