PARLEMENT EUROPÉEN

DG-INFO Direction de l’Information Service de Presse PE-DN/05/21 Constitution - Parliament sets out its views

Richard CORBETT (PES, UK) & Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO (EPP-ED, ES) Report on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004/2129(INI)) Doc.: A6-0070/2005 Procedure : Own-initiative Debate : 11.01.2005 Vote : 12.01.2005 (12 noon)

Richard CORBETT (PES, UK), co-rapporteur, stated that the Constitution would enable the EU to "upgrade from a 15 seat mini-bus to a full sized coach with seats for 25 and more." A larger bus would need a larger motor, stronger brakes and even an emergency brake. The Constitution sets out a new set of rules and provided greater clarity encompassed in a single treaty. It also sets out who is responsible for what, with clear procedures and and puts to rest the idea of creating a European super-state.

It would, he said, make the Union more effective with more decisions taken by qualified majority voting and would create a single EU Foreign Minister. The Union would also be more democratic, increasing the role of national parliaments. Compared with other international organisations, such as the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, the EU, he said, was by far the most democratic. The Constitution also gave more rights to citizens, including the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. While the text may not be perfect, he, nevertheless, endorsed his draft joint report to the House and was confident that Parliament would vote in favour of it.

Íñigo MÉNDEZ DE VIGO (EPP-ED, ES) reflected that Europe's founding fathers, Monnet, Schuman and Spinelli, would have seen the Constitution as a unique opportunity to guarantee the Union's values. The Constitution, he said, was built on pillars of democracy. It removed ambiguities from existing treaties. Europe, he said, was more than a simple economic market. The Constitution would remove the so-called democratic deficit from the EU, clarifying and strengthening roles at all levels of government. He too trusted that there would be a large vote in favour.

Political group speakers

Hans-Gert POETTERING (DE), for the EPP-ED group, said that the Constitution had "come a long way given the Nice Treaty as a basis". The EPP side of his group would be giving an unreserved "yes." He welcomed the explicit definition of the Union's values within the Constitution. Mr Poettering also recognised that many had wanted an explicit reference to Christianity or the EU's Judeo-Christian roots. Europe, he stressed, was based on national identity and its strength came from diversity. However, Europe could not be governed solely by intergovernmental methods and the Union's institutions were important. He also stressed the importance of the EU's Near Neighbourhood Policy and called for a single EU seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Martin SCHULZ (DE), for the PES group, recalled that the EU had been borne out of the despicable ways of fascism. Sixty years after the liberation of Auschwitz, the Constitution represented the unprecedented success of the EU as a supranational democratic organisation. He welcomed the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and stated that his group would support the draft resolution. The values included in the Constitution, he said, were universal values and were not dependent on religion, belief or creed. He called on all who believed in Europe to support and put their weight behind the Constitution.

Andrew DUFF (UK), for the ALDE group, stated that, in the past, Parliament had often adopted resolutions which were peppered with criticisms on the state of the treaties. This time, however, MEPs had been involved in the drafting of the text. The Constitution strengthened the EU, he said. It defined the relationship between citizens and authority and as Giscard d'Estaing put it, "between dreams and reality". He stated that "if you are for Europe, then you are for the Constitution". It gave the more powers and defined clearly who is responsible for what.

Monica FRASSONI (IT), for the Greens/EFA group, stated that the majority of her group would vote in favour of the draft resolution. Mrs Frassoni was satisfied that the Constitution made in the areas of sustainable development, increased transparency and simplified procedures. The IGC had made changes to the text adopted by the Convention which only diminished the Constitution. It would be inevitable that Euro-sceptics would oppose it but, in the end, it would mean more democracy at the European level.

Francis WURTZ (FR), for the GUE/NGL group, stated that the draft resolution focussed too much on changes to the existing treaties. The question was more fundamental: what kind of Europe do we want? Mr Wurtz stated that we needed a Europe that would control financial markets. He stated that his group was for Europe and for a more democratic Europe, far opposed to the views of the UKIP. His group also opposed the idea of settling conflict by force and advocated a new policy for international trade. His group would be voting no, but it was a "European no".

Philippe de VILLIERS (FR), for the IND/DEM group, stated that the key word missing from the debate was "sovereignty". He opposed the notion of supranational law, stating that there was no longer the possibility for a single nation to oppose a draft law given the number of decisions taken by majority, generated by a "Brussels bureaucracy".

Brian CROWLEY (IE), for the UEN group, stated that those who had opposed previous treaties were simply rehashing previous arguments about a loss of sovereignty. The Constitution, he said, was a good document which set out clearly the competencies of all levels of government and fully respected the powers of Member States, in particular the smaller ones.

Jim ALLISTER (UK), a non-aligned MEP, stated that the ultimate decision on the Constitution lay with the Member States and not the European Parliament. He stated that it was not simply a tidying up exercise as some in the UK had argued.

Other speakers

Ian HUDGHTON (Greens/EFA, UK) drafted the opinion for the Fisheries Committee and called on the House to support his proposed amendment which states: "Considers that, within the context of the other exclusive competences of the EU which are detailed in the Constitution, the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources is anomalous and unjustified".

Timothy KIRKHOPE (UK), the new leader of the UK Conservatives in the European Parliament, recalled that the goal of the Laeken declaration was of bringing Europe closer to the citizens. This had not been achieved through the Constitution. Europe did not need a Constitution, rather it needed a simplifying treaty. There was nothing anti-European about voting against the Constitution. He also criticised the amount of money being spent to mark the vote in Parliament on the European Constitution.

