On reflection, the constitution might be saved

Date: 27/10/05

The European Parliament is split over how to proceed with the EU constitution. While the assembly's smaller groups believe member states and the EU institutions should launch a broad debate, amend the treaty and then seek ratification, the centre-right EPP-ED and the Socialists think that member states should continue the ratification of the present text and deal with those who rejected it at the end. They fear that a decision to renegotiate the text would kill the constitution.

EU leaders have various options but none is likely to please entirely the citizens of the two states who rejected it (France and the Netherlands) or those of the 13 states who ratified it (Luxembourg and Spain by popular vote).

The options include:

• continuing ratification of the present text and, at the end, seeking a new vote in those states that failed to ratify. This would follow the scenario envisaged by the constitution itself, which says that if 20 member states have approved the constitution by 29 October 2006, then the EU leaders will be able to study the situation and take a decision. Such a decision could include adding declarations or protocols to the constitution or granting opt-outs to the refuseniks;
• splitting the constitution into two and leaving on one side the most contentious part on policies. In addition to the political problems that it poses - it might be regarded as a trick to get around decisions to reject the constitution - legal experts doubt this is a legally acceptable solution. Parliament's legal affairs committee has advised against this;
• starting negotiations on a new constitution, with a new and more open Convention, where citizens would be better represented and where the decisions would be taken in a more transparent way. The new text would then be put to a vote in all member states, perhaps at the same time as the 2009 European Parliament elections. That would allow or indeed oblige political parties to campaign on the EU constitution, it would raise the stakes of the elections and make the preceding campaign more 'European'.

Whatever the solution chosen, politicians must avoid giving the impression that they follow polls when they like them and ignore them when they don't.

But the way forward cannot be chosen now, since those who rejected the constitution have not yet spoken. Citizens in France and the Netherlands should be given the opportunity to say whether separate protocols added to the present text would be enough to accommodate their concerns, whether they could only back a new text or if they are rejecting any constitution at all.

After such a broad and inclusive debate in the member states which encountered ratification problems, and indeed in all member states that need to ratify, EU leaders could decide on the best way forward.

On the eve of the referenda, opinion polls showed that 62% of citizens in France and 65% in the Netherlands believed that if the result was 'No', the treaty could be renegotiated. In addition, 75% of voters in France believed that the constitution was indispensable for the continuation of European integration (41% in the Netherlands). But 66% of the Dutch believed that a renegotiation would allow a better defence of their interests.

These figures seem to suggest that the favourite option of those citizens in these countries is a renegotiation.

But the choice to renegotiate the constitution is not an easy one, since the choice of the Spanish and Luxembourg citizens, who approved the constitution, cannot easily be discarded. Jacques Delors, former president of the European Commission, said at a recent debate in Luxembourg that it is a "moral question" not to ignore the positive results of referenda in the two member states and the parliamentary ratification in another 11 states.

The dilemma over the stalled EU constitution is delicate and the EU institutions should not rush to come up with a solution. EU leaders announced at their June summit the launch of a reflection period on the future of Europe and of its constitution.

The reflection has only just started and it is perhaps premature for Parliament to be drawing its conclusions and proposing a solution. The constitution can only be adopted after an improvement - whether of the text itself, of the involvement of EU citizens in the European debate or of the economic situation in Europe.

Analysis feature on the prospects for saving the European Constitution which had been rejected in national referenda in France and the Netherlands in May/June 2005.

• Primary Source

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

---