Press release

 

Enrique BARÒN CRESPO (PES, ES), co-rapporteur, argued that the period of reflection had proved useful, as it now enabled issues to be taken into account such as climate change, globalisation, the fight against terrorism and the dialogue between civilisations. 

 

He backed the German presidency's efforts to plan an intergovernmental conference (IGC) to take place under the next presidency in the second half of this year, saying he believed that "it should be possible to find common ground".   Above all, it was crucial that the European Parliament, the Commission and national parliaments be represented at the IGC.  The aim must be to create "a political organisation in the first rank of democracies in the world".

 

Elmar BROK (EPP, DE), co-rapporteur, said it was important not to jeopardise the "success story" that was the EU.  There must be no two-tier Europe and "no going it alone" on matters such as globalisation, fighting terrorism and energy security, on which action could clearly be taken more effectively at European level. 

 

At the same time we must make it clear that the EU is not a state and does not seek to replace nation states.  Among advances contained in the constitution which he highlighted were greater transparency, citizens' rights and new relations with national parliaments. He particularly stressed the value of majority voting in Council "in order to combat terrorism and crime more effectively".  And since Europe is built on values, the Charter of Fundamental Rights is also crucial. Mr Brok's overriding concern was that the IGC must preserve the substance of the constitutional treaty.

 

 

This a balanced report, which paves the way for future talks and is "consistent with the German Presidency's aims for the June summit", began German Minister for State for Europe Günther GLOSER, for the German Presidency. He agreed that Parliament's support was crucial and that it should be fully involved in any new intergovernmental conference.

 

The treaty architecture was still contentious but the institutional package must not be unravelled, and a willingness to compromise on all sides was required.  Whatever the approach, "the outcome should be intelligible to the people". Public debate had highlighted many concerns that needed to be taken into account, including climate change, Common Foreign and Security Policy, and measures to combat organised crime. Polls showed that people were not against the EU per se, but they did want an EU that worked, i.e. one that delivered answers.

 

The aim was for the June summit to produce substantive guidelines for an intergovernmental conference, concluded Mr Gloser.

 

 

The European Commission welcomes the report, and "shares its main thrust", said Commission Vice-President Margot WALLSTRÖM.

 

Two years after the launch of the reflection period, the world, and the political context, were still changing. The EU had found a new consensus on some highly political dossiers and issues, such as agreeing a new financial package for the years to come, but the difficulties that the constitutional treaty sought to remedy "have basically not been solved", she said.

 

The constitutional treaty was "a compromise which at this stage is difficult to improve but easy to unravel". The intergovernmental conference needed a clear mandate and a clear goal, i.e. a new treaty to be in force before the 2009 European elections.  If an IGC were convened, the Commission would be ready to bring forward its opinion in early July. A solution was needed that can "command a true and durable consensus". However, ambition is also essential - a "lowest common denominator" solution might bring short-term relief, but it could store up problems for the future. She agreed that Parliament should be closely involved in the IGC and that efforts should be pursued to engage citizens and civil society in an effective dialogue about the future of Europe.

 

The major part of work on the substance of the constitutional treaty remained valid, and its innovations needed to be protected. "The Community method must be protected, including the Commission's right of initiative". Among other key points were the single-pillar structure, the single legal personality, advances in qualified majority voting and "the enhanced role of the European Parliament". The Commission also remained attached to the binding nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

 

 

The first of the group speakers was Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO (EPP-ED, ES) who began by referring to a story by Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea, in which a man catches a fish after a great struggle, but with "little flesh, only bones." Mr Méndez de Vigo said that "the European Parliament does not want to see this happen with the constitutional treaty." We need to listen to those people "who want to improve the constitutional treaty", he said, not just to "those who want to lower the bar."

