The European Parliament,
- having regard to the Treaty of Nice,
- having regard to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,
- having regard to its resolution of 12 January 20051 on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe,
- having regard to the Declaration by the Heads of State or Government on the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, European Council, 16-17 June 2005,
- having regard to the opinions delivered by the Committee of the Regions on ... and the European Economic and Social Committee on ... at the request of the European Parliament,
- having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
- having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, the Committee on Transport and Tourism, the Committee on Regional Development, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Culture and Education, the Committee on Legal Affairs, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality and the Committee on Petitions (A6-0000/2005),
Whereas
A. The Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was signed by the twenty-five Member States of the European Union on 29 October 2004,
B. The Constitution was drafted by the European Convention which achieved new levels of openness, pluralism and democratic legitimacy,
C. The European Parliament endorsed the Constitution by a majority of over two-thirds as "a good compromise and a vast improvement on the existing treaties ... [which] will provide a stable and lasting framework for the future development of the European Union that will allow for further enlargement while providing mechanisms for its revision when needed"2,
D. Fourteen Member States, representing a majority of the population of the Union, have since ratified the Constitution according to their own constitutional requirements3,
E. France and the Netherlands, following referendums held on 29 May and 1 June respectively, have failed to ratify the Constitution - with the result that the ratification process has subsequently stalled in most of the remaining nine Member States,
F. Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union provides that the Constitution will not enter into force unless and until it is ratified by all Member States,
G. It is necessary to respect the verdict of those Member States and their peoples which have ratified the Constitution as well as those which have not,
H. The No votes appear to have been rather more an expression of dissent at the present state of the Union than a specific objection to the constitutional reforms, but that, paradoxically, the result of the Noes is to maintain the status quo and block reform,
I. The European Council in June decided on a "period of reflection ... to enable a broad debate to take place in each of our countries, involving citizens, civil society, social partners, national parliaments and political parties"; the heads of government agreed that in the first half of 2006 they would "make an overall assessment of the national debates and agree how to proceed"4,
J. The heads of government declared that the ratification process could continue, although they also agreed that the original timetable for the entry into force of the Constitution (1 November 2006) would be extended,
K. The European Council, however, failed to give a clear focus to the period of reflection or to define methods, and has since been seen to lack both the political will and the capacity to stimulate and manage the European dialogue,
L. The European Commission is preparing to re-launch its communications policy without, however, giving a decisive political lead to a campaign to save the Constitution,
M. The national parliaments have declared their support for a series of joint parliamentary meetings that will 'stimulate, steer and synthesize' the European dialogue5,
N. There is in theory a number of options available to the Union - ranging from abandoning the constitutional project, seeking to continue with the present text, or embarking upon a complete re-write; a clear majority of French and Dutch voters seem to be in favour of a modification of the text6,
1. Confirms its commitment to reaching without undue delay a constitutional settlement of the future of Europe which strengthens parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, anchors fundamental rights, and enhances the capacity of the Union to act effectively at home and abroad; fears that without such a constitutional settlement it will not be possible for the Union to expect the loyalty of its citizens, to maintain the momentum of integration or to become a respectable partner in world affairs;
2. Recalls that the political problems and institutional weaknesses that the Convention was set up to address will persist - and, indeed, grow - unless and until there is a good settlement along the lines of the proposed Constitution;
3. Acknowledges that the ratification of the Constitution has now encountered insurmountable difficulties;
4. Rejects the establishment of core groups of certain Member States bound together by size or wealth; recalls that the Treaty of Nice does not facilitate enhanced cooperation between integrationist minded Member States across the whole range of policy; deplores any suggestion that coalitions of certain states could be formed outside the EU system;
5. Warns that a strategy based on the selective implementation of the Constitution risks destroying the consensus between the institutions and among Member States, thereby aggravating the crisis of confidence; supports exclusively, therefore, certain democratic reforms that could be introduced by revision of rules of procedure or inter-institutional agreement - such as transparency of law making in the Council of Ministers, introduction of a form of citizens' initiative, improvements to the comitology procedure, and the more rigorous scrutiny by Member State parliaments of EU affairs;
6. Proposes to use the current period of reflection to re-launch the constitutional project on the basis of a large public debate about the future of European integration; resolves that this European dialogue should clarify, deepen and democratise the consensus around the Constitution and address criticisms and find solutions where expectations have not been met;
