Reform is needed

The debate on the institutional reforms of the Eu seems to have languished for many, perhaps too many months. What’s become of the Constitutional Treaty for the European Union after the negative vote of the referenda in France and Holland? And what are the immediate challenges that the institutions are called to tackle in the near future? To gain a better understanding of the present situation, SirEurope met two leading personalities within the debate on the future of Europe: TONY VENABLES, director of Ecas (European Citizen Action Service), the major European association for the participation of citizens in European decision-making processes, and SIMON PETERMANN, head of the Department of Political Sciences in the Faculty of Jurisprudence at the University of Liege and member of the Royal Institute of International Relations in Belgium. After discussion has continued on the institutional reforms for many years, the stop imposed by national governments, for different reasons, to the Constitutional Treaty seems to have placed the Union in a kind of institutional impasse. Is that really the case? Venables: “Yes, it’s difficult to reconcile the positions of the countries that have ratified the Treaty, or are about to do so, with the French and Dutch ‘no’. Perhaps the citizens of these two countries could change their mind and vote ‘yes’? No one really believes that. A third way is not yet visible – for that time is needed. On the website of Ecas we have published two studies that analyse this situation of stalemate, but predictions of how to overcome it are still not possible”. Petermann: “The Eu is going through a difficult period, but life continues and a reform of the institutions is needed, especially in view of enlargement in 2007. Hopefully the draft Constitutional Treaty will be subjected to renewed scrutiny to better respond to the expectations of some states, in particular those in which citizens have already voted by a majority to reject it. In any case, the future of the Constitutional Treaty remains open so long as member states continue to ratify it”. What in your view are the institutional priorities that the EU must tackle in the near future? Venables: “The number 1 priority is that of restoring the trust of citizens in the Eu. The institutions are striving to improve their communication: Margot Wallstroem, vice-president of the Commission, has launched Plan D (Debate and Democracy) and an Agenda for the Citizen. More than priorities it’s a question of finding the right message on Europe, especially vis-à-vis the young”. Peterman: “Within a framework in which the institutional priorities are well known (Commission, decision-making process,…) we now need to take the necessary decisions to improve the way in which the Institutions work on the basis of the existing Treaties. This would seem to be already possible for example in three sectors: internal security and justice, external action, and defence. We might also add the closer involvement of national Parliaments in the EU decision-making process and economic governance within the EU”. In general, what in your view are the priority problems (and the possible solutions) that the European Institutions need to tackle during the last months of 2006? Venables: “There are many of them, probably too many. One of the most burning issues at the present time is the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. We have just published a Report with the title ‘Who’s still afraid of enlargement?’ which asks for equal treatment for the European citizens of the new member states. In July Italy took the decision to abolish the existing restrictions: that’s a step forwards. This decision – that is or hope – should be applied to the two new member states”. Petermann: “We will continue in the last months of this year to discuss the future of Europe on the basis of proposals made by some countries or by individual personalities. But the priority problems are the efforts to curb clandestine immigration, terrorism and the external relations of the Eu”.