More or less Europe?

Different opinions, different solutions: the debate is heating up between those who want “more” and those who want “less” Europe. German Chancellor Merkel is stepping up her consultations in preparation for the summit of 21-22 June, which ought to define the road map for approving the Constitutional Treaty. The European Parliament for its part is holding auditions on the future of integration. A variety of positions is emerging within the EP, as expressed by the various political parties represented at Strasbourg. CONCENTRATING ON WHAT’S ESSENTIAL. “At this point, pragmatism must prevail over dogmatism and good will must be stronger than bad faith”, comments the German MEP JOSEPH DAUL , who heads the European People’s Party group in the EP. He is convinced that the current Presidency of the EU Council, held by his country in the first six months of this year, has done well to make institutional revival a priority for the process of integration. On the other hand, he says, “the rejection of the Constitution by the French and the Dutch suggests that it is not sufficiently legitimate, credible and effective in the eyes of the great majority of European citizens”. He says he is favourable to a new treaty, provided it comes into force before the European elections in 2009. The current stalemate could however be overcome “only if we concentrate on the essential things”, and these according to Daul are: “the extension of the qualified majority vote, the principle of subsidiarity and the redistribution of powers between EU and member states, a stable Presidency of the Council, common EU international representation and the Charter of Fundamental Rights”. The IGC AS THE WAY FORWARD. The head of the Socialist group, he too German, MARTIN SCHULZ , warns “those who want to destroy Europe”, i.e. those politicians who oppose the Constitution and wish to pursue the process of integration on the basis of the existing treaties: “Those who wish to return to Nice – sums up Schulz – should not come to the Intergovernmental Conference”. The IGC could, he thinks, be the best way to re-calibrate the text of the Constitutional Treaty and define the stages for its entry into force: it ought to be decided at the summit in June and take place under the Portuguese Presidency in the second half of this year. According to Schulz, “the European Union is a model of success because it has brought peace, social stability and economic growth and has exported its values to other countries. If that model is to be preserved, however, it needs to be modified”. STRONGER INSTITUTIONS. The English leader of the Liberal Democrats, GRAHAM WATSON , also puts the emphasis on the successes obtained by the Community in its first half century of life. “In the next fifty years – he explains – we will need to export the successes of Europe, since global challenges, such as climate change, the growth of the world’s population and nuclear proliferation, have shown the inadequacy of unilateralism”. So more Europe in the world, but also more integration within the old continent: “This – says Watson – is the key to competitiveness, security and justice… For these reasons it is vital to find an institutional solution in the next few months: only stronger institutions can build a stronger Europe”. Watson rejects “national vetoes on the Constitutional Treaty”, encourages Angela Merkel to pursue her commitment to a “high profile” agreement and urges that citizens be involved in a real democratic process. FROM RIGHT TO LEFT. “The Eurocrats of the Commission and Council breathed a sigh of relief on the occasion of the French presidential elections. For the election of Sarkozy, Royal or Bayrou would have permitted the Constitution to be re-launched”, comments JEAN-MARIE LE PEN , French MEP and exponent of the ITS group (Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty). The right-wing French politician has always been opposed to the adoption of a treaty with constitutional value. “The French – he explains – rejected the Constitution in a referendum, but now they are trying to bring it in by the back door”. BRIAN CROWLEY , Irish MEP and exponent of the conservative Europe of Nations group, puts the emphasis on a more precise definition of what tasks should belong to the EU and what “should remain of exclusive national competence”. Energy, pensions, immigration and internal security could, in his view, be managed “in a consensual way”, while “the other issues are better left to the member states”. The representative of the Greens, KATHALIJNE BUITENWEG , from Holland, offers another interpretation of the results of the referendum held in her country: “The citizens who voted against the Constitution in the Netherlands did not do so because they wanted less change in Europe. 80% of those who voted no – she maintains – did so because they wanted a more democratic Union and hence greater changes”. ERIK MEIJER , Dutch MEP of the unitary Left group in the EP, thinks the EU should take into account “the will of its citizens rather than the concerns of governments” in defining the process for adopting the Constitutional Treaty.