7. Welcomes the beginnings of a fresh debate about the Union's policy direction but stresses that this must take place within the context of overcoming the constitutional crisis, and that policy prescriptions at EU level must relate directly to the rules, powers and procedures of the EU institutions as well as to the competences conferred on the EU by the Member States;
8. Insists that the dialogue should be conducted and coordinated across the Union, structured by common themes and in realistic stages according to an agreed framework for evaluation, and designed to lead to decisive political choices;
9. Warns that uncoordinated, narrowly focussed national debates will serve only to harden national stereotypes and accentuate divisions; and an imposed dialogue without political goals will be nebulous, even vacuous, thereby giving rise to public cynicism;
10. Proposes that a series of conferences between European and national parliamentarians - 'Parliamentary Forums' - should be organised in order to stimulate the debate and to shape, step by step, the necessary political conclusions;
11. Recognises the critical importance for the Parliament of avoiding a second failure of the constitutional project; commits itself therefore to playing a leading role in the European dialogue, in particular by publishing 'European Papers' on each of the big issues facing the Union which may be used as a common European template for the national debates and which should be used as the basis for the deliberations of the Parliamentary Forums;
12. Proposes that the first Parliamentary Forum be convened in the spring of 2006, in advance of the June meeting of the European Council, in order to hear reports from the French and Dutch parliaments about the negative referendum results and to discuss, on the basis of this Resolution, the structure of the European dialogue; the aim of this Forum is to make comprehensive recommendations to the European Council about how the Union should proceed to find the way out of the crisis;
13. Proposes that the outset of the European dialogue should analyse where the original consensus enshrined in the Constitution holds good and where the controversial questions lie;
14. Proposes to organise other Parliamentary Forums to address four priority questions about the future of Europe, as follows:
(i) what is the goal of European integration?
(ii) what role should Europe have in the world?
(iii) in the light of globalisation, what is the future of the European social and economic model?
(iv) how do we define the boundaries of the European Union?
15. Believes that a rich debate on these fundamental issues will open up new perspectives for European integration and prepare the ground for reform of the common policies in those areas where dissension exists;
16. Believes, moreover, that the European dialogue will only overcome the constitutional crisis if it engages not only each EU institution but also state and regional parliaments, local government, political parties, social partners, civil society and the academic community; puts particular value in this regard upon practical contributions from the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions;
17. Requests Member States to organise a large number of public meetings and media debates on the future of Europe - 'Citizens' Forums' - at national, regional and local level, structured along the commonly agreed themes, with the assistance of the Commission; urges the social partners and civil society organisations to get engaged in these debates;
18. Expects political parties to give much more prominence to the European dimension in both their internal debates and electoral campaigning;
19. Would welcome citizens' petitions that contribute to shaping the debate;
20. Urges the Commission and Council to give a greater priority to EU cultural and educational policy, and reiterates its budgetary proposal for increased funding of the PRINCE programme;
21. Suggests that the conclusions of the period of reflection should be drawn in the second half of 2007 according to the criteria set out in paragraph 1, and that a clear decision is reached at that stage about whether improvements to the Constitution are needed and, if so, how they should be undertaken;
22. Insists that if the outcome of the European dialogue demonstrates that the text of the Constitution has to be modified in order to renew consensus and facilitate ratification, the negotiation should treat the 2004 Constitution as a good first draft, seeking to maintain the key reforms that will improve the system of democratic governance of the EU and which have not proved controversial during the ratification process;
23. Insists, further, that if it is decided to revise the text extensively a mandate should be prepared for a new Convention to be held during 2008;
24. Calls on the members of the European Council to accept both individual and collective responsibility for bringing into force an eventual constitutional settlement; and insists that they coordinate more closely both the content and timing of the national campaigns and give evidence to the citizen of their political will and mutual solidarity;
25. Takes note of the European Commission's 'Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate', but calls on the Commission not only to deliver its communications strategy but also to show decisive political leadership to help the Union emerge from its current constitutional difficulties;
26. Urges that any revised Constitution be submitted to a consultative ballot across the EU at the same time as the next European Parliamentary elections in 2009 so as to give a popular verdict on its outcome;
27. Demands in any case that every effort is made to ensure that the eventual Constitution enters into force during 2009;
28. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, and to the Parliaments of the Member States, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee, the former Members of the European Convention, and the Parliaments and Governments of the accession and candidate countries.
1 OJ C 247 E, 6.10.2005, p. 88
2 European Parliament Resolution of 12.1.2005, see above
3 Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain
4 SN 117/05, 18 June 2005
5 XXXIV COSAC meeting, 10-11 October 2005
6 For example, 62% of the French and 65% of the Dutch say they want 'renegotiation' for a 'more social text'; Flash Eurobarometer 171-172
Draft report: Motion for a European Parliament resolution on the period of reflection: the structure, subjects and context for an assessment of the debate on the European Union (2005/2146(INI)