 

For the Socialists, Jo LEINEN (PES, DE) said that "the substance of the constitutional treaty has to be preserved, but the presentation could be changed if necessary." The European Parliament is, he said, "against the idea of a mini-treaty." It is also against a treaty with "all sorts of important limbs hacked off."  Mr Leinen concluded by stating that "we would like a constitutional treaty 'plus' rather than a constitutional treaty 'minus'"

 

For the ALDE group, Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK) said the Parliament was looking forward to "playing a part in supporting the IGC" and to a "renegotiating and repackaging of the constitutional treaty."  He believed that "the public mood is turning" and that despite the referendum results in France and the Netherlands, there was "a growing realisation that it is not in the interest of those countries to be inside a Union that is too feeble to act." 

 

Brian CROWLEY (IE), for the UEN group, argued that it was "important to listen to all the citizens of the EU". Not only the French and Dutch people were worried about the Constitution.  He believed the Brok/Barón Crespo report came at a good moment, when the Council needed to be "nudged" in the right direction. Like other speakers, he believed the "core of the text" of the Constitution must be preserved.

 

On behalf of the Green group, Johannes VOGGENHUBER (Greens/EFA, AT) strongly supported the report.  He said "we must show governments we believe in fundamental rights and reform of the institutions".  However, he warned, this Parliament has in the past "not been prepared to go to the wire". It must now "stand up for what it believes". The Constitution was "the right answer", including to those who wanted to safeguard a "social Europe".

 

Francis WURTZ (FR), for the GUE/NGL group, pointed to an apparent contradiction in the report: it sought both to allay fears, by stating that "Many of the misgivings expressed related to the context, rather than the content", and also to open the way to achieving a settlement "possibly under a different presentation"! Presentation was not everything, he stressed: "Neo-liberal free trade zeal" has consequences that are genuinely unacceptable to citizens. The solution was to hold a wide public debate and then put the outcome of the constitutional process to popular referenda.

 

For his group, Bastiaan BELDER (IND/DEM, NL) echoed Mr Wurtz's concern about the need to distinguish between "content" and "packaging", and said it would be unacceptable to change only the latter. The intergovernmental conference must be ready not only to debate content, but compromise, he said.

 

The truth, according to Bruno GOLLNISCH (FR), speaking for the ITS group, is that "you want to create a European superstate, despite what Mr Brok has said".  A system which contains "endless powers which are no longer assigned to particular pillars", Mr Gollnisch added, "is a European state."  Concluding, Mr Gollnisch stated "This is the reality; you're trying to conceal it. It is dishonest."

 

Jim ALLISTER (NI, UK), for the non-aligned Members, began by saying that "No is really not a difficult word to understand", adding that "France and Holland didn't express concern, they expressed rejection."  The report, he continued, "will do nothing to move us on, because it still insists on everything that has been rejected." In conclusion, he said "you cannot force on us all a constitutional treaty already rejected, no matter how you might disguise or repackage it."

 

 

Referring to Mr Allister's speech, Richard CORBETT (PES, UK) argued that "equally, the word 'yes' is not difficult to understand", and that "we are in a situation where a large majority has said 'yes'."  Mr Corbett said that "it is right to find a solution capable of ratification by all 27" but he added that "the issue of the substance of the constitutional treaty will have to be addressed." It is essential that we "try to keep those practical reforms...that make the EU capable of functioning as it continues to enlarge."

 

 

For the Council, Mr Gloser said it would be "a shame if the work done over the past few years proved to have been all for nothing"  He pointed out, however, that in parliamentary debates nothing was hidden and indeed, at the Nice IGC, parliaments from all countries had been represented, including those which were not yet Member States.  So it was not true to say something had been "rammed down people's throats". Nor was it true that the German presidency simply "wants a success" for its own sake.  It wanted a result because there were good practical reasons for having a constitutional treaty.

 

For the Commission, Mrs Wallström did not want to open a "Pandora's Box" with a new debate on the constitution, though she recalled pointedly that Hope had been the last thing to come out.  She asked whether it was ultimately "about weighing No votes against Yes votes or about explaining the issues" to the public.  She stressed that Europe now faced new challenges, for example on energy, migration and climate change.  Decisions had to be taken about "who does what" and the institutional issues were inseparable from this political context.