[autom.vertaling] [ Commentaar ] de bladeren Europa van IGC in dark (en)

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - The Intergovernmental Conference due to start in Rome this coming Saturday appears to be following the trend set by the electricity companies to leave us all in the dark.

The next stage of the debate about the future of Europe will be held behind closed doors without public access. Is this the way the most important decisions in politics should be taken?

The 25 member state governments will meet in private over the next few months to agree a final text for the European constitution. The basis for their discussion will be the draft constitution drawn up by the Convention over the last 18 months. My fear now is that this draft, which was painstakingly put together to reflect the different interests and perceptions from different parts of our continent, will now be destroyed in private session.

Lack of openness

The Convention itself was almost a model on how to prepare amendments to a constitution. The draft text and all the possible amendments were published. The sessions took place in public. And there was plenty of access for the public.

The IGC, on the other hand, looks to be very different. Open meetings will be replaced by closed ones. Public discussion will be replaced by leaks and off-the-record briefings. The interests of the citizens will take second place to the interests of the civil servants.

Re-read the Laeken declaration that launched the Convention at the end of 2001, and you find that it says this about the role of the citizens in the EU at present:

"they feel that deals are all too often cut out of their sight and they want better democratic scrutiny."

A more perfect description of the IGC could not be found. Either the authors of the Laeken declaration were very prescient, or the organisers of the IGC have yet to move with the times.

Convention deal should not be torn apart

The proposals that the IGC will be starting from - the draft constitution proposed by the Convention - have already had the endorsement of the member state governments by virtue of the fact that they participated in the Convention and supported its outcome. It would be dishonest for them to say one thing in public and a different thing in private.

It would also be futile. The different arguments about the clauses of the draft Constitution have already been aired and compared: the member state governments have nothing new to say that has not already been said.

The outcome of the Convention was by no means perfect - compromises rarely are - but it is hard to see how it can be improved upon now. If any member state thinks it can make a small change to the draft text, the others will think the same. Twenty five sets of small amendments would add up to an enormous amount of change. The deal that was carefully put together would come apart like wet newspaper.

Let us hope that the IGC is short and sweet, and that it recognises a good deal when it sees one. There is no need for the IGC to rewrite the draft constitution and it would be unacceptable if it were to try. Europe doesn't need any more decisions in the darkness. It's time to turn on the lights.

RICHARD LAMING - is Director of Federal Union, the British federalist campaigning organisation, and works in public affairs for commercial interests in London and Brussels. He writes here in a personal capacity.