Tribune
| 18/10/2006
"Reflection pause", "Plan D for dialogue, democracy and debate", there is no lack of expressions from the Council and the Commission following the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitutional Treaty. And yet, in spite of occasional bursts of activity, the debate has been sluggish. As suggested by Jacques Delors, the European Union seems stuck in a "light coma". In the absence of a miracle cure, further thinking is highly recommended. Having offered its initial analyses and suggestions after May 29, 2005, Notre Europe wishes to reignite the debate by publishing a pamphlet by Andrew Duff, Member of the European Parliament. Its title is explicit: Plan B: How to Save the European Constitution.
Andrew Duff, like many of his fellow-members of the European Parliament, does not share the recent proposals of Nicolas Sarkozy regarding a "mini institutional Treaty". Even if in favour of a renegotiation of the third part on the policies of the Union, the constitutional Treaty represents for him a global compromise, which balances various interests. In fact, many analysts still see in the draft Constitutional treaty a useful step for the EU, as demonstrated by the reactions to a stimulating article by Andrew Moravcsik.
The German government, on its part, frowns upon the notion of "cherry picking" bits and pieces out of the Constitution. However, the German presidency will need to put aside its own aspirations and act as a neutral mediator, while the 1st half of 2007 will witness various important national elections, not least the French presidential election.
Today, the debate is whether EU governments should adopt a "mini" or "maximum" version of a revised treaty. If we opt for a mini reform, should the ensuing text, as Nicolas Sarkozy suggests, be negotiated in front of EU institutions? In a forthcoming article on the European crisis published for Notre Europe, Karl Lamers stresses that the failure of the ratifications entails the lack of urgent reforms of EU decision-making procedures. These reforms are urgent in an enlarged Europe Union.
However, are these institutional reforms as "consensual" as commonly suggested? Disagreements regarding the voting system of "double majority" and Poland's dislike for such a formula suggest that they are not.
Is it necessary, as some propose, to use foreign policy to revive the process of institutional reform? European citizens are eager for a greater role of the EU on the international scene. However, forthcoming papers by Jean de Ruyt and Gilles Andreani, that Notre Europe will soon publish, show that such a choice presents advantages as well as obstacles.
Trying to find a way out of the current institutional crisis through a "minimal" solution faces an unavoidable reality: the draft treaty is the product of a long-term negotiation within the Convention. It reflects intricate and complex compromises. Changing one part questions the whole construction.
Furthermore, fifteen Member States -soon eighteen with Finland, Bulgaria and Romania- have already ratified the treaty. The "maximum" option which consists in renegotiating on the basis of the current draft treaty is certainly more ambitious. It has the merit however of recognising the democratic and political value of the agreement reached so far.
