Twelve months after” “

Just twelve months have gone by since the ceremony of the signing of the “Treaty adopting a Constitution for Europe”, held with great solemnity on the Capitol in Rome on 29 October 2004. Yet today it seems that a veil of silence has fallen over the fundamental Charter of the EU, which had aroused so many hopes among the supporters of the political, as well as economic, integration of the continent. After the French and Dutch “no” in the spring, the 25 agreed on a “pause for reflection” regarding the process of ratification of the Constitution: an obligatory passage to reach the effective entering into force of the 448 articles that define the values, objectives and policies of the EU. But what does the future hold out for the Constitution?. The stages towards the Magna Charta . The Constitutional Treaty is the result of the work of the Convention (February 2002-June 2003), an intergovernmental Conference (October 2003-June 2004), several European summits, innumerable inter-institutional debates, contributions of experts (numerous studies on the question have now been published in the various countries of the Union), and heated cultural and political debates: it will suffice to recall that on the “Christian roots” in the Preamble or those on the right of veto or majority vote within the European Council. Approved during the summit in Brussels on 17-18 June, the Constitution was signed by the heads of state and of government of member states precisely a year ago, before being subjected to the process of national ratification. Fourteen countries have already ratified it, while in two cases (France and Holland) it has been rejected in a popular referendum. The European Council of 16-17 June 2005 then decreed the famous “pause for reflection”, while awaiting better times. The question ought to return to the order of the day during the Austrian Presidency of the EU in the first half of 2006. A heritage to be shared. One of the more critical problems concerns the perception citizens have of the Constitution. It delineates the vocation and profile of the “common home”, establishes its institutional architecture, and defines its internal competences and international role. If it is to pass from “theory” to daily experience, the Treaty must first become a heritage shared by the 450 million European citizens. That is a necessary condition, spelt out by various authorities. Presenting the agreement reached between EU leaders on 18 June 2004, Irish premier Bertie Ahern, the then President of the European Council, had in fact declared: “This Constitution is a great step forward; we have given the go ahead to a text that will remain valid for several generations. We have thought of the man in the street”: hence the urgent need to “explain the text to our fellow-citizens”. And his compatriot Pat Cox, then President of the European Parliament, added: “What we now need to do is transmit the content and relevance of the Constitution to all the citizens of the Union”. “Familiarising Europeans with the text”. The same concern was also expressed at the time outside the institutional seats of the EU. Thus Josep Mirò, president of the Convention of Christians for Europe, applauded the result achieved, even though he did not disguise the difficulties before us: “The work on the implementation of the Constitution is now beginning and regards citizens, who must in some way be participants in the process of ratification in the various states”. According to Heinz-Hermann Elting, vice-president of the St. Benedict Institute (which supports the cause of beatification of Robert Schuman), “this Treaty undoubtedly represents a positive signal for people, who can see in it a more precise and transparent face of the Union. We need to familiarise Europeans with the text [of the Constitution] and enable them to understand the importance of the EU for our future”. Starting out anew from public opinion. Since then, however, the process of enabling the people of Europe to “know” and “share” the Constitution has been underestimated. In the twelve countries in which ratification was obtained by parliamentary means it may be said that there was no real public debate, such as to help citizens to understand and share the principles and rules sanctioned by the Constitution. Undoubtedly positive, on the other hand, was the debate that took place in Spain, Luxembourg, France and the Netherlands, which opted for a referendum instead. But whereas in the first two countries a convinced “yes” emerged, the campaign for the vote in Paris and Amsterdam intersected with a series of other issues (immigration, unemployment, opening of negotiations with Turkey, directive for the liberalization of services, and so on), taking precedence over the merits of the Constitutional Treaty itself, which was finally rejected by the electors (respectively on 29 May and 1st June 2005). The dual “no” crippled the Constitution, which has for the time being been placed on hold, although there is now a widespread conviction that a Europe so large, populous and institutionally complex has a need for clear principles and rules to be able to proceed. And the only way out of the impasse seems to be by convincing public opinion and ensuring the democratic involvement of European citizens themselves.