[autom.vertaling] Het breken van de impasse over de Grondwet: Leden van het Europese Parlement stellen een ' Europese dialogue' (en)

MEPs agreed on Tuesday on the need to organise a public debate on the future of European integration. They also agreed that the aim of such a 'European dialogue' should be to have a Constitution in place by the end of 2009. However, opinions differed as to how the dialogue should be structured. These were the conclusions of a debate at the Constitutional Affairs Committee on a working document on the period of reflection by Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK) and Johannes VOGGENHUBER (Greens/EFA, AT).

In response to the June European Council's decision to install a period of dialogue, Mr Duff and Mr Voggenhuber (the "co-rapporteurs") have put forward a two-stage plan to wind up the debate on Europe. According to Andrew Duff, " a period of reflection without a focus upon a clear target would be meaningless and possibly a disaster ". At the first stage, the aim is to reach basic agreement on key democratic issues, e.g. the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the need for more transparency and the citizens' legislative initiative. The result would be an interim constitutional text by the end of 2006. A second stage would be devoted to addressing criticisms and controversial issues relating to the future of the Union, such as enlargement, the EU's global role and the European social and economic model. Lastly, a new text should be discussed at a Convention throughout 2007 and 2008 and possibly put to the vote in a Europe-wide consultative referendum.

According to the co-rapporteurs, the crisis can be overcome only if national and regional parliaments, political parties, social partners and civil society are involved in the debate. Johannes Voggenhuber said "The great majority of European citizens want a revision of the Constitution and are not asking for the process to stop ". Many MEPs recalled the results of two surveys conducted by Eurobarometer, showing that 75% of French respondents thought the Constitution indispensable, while 65% of Dutch respondents agreed that rejection of the Constitution would allow it to be renegotiated.

Despite the consensus on the general purpose of the period of reflection, several MEPs criticised the timing proposed in the working document as unrealistic and stressed that no solution should be excluded at this stage. Alexander STUBB (EPP-ED, FI), speaking on behalf of his group, said to have a first draft by 2006 would be too early. Contrary to the working document, he proposed to debate first the controversial issues, and only afterwards the constitutional arrangements. Richard CORBETT (PES, UK) said "W e should not pre-empt the conclusions. No option should be left out yet ", thus agreeing with Bronislaw GEREMEK (ALDE, PL), who argued that the reflection period should be " an open-ended process ". Jens-Peter BONDE (IND/DEM, DK) said the 'Yes' and 'No' camps should be represented on equal footing. The committee chairman Jo LEINEN (PES, DE) said that conclusions should be drawn at the end of the European dialogue, probably during the German presidency in 2007.

Margaret WALLSTROM, Commission Vice-President, later came to the Constitutional Affairs Committee for a discussion with MEPs on the role of the Commission and the EP during the reflection period. Commenting on the working document, she said: " I found too little on the content and a little too much on the constitutional engineering ". During the debate, Members stressed the importance of the constitutional arrangements and criticised the Commission's inactivity.

The discussion on the period of reflection will continue during a symposium organised by the committee on 13 and 14 October with academic experts. An own-initiative report, based on the working document and on the different proposals, is to be presented by the two co-rapporteurs by the end of October.

03/10/2005

Committee on Constitutional Affairs

Chair : Jo Leinen (PES, DE)