MEPs clash over the constitution

By Dana Spinant

Date: 27/10/05

European Parliament's smaller parties are to clash with the assembly's two biggest groups, the centre-right EPP-ED and the Party of European Socialists, over the fate of the stalled EU constitution.

At the heart of the dispute is what answer should be given to the question: what happens in Europe if the people say 'No'? For Andrew Duff, a UK Liberal, and Johannes Voggenhuber, an Austrian Green, the answer should be a broad 'European debate', followed by an eventual re-negotiation of the constitution, before putting a new text to a vote in the member states, including France and the Netherlands, whose citizens rejected it in referenda this spring.

The pair have drafted for the Parliament's constitutional affairs committee a report on the future of the EU to be adopted in plenary session in December.

But for the EPP-ED and the Socialists, member states should press ahead with the ratification of the constitution in its present form, trying to win acceptance from those who initially rejected it.

For them, opening a process of re-negotiation would be tantamount to declaring the constitution dead, after 13 member states have ratified it and the European Parliament has backed it overwhelmingly.

German Socialist Klaus Hänsch said that EU leaders should "stick to what we've got" and convince citizens of the necessity to back the text. But Voggenhuber retorted that "we haven't got anything".

He said that putting the same text back in front of citizens would deliver a death-blow to the constitution. "People want to know what happens when they say 'No'. The deadly answer would be 'nothing'. 'We distract you for a while, we convene some inter-governmental meetings, we issue some statements about growth and we ask you to vote again'."

He warned that to do so would "kill the constitution for a generation".

Jens-Peter Bonde, leader of the Independence /Democracy group, said it was "unbelievable" to ask the people who rejected it to vote on the same text. "They would not just get 55% against, they would get 70% against," he said.

But the Socialists and the centre-right insisted that Parliament's report should present a set of options on what could be done to get approval for the constitution from all member states. These options could include continuing the ratification and seeking a new vote in France and the Netherlands, perhaps when new leaders were in power; splitting the constitution into two, with Parts I and II, on institutional matters, being put to a vote separately, and part III on policies, which has sparked more controversy among voters, left aside, or; starting negotiations on a new text, if nothing else worked.

Alex Stubb, a Finnish centre-right MEP, said: "We should follow the procedure which is in the treaty, which has envisaged something in case we have ratification problems."

According to the constitution itself, if 20 member states have approved the constitution by 29 October 2006, then the EU leaders would be able to study the situation and take a decision. Parliament's big groups are insisting that an eventual decision to amend the constitution should be taken then, not now.

German Socialist Jo Leinen, chairman of the constitutional affairs committee, said the report should not talk about re-negotiation but about 'improvement' of the constitution.

This would leave the way open to keeping the text as it was but adding declarations or protocols which would make the refuseniks happy.

"The French are keen on having more social policies, so we could add a declaration or a protocol on 'social Europe'," he said. And "a declaration on subsidiarity could be added to accommodate the Dutch wishes," he added.

But smaller parties said that this would not be enough to win over public opinion.

Article reports on a dispute between Parliamentary groups at the European Parliament on a strategy that could save the Constitutional Treaty for Europe, the ratification of which had been rejected in referenda in France and the Netherlands in May/June 2005. Parliament was to adopt a report in December 2005 drafted for its Constitutional Affairs Committee by Andrew Duff, a UK Liberal, and Johannes Voggenhuber, an Austrian Green. But the Parliament's two largest groups seemed in opposition to the suggestion of a possible re-negotiation of the Treaty.

• Primary Source

European Commission: A Constitution for Europe http://europa.eu/constitution/index_en.htm

---