A delicate phase

“We must form a lobby among citizens, national MPs and MEPs to support the Constitution. We cannot expect any real support by the Governments of the 25, the majority of whom still believe in an inter-governmental Union, led by the national capitals”, says JO LEINEN, summing up the assessments of the “future of Europe” that emerged during a recent visit to Rome by the Constitutional Affairs Commission (AFCO) of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, of which Leinen is chairman. RATIFICATIONS AND POLITICAL DEBATE. The German MEP led a delegation composed of some ten exponents of various countries, including the Belgian Jean-Luc Dehaene, former Vice-President of the Convention, the German Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, the Dane Jens-Peter Bonde, and the Spaniards Inigo Méndez de Vigo and Carlos Carnero Gonzàles. Various meetings were planned for the visit to Rome: with Italian Head of State, Giorgio Napolitano, with exponents of the government and the two chambers of Parliament. Many questions were on the agenda: the process of ratification of the Constitution and the impasse created by the French and Dutch “no”; future EU enlargement; and the role of the EU in the world. “We reflected on possible strategies to overcome this delicate phase of integration – explains Leinen in a briefing to SirEurope -. It seems clear to everyone that the Constitution is a compromise. Yet the EU needs a fundamental text of this kind to be able to go forward. We need to proceed with the ratifications and at the same time insist on a wide-ranging debate involving citizens. This task is up to everyone and we need to proceed in a hurry. The European Council in June in fact has established that a firm decision on the Constitution will be taken by 2008; that may be too late, because the elections of the EP are due to take place in 2009, and there’s a risk that citizens may be even further disenchanted by Europe and desert the polls, thus further weakening the Community democracy”. THE EUROPE OF RESULTS. But what do citizens ask of the EU? Is it not perhaps the case that the Dutch and the French rejected more the “context” than the “text” of the Constitution? “Citizens want a Europe of results – adds Leinen -; they expect economic growth, jobs, security. The Union must perform better, but at the same time we need to increase its capacity to communicate with citizens, and bring home to them that without a constitutional treaty we cannot proceed”. “But there’s not just a problem of communication and results – intervenes ANDREW DUFF , English MEP and member of AFCO -. We are faced with a lack of European leadership; the parties have been unable to act as an intermediary between policy and citizens. Recently we have seen a change in the composition of the European Council: from the German and Italian governments we can expect a euro-convinced attitude, but it’s a commitment that ought to be generalized and the new member states too ought to be more active at the European level. “GOVERNMENTS ARE A CURB”. “I too am of the opinion that more divergences of opinion exist today among Europe’s governments than among its citizens – says the Austrian MEP JOHANNES VOGGENHUBER – . Two thirds of citizens say they are favourable to a more effective, more community-conscious Europe. But the national governments are not of this view, because they fear losing powers to Brussels and Strasbourg. I am also of the view that the electors of France and Holland rejected not the Europe of the future, but the Europe of today: an inward-looking Europe, distant from their life, a Europe that is short on transparency and democracy. To resolve this impasse, the EU must open itself up to citizens, show positive results, and become a credible voice in the world”. WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIAN ROOTS? “The need for the constitutional treaty was stressed by all our interlocutors – explains LAMBERTO DINI , chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Italian Senate, who received the delegation from the European Parliament -. The content and need of this text for the future of Europe were not explained to citizens as they ought. We have even seen a growth in the fears of those who regard European integration as a threat to social rights, to jobs, and to security. It’s not only the French whom the mythical Polish plumber has frightened! That’s why the effort to obtain positive results and achieve the entry into force of the Constitution must proceed in tandem”. Has not the failure to include any reference to the “Christian roots” of Europe in the Constitution had any effect on the negative attitude of many citizens? “In the Constitution – intervenes Jo Leinen – there is a clear reference to the religious roots of Europe. Moreover, the Constitution provides for a structured dialogue between the EU institutions and the churches. The text recognises the fundamental importance of faiths and religious communities in the continent, while at the same time reaffirming the secularism of the Community institutions”.