Nigel FARAGE (IND/DEM, UK) stated that so far it had been somewhat a "one sided exercise" and the way some had debated the Constitution it was like debating the "Second Coming". He too criticised "tax payers money being spent on promoting the Constitution". He also made further criticisms of Commissioner Siim KALLAS and accused the Parliament of "burying the truth". The whole process, he said, had been brought into disrepute. Marian HARKIN (ALDE, IE) said the Nice Treaty initially failed to win the support of the Irish people because politicians took the people for granted. This time, she said, we should ensure all citizens had the information they needed - she favoured sending every household a copy of the document, and the publication of a comparison of the aspects which already existed and those which were new. She said it would bring the EU closer to citizens, notably through the provision for one million EU citizens to have the power to formally call on the Commission to draw up a proposal.

Alyn SMITH (Greens/EFA, UK) said there were some things to admire in the Constitution, but many to dislike. His party (the SNP) would be recommending to the people of Scotland to vote against. He stated that his reasons were principally the inadequate provisions for subsidiarity, which left too small a role for the Scottish Parliament. The disaster of the Common Fisheries Policy showed, he said, the problems when decisions were made without considering the effect on individual nations. Overall, the Constitution did not sufficiently respect the dignity of Scotland.

Kathy SINNOTT (IND/DEM, IE) said her country's Constitution recognised that real fundamental rights came from God, not from human institutions. If human institutions set themselves up as givers of rights, then they would be limited, restricted and could be removed. She said she would defend the Irish Constitution from what she called "this usurpation."

Diana WALLIS (ALDE, UK) also wanted to draw attention to the citizens' right of initiative. In the UK, citizens' petitions lay on shelves gathering dust and individual parliamentarians' proposals were usually talked out. She said she was proud that the EU would be letting its citizens set the agenda in this aspect of direct democracy: the people could move Europe.

Baroness Sarah LUDFORD (ALDE, UK) stated that there were many myths surrounding the Constitution. She welcomed the report by Mr Corbett and Mr Méndez de Vigo with its clear explanations. Baroness Ludford stated that she intended to use these explanations in a pamphlet for her constituents. People, she said, should not be afraid of the word "constitution" as every club and nation has one, although in the UK it has never been written down in its entirety. The Constitution clarified competences and gave citizens more rights. In the area of justice and home affairs in particular, the Constitution would enable the EU to better manage its borders and better tackle serious crime. "The Charter of Fundamental Rights was not a threat but an opportunity, nobody had anything to fear from either the Constitution or the draft report."

Proinsias DE ROSSA (PES, IE) welcomed the draft report stating that it added weight and clarity to the debate. He recalled that he was one of the 200 parliamentarians to take part in the Convention. He doubted whether any previous constitution had been drawn up in such a democratic way. He also recalled that only eight out of the 200 parliamentarians had signed an alternative text that would have lead to a disintegration of Europe. Given the recent disaster in Asia, it was clear that the world needed more transnational governance.

James NICHOLSON (EPP-ED, UK) recalled that the ratification process had just got under way. He had recently been in Bratislava to witness the opening of the "House of Europe". One had also opened in the Czech Republic and there were plans to open such a building in all of the Member States. The aim of these Houses was to bring the EU closer to its citizens. He stressed the need to strengthen ties between the European Parliament and national parliaments. It was not a case of "us and them". Mr Nicholson also underlined the importance of both sides being heard in the debate and for the rights of the minority to be heard and not to be disenfranchised.

Daniel J. HANNAN (EPP-ED, UK) stated that he "did not want to spoil a party" but questioned whether the celebrations were not a "touch premature" given that 10 countries were still to hold referenda. The EU, he said, was going ahead with the Constitution before it had been formally adopted, for example by creating an EU diplomatic service. In the field of justice and home affairs, the EU was going ahead with the creation of a pan-European legal system and the creation of a European public prosecutor. He also regretted that the Court of Justice had said that the "Charter of Fundamental Rights is legally binding before the Constitution had been adopted." Twenty of twenty-five Commissioners, he said, had also said that they would implement provisions of the Constitution before it was adopted. He stated that if one country voted against the Constitution it should mean an end to it. "No means no"

Response to the debate

In his response to the debate, Richard CORBETT (PES, UK) stated that the debate reflected broad support across the political spectrum. He expected at least a two-thirds majority and some 400 MEPs to vote in favour. One criticism was that the Constitution did not go far enough, Mr Corbett's response was that it was an improvement on the status quo and therefore should be supported. The same was true for those who had wanted to see an explicit reference to the Judeo-Christian traditions. In the existing treaties there was no such reference, he said, however the Constitution did make references to the EU's religious values. Values, he stated, that could be supported by those of all religions and of none.

As to those who said that the Constitution would create a European superstate, he stated that the principal of the supremacy of EU law had been longstanding. He stated those who attacked the Constitution really wanted their Member States to leave the EU and they should stand up and say so. He recalled that the had "less employees than the city of in my constituency". It was a case of "myth against reality." Nicolas SCHMIT, Luxembourg's Minister Delegate of Foreign Affairs and Immigration, for the Council, in his response to the debate, called for both sides of the debate to be respected. However, he stated 19th century language on sovereignty would not answer Europe's needs. The text was not perfect, but as he put it "democracy is about dealing with imperfections". The Constitution recognised "unity in diversity" and recognised the balances required between larger and smaller Member States. All politicians had a responsibility to explain the facts of the Constitution.

Commissioner WALLSTRÖM stated that this was the first time in recent history that the Parliament had not made a series of critical remarks about the outcome of an Intergovernmental Conference. There was no such thing as a perfect document and the Constitution was a result of a compromise. Moreover, it was based on clear values that underpin the Union. Those who argued that it would create a European superstate would have to back up such arguments with concrete facts.

Vote Wednesday - 12 noon.