Constitutional crisis: will voters shun the treaty?

Date: 17/02/05

Two MEPs give sharply opposing views on the constitution and on how people should vote in referenda

Constitution supporters must deploy a smart strategy to win over sceptical voters, says Jo Leinen

The European constitution is indispensable for the historic project of a democratic, transparent EU which is capable of action. The constitution signed by the 25 heads of state and government is a great step forward: it improves the EU for its citizens because the Union becomes more understandable and citizens have new possibilities to participate and the Union becomes more efficient and effective.

Since the EU constitution is technically speaking still an international treaty, it has to be ratified according to the national rules in each member state. It is in the vital interests of the national governments and in fact of all pro-European political forces, to ensure that the constitution is approved by Europe's citizens, especially in the ten or so member states where referenda are being held. Without the important institutional changes (more qualified majority voting, based on a fair system of double majority, a new EU foreign minister and a Commission president elected by the European Parliament, for example) an EU of 25 or more member states will not be able to meet citizens' expectations.

Unfortunately it was not at this stage politically possible to make the third stage of the EU constitutional development (after the Convention and the intergovernmental conference (IGC)), a European process, with an EU-wide referendum on the same date, asking a European question: do we want to make our Union fit for the future? In the present situation of 25 national debates on ratification, some with, some without a referendum, it is even more important that all supporters of the constitution work together to highlight that this is a European project.

The national governments have to play a key role in emphasising not the small advantages which they managed to extract from their partners in the IGC, but the great improvements for all Europeans: the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, more democracy through a European citizens' initiative, a framework to develop Europe's voice in the world.

The EU also have to play an active part in these debates. The European Parliament has voted overwhelmingly to support the constitution - it is now our task to go to the different member states and explain to the citizens what Europe and the constitution are all about. The European Commission as the official "guardian" of the treaties has to provide information on the constitution. The political parties at European and at national level must mobilise the citizens and tell them clearly: Europe is our common future, and for Europe to work we need this constitution.

Most importantly, the constitution must be presented as an issue of and for the citizens and not just the elites. Civil society must be empowered to convince the people about the new opportunities contained in the constitution. Sports clubs, organisations and associations (from fields like youth, culture, health, environment etc) must be active partners in the constitutional dialogue with the citizens.

The ratification debate is now picking up momentum. If, by the end of next year, one country experiences difficulties in ratifying this document, the European Council has to find a solution. Clearly a 'No' to the constitution is a 'No' to a democratic and strong Europe.

The country in question should be given a second chance to reconsider its position.

One country should not be able to block all other member states in moving forward. A definite 'No' from a member state would mean the isolation of that country and its self-inflicted withdrawal from the constitutional Europe. This is what is at stake in the decision for or against the European constitution.

The ratification of the new treaty is therefore a test for the resolve of civil society and the political class in the EU to make the historic project of a united continent a reality.

• German Socialist MEP Jo Leinen chairs the European Parliament's constitutional affairs committee.

There is an alternative to the constitution, argues Timothy Kirkhope

That there should be nail-biting in Brussels over the future of the constitution is no surprise to me.

As a member of the Constitutional Convention established by the European Council in December 2001, I argued forcefully throughout its deliberations for a clear alternative vision for the EU. I took as my basic text the spirit of the original Laeken Declaration which set this process in train. At Laeken, Europe's leaders spoke of the need to bring the institutions of the EU closer to the people as well as the desirability of simplifying the arcane relationships between these institutions. For me, this was the heart of the issue - and still is. As the Convention became increasingly embroiled in intricate constitutional navel-gazing, I drafted an alternative document entitled A Simplifying Treaty. In essence, I made clear that a simplifying treaty to improve the workings of the institutions and to bring them closer to the citizen was not only in accordance with the hopes at Laeken, but desirable as we moved towards an EU of 25 member states.

I argued in the Convention that the EU had to break free from the historical tendency to accumulate more powers to the centre, thus diminishing the importance of national legislatures which are the very core of democratic accountability and the focus of national identity. Sadly, the Convention chose to ignore my constructive ideas. By the time the focus moved to the intergovernmental conference, the die was cast. The role of national parliaments merited only a cursory mention in the final version of the constitution.

The final draft of the Constitution was one which not only reduced the powers of the member states, but opened the door to a new era for integration. New EU competences, new 'shared competences', a binding Charter of Fundamental Rights, legal personality for the Union, a president, a foreign minister. A Union that will be permitted to encroach in areas which should remain the preserve of the nation state: social policy, immigration and asylum policy, justice matters, defence and security and foreign policy. These developments strike at the very core of the sovereignty of nations, and reinforce a sense of alienation among ordinary people that is potentially dangerous.

The British prime minister initially played down concerns over the centralising and integrationist thrust of this red-blooded text. Ironic then that he was forced to concede a referendum amid growing hostility among the British people, as well as doubts and concerns in other member states. Our long history of developing common law as the basis for righting wrongs and protecting human rights and rightly developing the redress available to citizens without the need for a written constitution is the fundamental cornerstone of our democracy. We are instinctively and rightly sceptical of the need for a written constitution at home; how much more alien then is one drawn up under the guidance of a former president of the French Republic, however distinguished and able he may be.

It irritates me when I am labelled 'anti-European' simply because I oppose this constitution. Yes, there are parties and individuals in my country and elsewhere in Europe who are hostile to membership of the Union. I do not share their views. But those who promulgate the cause of deeper integration as the only future for this continent have simply decided not to listen to voices like mine which warn of the dangers of 'more Europe' for its own sake. The road to ratification will be a rocky one precisely because European citizens perceive, rightly, that their leaders have broken the spirit of Laeken in pursuit of an ideology. They could have chosen a future anchored in the nation state to which most people, certainly in my country, owe their primary allegiance.

The EU may have to think again as the peoples' views are sought in the coming referenda. I am confident that, in the final analysis, the vision of Europe as a genuine partnership of nation states may yet prevail.

• Timothy Kirkhope is leader of the British Conservative MEPs.

Two MEPs give sharply opposing views on the constitution and on how people should vote in referenda.

• Primary Source